Thursday, December 02, 2010

Confronting the Myths of Water Fluoridation Promoters

The following are excerpts adapted from the recently-released book, The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett, PhD; James Beck, PhD; and H. S. Micklem, DPhil (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2010) from an excerpt published in its entirety on the truth-out website

Proponents of fluoridation have made a number of claims that have been effective with an ill-informed public. Let’s take a look at them.

Claim 1: Fluoride is “natural.” We are just topping up what is there anyway.

There is nothing “natural” about the fluoridating chemicals. They are obtained largely from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The chemicals used in most fluoridation programs are either hexafluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt, and those silicon fluorides do not occur in nature. What is more, under international law they cannot be dumped into the sea.

Claim 2: Fluoridation is no different than adding iron, folic acid, or vitamin D to bread and other foodstuffs.

There is a world of difference:
1. Iron, folic acid, and vitamin D are known essential nutrients. Fluoride is not.
2. All of those substances have large margins of safety between their toxic levels and their beneficial levels. Fluoride does not.
3. People who do not want those supplements can seek out foods without them. It is much more difficult to avoid tap water.

Claim 3: The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is so small it couldn’t possibly hurt you.

Promoters use analogies such as 1 ppm is equivalent to one cent in $10,000 or one inch in sixteen miles to make it appear that we are dealing with insignificant quantities of fluoride. Such analogies are nonsensical without reference to the toxicity of the chemical in question. For example, 1 ppm is about a million times higher than the safe concentration to swallow of dioxin, and 100 times higher than the safe drinking water standard for arsenic; it is also up to 250 times higher than the level of fluoride in mother’s milk.

Claim 4: You would have to drink a whole bathtub of water to get a toxic dose of fluoride.

Here again, proponents are confusing a toxic dose with a lethal dose—that is, a dose causing illness or harmful effect as opposed to a dose causing death. Opponents of fluoridation are not suggesting that people are going to be killed outright from drinking fluoridated water, but we are suggesting that it may cause immediate health problems in those who are very sensitive and, with long-term exposure, persistent health problems in others.

Claim 5: Fluoridated water is only delivered to the tap. No one is forced to drink it.

Unfortunately, that is not a simple option, especially for families of low income who cannot afford bottled water or expensive fluoride filtration systems. Even those who can afford alternatives cannot easily protect themselves from the water they get outside the home. Fluoridated tap water is used in many processed foods and beverages (soda, beer, coffee, etc.). 

Claim 6: Fluoridation is needed to protect children in low-income families.

This is a powerful and emotional argument. However, it ignores the fact that poor nutrition is most prevalent in families of low income, and the people most vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects are those with a poor diet. Thus, while children from low-income families are a special target for this program, they are precisely the ones most likely to be harmed. Moreover, some of the many distressing newspaper accounts of children suffering from tooth decay in low-income areas located in cities that have been fluoridated for over thirty years. In fact numerous state oral health reports indicate the continued disparity in tooth decay between low-income and high-income families, even in states with a high percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water.

Claim 7: Fluoridation has been going on for over sixty years; if it caused any harm, we would know about it by now.

Such statements would start to be meaningful only if fluoridated countries had conducted comprehensive health studies of their fluoridated populations. Most have not. Only a few health studies have been performed in the United States, most many years ago; very few health studies have been performed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the UK; and none has been performed in Colombia, Ireland, Israel, or Singapore (all coun tries with more than 50 percent of the population drinking fluoridated water).

Claim 11: Every major dental and medical authority supports fluoridation.

Here we return to the dubious nature of endorsements not backed up by inde pendent and current reviews of the literature. Many of the major associations on the list frequently cited by the American Dental Association endorsed fluoridation before a single trial had been completed and before the first health study had been published, in 1954.

Claim 12: When fluoridation is stopped, tooth decay rates go up.

There now have been at least four modern studies showing that when fluo ridation was halted in communities in East Germany, Finland, Cuba, and British Columbia (Canada), tooth decay rates did not go up.

Claim 13: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is effective.

On the contrary, the UK’s York Review was able to identify very few studies of even moderate quality, and the results were mixed.

Claim 14: Fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 20–60 percent.

The evidence for fluoridation’s bene fits and found is very weak. Even a 20 percent reduction in tooth decay is a figure rarely found in more recent studies. Moreover, we have to remember that percentages can give a very misleading picture. For example, if an average of two decayed tooth surfaces are found in a non-fluoridated group and one decayed surface in a fluoridated group, that would amount to an impressive 50 percent reduction. But when we consider the total of 128 surfaces on a complete set of teeth, the picture—which amounts to an absolute saving in tooth decay of a mere 0.8 percent—does not look so impressive.

Claim 15: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is safe.

When proponents are asked to produce just one study (a primary study, not a governmental review) that has convinced them that fluoridation is safe, they are seldom able to do so. Apparently, they have taken such assurances from others at face value, without reading the literature for themselves. The fact is, it is almost impossible to prove conclusively that a substance has no ill effects. A careful and properly controlled study may show that, under the conditions and limitations of the investigation, no harm is apparent. A hundred such studies may permit a considerable degree of confidence—but in the case of fluoridation, very few studies have even been attempted. As fluoride accumu lates progressively in the skeleton and probably the pineal gland, studies need to extend over a lifetime. Meanwhile, fluoride at moderate to high doses can cause serious health problems, leav ing little or no margin of safety for people drinking fluoridated water. 

Claim 16: Opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications.

Some opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications (of course); many do. Many highly qualified doctors, dentists, and scientists have opposed fluoridation in the past and do so today. Currently, over 3,000 individuals from medicine, dentistry, science, and other relevant professions are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. Furthermore, many opponents without professional qualifications have educated themselves on the science relevant to fluoridation and are qualified to evaluate many aspects of it.

Claim 17: Opponents of fluoridation get their information from the Internet.

No one denies that plenty of rubbish appears on the Internet. But just because a published study can be found using the Internet does not invalidate it. In fact, scientists now do much of their reading of the scientific literature online. The Fluoride Action Network maintains a Health Effects Database on its Web site, which provides citations, excerpts, abstracts, and in some cases complete pdf files of many published studies. Proponents would do well to read some of these papers, rather than trying to dismiss them because they are available online.

Claim 18: There is no evidence that fluoride at the levels used in fluoridation schemes causes any health problems.

There are three weaknesses to this argument. First, it does not make clear that fluoridating countries have done few basic health studies of populations drinking fluoridated water. Absence of studies does not mean absence of harm. Second, just because a study is conducted at a higher water fluoride level than 1 ppm does not mean that it is not relevant to water fluoridation. Toxicologists are nearly always extrapolating from high-dose animal experi ments to estimate safe doses for humans. In the case of fluoride, we have the luxury of a large number of human studies conducted in countries with moderate to high levels of exposure to naturally occurring fluoride. What is required here is a “margin-of-safety” analysis to see if there is a sufficient safety margin between the doses that cause harm and the doses likely to be experienced in fluoridated communities. In our view, there is not. And third, it is not true that there is no evidence of ill effects from fluoride at present levels of fluoridation.

Claim 21: Skeletal fluorosis is very rare in fluoridated countries.

It is difficult for promoters of fluoridation to deny that high natural levels of fluoride have caused severe bone damage in millions of people in India, China, and several other countries. However, proponents insist that skeletal fluorosis is a rare occurrence in countries with artificial fluoridation like the United States. What they really mean by this is that the crippling phase (stage III) of this condition is rare in the United States; they fail to recognize that the earlier phases (stage I and stage II) are associated with pains in the joints and bones, symptoms identical to the early symptoms of arthritis, a condition that affects many millions of adults in the United States.The 2006 NRC review recommends that stage II skeletal fluorosis be considered an adverse effect: “The committee judges that stage II is also an adverse health effect, as it is associated with chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, slight calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones.” No fluoridating country has undertaken a study to see if there is a relationship between fluoridation and arthritis.

The complete chapter can be found here:

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Treatment for Dental Fluorosis

From the Journal of Conservative Dentistry, Volume 13, Issue 1, 2010

Fluorosis: Varied Treatment

In case A, patient had mild grade of fluorosis and therefore in-office vital bleaching procedure with McInnes solution was advocated. McInnes solution has been successfully used for treating mild fluorosis. Advantage of this procedure is that it is relatively non-invasive compared to other restorative procedures and also it could be done with minimum chair side time. The main disadvantage of this procedure is the postoperative sensitivity it produces and that it cannot be employed in patients with more severe grade of fluorosis. [24] Vital bleaching is more successful for fluorosis in younger patients presenting with opaque to orange colour stain rather than older patients with darker type of brown stains. [25]

In case B patient had mild grade fluorosis and micro and macro abrasion were employed. Advantage of micro and macro abrasion being its much faster procedure in achieving the desired result compared to other treatment options. However, the main disadvantage is that these procedures employ high speed rotary instrument which can lead to excessive removal of tooth structure is operator does not have the desired skill level. [17]

Abrasion techniques can be successfully employed for discoloration presented either as single line discoloration or patchy type of discoloration, it cannot be successfully employed for discoloration which is more diffuse in nature. [26] Both the bleaching technique and abrasion procedures could be employed only for mild to moderate grade fluorosis. [25],[26] Most of the times, a combined treatment regimen of bleaching and abrasion procedures is employed to produce the desired aesthetic result in patients with yellowish discoloration due to fluorosis. [27]

In case C, the patient had moderate type of fluorosis which necessitated that the patient was treated by veneer procedure. Veneers have been successfully employed for management moderate grade fluorosis, [15] Because of the time constraint given by patient, direct composite veneer treatment option was selected. Advantage of direct composite veneer is that it is done with minimal chair time when compared to indirect ceramic veneers, disadvantage being its long term wear resistance, color stability. [17]

In case D, patient had loss of vertical dimension of occlusion and patient's inter-occlusal space was 4mm at rest. Therefore a treatment plan was evolved to increase the vertical dimension of occlusion by 4mm which was within the limit for the patient. [20] Full mouth restorations were planned with metal ceramic crowns. This treatment option of restoring vertical dimensions of occlusion for severe fluorosis patients requires careful investigations and preparation. This treatment option is limited to cases with severe fluorosis and loss of inter-occlusal space. Advantage of this procedure is that it is an extensive procedure by which the desired aesthetic results and functional efficiency is achieved. The main disadvantage is also its extensiveness in treatment procedure which requires extensive lab procedure and operator skill, knowledge.

In each of the treatment options described above, each one has its own advantages and disadvantages; a good clinician should be aware of all the treatment options available assess its merits and demerits and select the best treatment option according to individual patient needs.

The rest of the article is here:

Sunday, May 30, 2010

How Lead Gets into Your Fluoride

Fluoride and Lead by Frances Frech

Originally presented at a State Lead Commission hearing in
Hannibal, Missouri in 1994

All of the fluoride products used in the artificial fluoridation of water are contaminated with lead and arsenic. (Frech  received the evidence from Margaret Stasikowski, an official with the EPA, in the form of copies of pages from Water Chemicals Codex, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1982. This is confirmed by the 2012 fact sheet produced by NSF International, the private company that regulates fluoridation chemicals.)

The lead contamination is considered the most serious so we'll deal with that one rather than with both substances. Lead is creating the most concern today we'll go into the arsenic angle in a later paper.

So How does the tainting occur? In the matter of the fluosilicates (such as hydrofluosilicic acid); the most commonly used fluoride substances in community water systems, this is the story:

The fluosilicates are the by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. In the manufacture of this kind of fertilizer, phosphorus is obtained from phosphate rock, which has to be broken down with sulfuric acid.(1) Fluorine occurs naturally in combination with the phosphates.(2) In these two facts lie the keys to the presence of lead in the fluosilicates.

Step One: Sulfuric acid is prepared by either of two ways, the lead chamber process(3) or the contact method.(4) In its purest form (made by the contact method) it is used in pharmaceuticals; in its lowest grade (produced by the lead chamber process) it is used by the fertilizer industry.(5) It is also frequently recovered for re-use, but this form is too impure for any purpose except the manufacture of fertilizer, for which it is quite suitable.(6)

In the lead chamber process purification is carried out only to the extent of removing substances that could clog the machinery.(7) Of the common metals, only lead is resistant to cold sulfuric acid in concentrations up to 100%. But in hot acid the resistance is up to about 70%.(8) The lead chamber type uses heat (about 600 C) and isn't cooled during the process. That's why a certain amount of lead is leached during this procedure.

If a pure product is needed, the contact method is used, but it's more expensive, more complicated. In the making of fertilizer, however, a pure grade is not necessary. After all, neither fertilizer nor its by-products were intended for human consumption.

Step Two: Fluorine, which is a highly reactive element capable of joining with any other element except oxygen, is able to leach lead from the contaminated sulfuric acid. In the past hydrofluosilicic acid was simply neutralized and discarded. The picking up of lead wouldn't have been a problem. But eventually it was decided that the acid, being already in solution, would be better, simpler to use, and less expensive than sodium fluoride.(9) The lead contamination, apparently, was forgotten (if, indeed, it had ever been noticed.)

Another way in which fluoridation contributes to lead in the water is through its action on whatever lead pipes may still be in existence in older homes. Any lead pipes would be old lead. These are ordinarily covered by a protective coating made by the lead itself which is impervious to diluted acids (as all of them would be in water.) Water acts slowly on lead, forming lead hydroxide, but the action is slight if the water contains carbon dioxide or carbonates or sulfates which interact with lead to form these protective coatings.(11) It's interesting that the lead pipes in Roman aqueducts, 2000 years old, are still in such good shape the numbers and letters engraved on them are clearly legible.(12)

In fluoridated water, though, it's a different matter. Fluorine can and does destroy the protective coatings; it can and does leach lead.

A pediatrics textbook published in 1964 (13) noted that the incidence of lead poisoning had been rising in certain metropolitan areas in Eastern United States. The blame was laid on old lead paint flaking from walls and woodwork. But most of the lead chips were old before 1964; some children chewed them long before then. But a new source of lead had arisen--unnoticed: The fluoridation of water, with lead-contaminated fluoride, a substance also capable of leaching lead from the pipes. Although there were scattered places fluoridating throughout the nation, larger numbers of eastern metropolitan communities were doing so.

Today one in nine children under the age of six is said to have unacceptably high blood lead levels (14) even though lead paint was banned in 1978 (and hadn't been used extensively since the 1950's!) Lead in gasoline has been phased out, and lead solder hasn't been permitted on copper tubing since 1986 (eight years ago.) The EPA says that lead stabilizes in five years. So except for fluoride use, any pipes, whether of lead or lead-soldered, should not now be hazardous. The most revealing statistics, though, are the high blood lead levels in 400,000 newborns each year. Newsweek in its article on lead and the threat to children (15) said that pregnant women passed this toxic substance to their unborn children by eating, drinking, or breathing it. But even though pregnant women do sometimes have weird cravings, it's not likely more than a tiny percentage would be chewing paint chips, nor would a significant number of them be engaged in renovating old houses. The lead is in the water--and in foods and beverages prepared with the water.

The EPA estimates that 10-20% of the lead in children comes from the water.(16) That agency, which knows of the lead contamination of fluoride products, insists the amount is too small to be of regulatory concern. What they have overlooked, though, is that it concentrates in the body tissues, and over time, would add up to quite a lot. In addition, it becomes concentrated in products processed with the water. The 10-20% directly from the water can easily become three or four times as much.

The EPA lists as health problems caused by lead the following conditions: Interference with formation of red blood cells, anemia, kidney damage, impaired reproductive function, interference with Vitamin D metabolism, impaired cognitive performance, delayed neurological and physical development, elevations in blood pressure.(17) The agency also suggests lead my be a carcinogen, possibly causing kidney tumors and lymphocytic leukemia.(18) Furthermore, it's a known scientific fact that lead poisons the bone marrow.(19) Surely, then, it would be prudent to avoid even "a little bit of lead," assuming that's all fluoridation contributes.

But the evidence shows it's much more than that. Let us tell you a tale of two cities--Tacoma, Washington, and Thurmont, Maryland. Both of them saw significant decline in lead levels only six months after fluoridation was stopped. (In Tacoma, that was due to equipment problems, in Thurmont, it was a temporary ban by the city council.) Tacoma registered a drop of nearly 50% (20); in Thurmont it was 78%.(21) To the best of our knowledge, no other explanations were offered. In Thurmont the ban is now permanent.(22) In Tacoma, we're told, a battle continues over whether or not to resume fluoridating.

We have more points to add. As we've already mentioned, the EPA says that lead may be implicated in causing leukemia. A booklet published by the Leukemia Society in 1987 noted that chemicals which damage the bone marrow can cause leukemia. The Book of Popular Science, 1974, pointed out that bone marrow is poisoned by lead. (23) Are we to believe, then, nothing is wrong with putting a little bit of lead into the water (from which it will also enter, more concentrated, food and beverages prepared with the water?)

The EPA permits lead-contaminated fluorides to be added; they do not require it. Thus, any community, anywhere, could halt the program any time, with the consent of its citizens, who surely would consent if given the facts.

Lead-tainted fluorides are waste products mainly of the aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industries, largely from US companies. But we've learned that in some communities sodium fluoride imported from Japan or sodium silicofluoride from Belgium are used. Neither of these nations fluoridates its own water supplies. (24) (Don't you get the feeling we're in the same category as a Third World country becoming a toxic waste dump for others?)

In California recently the Attorney General and two environmental groups have sued the makers of brass pumps containing lead which could contaminate water from wells. (24) But who is suing companies who sell lead-tainted products to cities for their fluoridation purposes? Who is suing the EPA for allowing it? Where are the lawsuits against the US Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control for adamantly promoting it?

In conclusion, there's still the matter of lead being leached from old pipes. Anyone who argues that fuoridation had nothing to do with it will have to explain those well-preserved lead pipes from more than 2000 years ago in unfluoridated Roman water.


(1) Book of Popular Science, Grolier, Inc., 1974, Vol.7, 63.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3, 167-169.
(4) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 7, 62.
(5) Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1957, Vol.21, 545.
(6) Ibid., 545.
(7) Ibid., 546.
(8) Ibid., 545A
(9) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 7, 63-64.
(10) Encyclopedia Americana, 1945, Vol. 1, 456.
(11) Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1957, Vol.1, 715.
(12) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3, 39.
(13) Textbook of Pediatrics, Nelson WS, MD, WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia,London, 1964, 1557.
(14) Newsweek, "Lead and Your Kids," July 15, 1991.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Ibid.
(17) Federal Register, Bol. 56, No. 110, June 7, 1991, 264.
(18) Ibid., 265-70.
(19) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3, 74.
(20) Letter from the Tacoma Public Utilities, Dec. 2, 1992.
(21) Fluoride Report, newsletter, April, 1994, 5.
(22) Ibid.
(23) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3,74.
(24) Letter from Tacoma Public Utilities, May 22, 1992.
(25) Kansas City STAR, April 19, 1994.

Home | Environment

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Expert: Fluoride Linked to Stillbirths & Miscarriages.

2010 News Release from Australia:

World-renowned Professor (Dr) A K Susheela presently visiting Australia Warns on Fluoride Link to Miscarriages, Stillbirths and Retardation.

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, there were more than 2,900 perinatal deaths in Australia. In addition, each year many more parents experience the loss of a baby early in the pregnancy. Sadly, one in every four pregnancies ends in a loss from miscarriage and stillbirth.

Professor (Dr) A.K. Susheela who is visiting Australia says long-term studies show fluoride is a serious threat to public health. It has not only has been linked to increased rates of stillbirth and miscarriages among Indian populations exposed to fluoride in water, but poses a serious risk of birth abnormalities including mental retardation.

Professor (Dr) A.K. Susheela of India, who has researched fluoride for more than 20 years, has listed a range of health issues linked to fluoride ingestion, she has more than 80 scientific publications in leading Western and Indian Journals.

Dr Susheela says the studies have shown fluoride destroys muscle structure and muscle function, depletes muscle energy; destroys the bone and teeth, red blood cells, blood vessels and the lining of the stomach and intestine.

“We now have ample scientific evidence to substantiate the fact that ingestion of fluoride prevents biosynthesis of hemoglobin leading to anemia in human beings. We have studied this problem in pregnant mothers. The danger of anemia in pregnancy is that it would lead to abnormalities in the development of the embryo/foetus,’’ says Dr Susheela.

“Studies also indicate it harms fetuses carried by pregnant women and may cause abortions and stillbirths.”

Dr Susheela says results of reducing fluoride in water include reduced abortions and stillbirths as fluoride is known to induce calcification of blood vessels of the fetus.

“It has been shown that when fluoride-contaminated water (>1.0 mg/L) and dental products are consumed or used by pregnant mothers, it destroys the thyroid gland of the embryo/foetus,’’ says Dr Susheela.

“When children with dental fluorosis were investigated, there were severe derangements in the thyroid hormone levels T3 (Triiodothyronine) and T4 (Tetraiodothyronine) along with Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH). Such children suffer from sub-clinical hypothyroidism, T3 toxicosis, low T3 syndrome, primary hypothyroidism and disturbed hormone conversion.

“Thyroid hormone defects results in mental retardation (low IQ) in children, deaf mutism, knock-knee, bow-leg and cretinism.”

Dr Susheela says the results of the studies on women ingesting fluoride were reported at the 27th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, Beijing, China, Oct. 2007. The study is: Fluoride Ingestion and Health Hazards with Focus on Anaemia in Pregnancy and low birth weight babies: Guidelines for rectification: Susheela A.K, Mondal NK, Rashmi G, Ganesh Kamala, Bhasin Shammi, Gupta Gunjan.

“The evidences we have provided on the harmful effects of fluoride on human health, unequivocally prove the point that fluoride is disease-causing and not disease preventing. Our scientific publications would not only stand the test of time but also before any judiciary in any part of the world, as it is based on biomedical research of highest standards,’’ says Dr Susheela.

“With a high degree of scientific accuracy and certainty, I conclude that artificial fluoridation of drinking water is an ineffective means of improving dental health, and is in fact quite dangerous to those forced to consume it.”

In regard to claims by Australian health authorities that water fluoridation strengthens teeth surfaces and prevents dental caries (cavities), Dr Susheela’s research indicates the opposite.

“The findings emerging from the studies on both tooth and bone have made significant contributions to negate the belief that fluoride is good for teeth. Instead, fluoride does more damage to teeth than any good and prolonged use of fluoride leads to a decrease in the organic matrix of rabbit tooth but dermatan sulphate content is increased,” says Dr Susheela.

Dr Susheela says India launched a Technology Mission on “Safe Drinking Water” in 1986 (now re-designated after the late Prime Minister Sh. Rajiv Gandhi, as Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission) in which every drinking water source in the rural sector is checked for water quality, especially for fluoride.

“People are keen to defluoridate the water due to gastrointestinal problems and are adopting indigenous technology for obtaining potable (defluoridated) water,’’ she said.

“Substantial scientific evidence has emerged in recent years from studies conducted on human subjects and hospital patients and those residing in areas/regions/villages where fluoride content ranges in drinking water from 0.5 ppm to 38.5 ppm,’’ said Dr Susheela.

She said the findings came after 20 years of follow-up studies that have now been concluded. The findings also included:

Gastro-intestinal complaints are the earliest manifestations of fluoride toxicity and fluorosis. The most common complaints include (1) headache; (2) nausea (loss of appetite); (3) pain in the stomach; (4) gas formation in the stomach (bloated feeling); (5) constipation; (6) intermittent fermentation diarrhea.

As a result of the above, gastro intestinal complaints in endemic areas are considered as early warning signs of the fluoride toxicity and are used as a diagnostic parameter under field based conditions. See report: Fluoride Ingestion and its Correlation with Gastrointestinal Discomfort.

Fluoride in circulation has an affinity to get deposited in tissues rich in calcium although some amount is excreted. In children, the fluoride ingested has adverse effects on kidney function. See Fluoride: Too Much Can Cripple You.

Significant findings emerged from studies on human patients with skeletal fluorosis. Degenerative changes were well defined at the ultrastructural level in the fluoresced muscle obtained from patients with skeletal fluorosis.

Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in rabbits and may occur in human subjects as well.

Fluoride inhibits protein and DNA synthesis in cultured lymphocytes.

“I am absolutely certain that large numbers of persons all around the world are suffering from fluoride toxicity, to one degree or other,’’ said Dr Susheela.

Dr Susheela is executive director, of the Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation in India, Professor of Anatomy (Histocytochemistry) and Chief of the Fluoride and Fluorosis Research Laboratories, at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.

Her post-doctoral training was under Lord Walton (Neurologist) of U.K. and Dr. Ade Milhorut of the Muscle Institute, New York, USA, (no longer exists).

Professor Susheela has written six doctorate papers in more than 20 years of scientific research in the field of fluoride toxicity and fluorosis.

Other academic positions:

Visiting Professor at the Allan Hancock Fn. at the University of Southern California during 1974-76.

Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medical Sciences. She has held Faculty positions at the same Institute since 1969

Winner of the prestigious Ran Baxy Research Foundation Award for outstanding research in medical sciences.

Teacher of medical students of all levels and carrying out research and guiding research in the field of muscle diseases and Fluorosis for more than 20 years.

An Ashoka Fellow recognised by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.

Dr Susheela is a Visiting Professor at the Allan Hancock Fn. at the University of Southern California during 1974-76.
She is a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medical Sciences.
She has won the prestigious Ran Baxy Research Foundation Award (Cash Prize) for outstanding research in medical sciences.
She has been involved in teaching medical students of all levels and carrying out research and guiding research in the field of muscle diseases and Fluorosis for more than 20 years.
She is currently the executive director of Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation Saransh.
She is also an Ashoka Fellow recognised by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India & Registered under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976 under Section 6 (1) Permanent Eligibility No. 2 3 1 6 6 0 0 1
Numerous funding organizations have been calling upon her during that time for evaluating projects for funding in the field of Biomedical Research.
She has been a member of several National Committees since early 1970s, where issues related to Fluoride are debated and discussed.
She has convened an International Conference on Fluoride and Fluorosis research in India in 1983. I edited a book on Fluoride Toxicity during 1985.
She has been invited to speak on my experience in the field of Fluoride Research at various scientific meetings held in: (1) Japan; (2) Denmark; (3) Switzerland; (4) Kenya; (5) U.S.A. (several times); and (6) Hungary.
She has guided 6 PhD theses in the subject of Fluoride and Health Hazards. A 7th Project is ongoing.
Professor (Dr) A K Susheela has more than 80 scientific publications in leading Western and Indian Journals.
Professor (Dr) A K Susheela Departs Australia February 9TH 2010

Contact Phones
Professor (Dr) A K Susheela Adelaide 8 7001 2259
Dr Andrew Harms Adelaide Bus. 8 8239 1711 – Prvt. 8 8268 7977
Anthony Halpin - Welcome Australia - 7 55775 971 mob 0414259562

Professor (Dr) A K Susheela is available for Interviews for Radio, News Paper and Television untill February 8th 2010.

PS. Intending and Expectant Mothers urgently require to read or hear Professor A K Susheela speak on what may well save their Infants life or quality of life.