Fluoride Abundant in Foods, Beverages, Dental Products; Fluoridation Unnecessary

Total fluoride intake should be determined before prescribing more, reported former New York State Department of Health Dental Director, J. Kumar, He wrote: “Because of the availability of fluoride from multiple sources, practitioners should prescribe other forms of fluoride therapy based on an understanding of patients’ total exposure to fluoride and the need for it,” (NYS Dental Journal February 1998). Few dentists, if any including him, heed that advice.

The American Dental Association concurs: "It also is critical that the dentist assess a child’s total fluoride exposure from all sources (beverages, food, toothpaste, supplements, topical applications and so forth..." (Journal of the American Dental Association 2014)

Never is fluoride intake tallied when communities are pressured to continue or start fluoridation. Legislators should know much fluoride children already ingest before feeding them more via their water supply. 

The daily upper limits (UL) for fluoride are listed below, according to the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements (Taking more than the UL can be harmful and not recommended) 

Life Stage	Upper Limit
Birth to 6 months	0.7 mg
Infants 7–12 months	0.9 mg
Children 1–3 years	1.3 mg

Fluoride sources are many:

Absent from labels, fluoride is in virtually all foods and beverages, including, soda, baby foods and all infant formulas, It’s high in tea (up to 6 mg/L, according to the US National Institutes of Health), ocean fish and soy products. And, because of fluoride-containing pesticide residues, all grapes and its products (raisins, juice, wine, jellies, jams) have a significant fluoride content. (Cryolite, the fluoride-containing pesticide used on grapes was voluntarily withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer in 2021)

EPA allows extremely high amounts of fluoride pesticide residues on foods  See "Fluoride tolerances approved by US EPA as of July 15, 2005"

Fluoride is even in chocolate, french fries, sea salt, Himalayan salt, and ready-to-drink coffee (up to 1.5 mg/L)

Foods made with mechanically separated (boned) chicken, such as canned meats, hot dogs, and infant foods, also add fluoride to the diet (J Agric Food Chem Sept 2001) "A single serving of chicken sticks alone would provide about half of a child's upper limit of safety for fluoride," the researchers report.

Fluoride ingested daily from toothpaste ranges from 1/4 to 1/3 milligram (National Institutes of Health) “Gels used by dentists are typically applied one to four times a year and can lead to ingestions of 1.3 to 31.2 mg fluoride each time.” 

"Following Silver Diamine Fluoride  application, the serum fluoride concentrations ranged from 6 to 36ng/mL(0.006 to 0.036 ppm)"

Tooth filling material - glass ionomer cement (GIC) leaches out fluoride over time. 

Fluoride is in 20% of medicines, food packaging and inhaled from air pollution 

Other sources come from feed regimens of animal products, animal products; food storage containers (Teflon-coated containers); and food packaging (migration of perfluorochemicals into food).

Paper cups lined with water-proofing chemicals give off fluoride ions, when exposed to hot liquids. And Paper straws contain fluorinated compounds. 

Some calcium supplements contain fluoride

"eggshells also contain trace amounts of minerals that promote bone health, such as strontium, fluoride, magnesium, and selenium...their powdered form is used in dietary supplements"

Fluoride in other sources, according to "A Concise Overview Of Fluoride Contamination And Its Adverse Effects On Human Health And Plant Biochemistry," (European Chemical Bulletin 2020)

Various spices, including Almond, Garlic, Ginger, Coriander, Cumin Seeds, Turmeric, and Black Salt, are known to contain fluoride. The fluoride concentrations in these spices are as follows: Coriander at 2.3%, Cumin Seeds at 1.8%, Ginger at 2.0%, and Garlic at 5.0% (Mahapatra, 2007).

Additionally, nuts and oilseeds such as almond, coconut, mustard oil, and groundnut exhibit elevated levels of fluoride. The fluoride concentrations in these items are 4.0% for Almond, 4.4% for Coconut, 5.7% for Mustard Seeds, and 5.1% for Groundnut (Mahapatra, 2007)

Human activities such as industrialization, motorization, fluoridating drinking water sources, fluoridating dental goods, refrigerants, and fire extinguishers, among others, can lead to man-made fluoride contamination," (International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology)

How much is too much? 

According to the National Academy of Sciences, “without causing unwanted side effects including moderate dental fluorosis,” (yellow splotched teeth), the adequate daily intake of fluoride, from all sources, should not exceed: (But does) 

 -- 0.01 mg/day for 0 – 6-month-olds (which is in every infant formula – concentrated or not) 

-- 0.5 mg/day for 7 through 12 months 

-- 0.7 mg/day for 1 – 3-year-olds 

-- 1.1 mg/day for 4 – 8 year olds 

This is what moderate dental fluorosis looks like, according to the US Centers for Disease Control 

The US Department of Health and Human Services (1991) estimated that total fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities ranges from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day 

Further, parents need to know that fluoride supplements have “not been found by FDA to be safe and effective.” 

No evidence proves anyone is or ever was fluoride-deficient. Fluoride isn’t a nutrient or essential for decay-free teeth – meaning that fluoride-free diets do not cause cavities. Fluoride is a drug with side effects. In fact, 70% of US kids are fluoride overdosed and afflicted with dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth which created a lucrative market for cosmetic dentistry because fluoride is everywhere. But tooth decay is still epidemic 

The EPA regulates water fluoride levels to protect against fluoride-caused bone damage. So It's important to know that fluoride concentration in drinking water does not equate to an individual's daily dose. Fluoridation should never begin without fore knowledge of the community's fluoride intake from all sources.

Foods originating from Mexico have higher concentrations of fluoride than those found in US foods

FLUORIDE SOURCES IN THE ENVIRONMENT

According to "Fluoride contamination, consequences and removal techniques in water: a review," in the journal Environmental Science: Advances (Issue 5, 2022),

"The sources of fluoride in the environment include industrial plants, aluminum smelters producing glass brick, hydrofluoric acid, tile works and phosphate fertilizer plastic factories, textile dyeing, and industries that consume high sulfur non-coking coal for thermal power. 

Currently, high-tech companies developing semiconductors and integrated circuits produce significant fluoride-containing industrial wastewater.

Cigarettes, which contain an average of 236 ppm fluoride, play a significant role in human fluoride consumption. 

Teflon-coated cookware may potentially increase the fluoride absorption in humans. The fluoride concentrations in Teflon-coated cookware is as high as almost 3 ppm, whereas it is lower in aluminum cookware. 

Also, the fluoride concentrations are high in stainless steel and Pyrex ware, although to a lower extent. In normal and high quantities, fluoride in water may cause aluminum to leach from cooking utensils and copper from pipework."

                                                   END 

Judge Rules Fluoride IS Neurotoxic in Fluoride Lawsuit

In a May 12 ruling, federal Judge Edward Chen put on hold the lawsuit requesting fluoridation be banned based on fluoride’s adverse neurological effects until 3 new studies are peer-reviewed, 2 of which preliminarily show fluoride’s harm, according to InsideEPA.com. He also awaits the conclusion of a US National Toxicology Program analysis of fluoride which, in draft form, declared "…fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.”

As of June 2021, 69 of 77 human fluoride-IQ studies found a reduced IQ among children with higher fluoride exposure.  Very strong evidence shows that fluoride damages both the fetal and infant brain at the levels used to artificially fluoridate water. Additionally, over 400 animal, cell and human studies link fluoride to neurological effects.

Unnecessary and unnatural fluoride chemicals are added to 73% of US water supplies in a failed attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers.

Federal Case No. 17-CV-02162-EMC, challenging water fluoridation safety, was brought by several environmental groups and individuals led by Food & Water Watch and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).  Plaintiffs argue that fluoride is neurotoxic to children and should not be added to water supplies, which would effectively end artificial water fluoridation.

Instead of using fluoridation-promoting government officials to vouch for fluoridation safety, EPA hired employees from the consulting firm, Exponent Inc., Some call Exponent a "Science for Hire" firm which “…routinely bend conclusions to the needs of clients.”  The cost to the taxpayers = approximately $350,000. 

A recent expose' revealed that EPA "scientists are afraid of retaliation for trying to implement TSCA the way Congress intended, and they fear that their actions (or inactions) at the direction of management are resulting in harm to human health and the environment.”

Despites repeated claims that fluoridation is safe, fluoridation-promoting government and dental agencies could provide no proof of safety regarding fluoride's effects to the nervous system.   

Representatives for EPA, CDC and FDA could not provide, in their testimony, any scientific studies showing fluoridation is safe. All agreed fluoride has no benefits prenatally. 

EPA admits that fluoride is a chemical with "Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity," but is haggling over the exact levels while our children pose as lab rats in this ongoing experiment. EPA's current safe water fluoride contaminant levels are set to protect against bone and teeth damage; but fail to consider fluoride's proven neurological effects.

The experts who testified for plaintiffs include: 

Kathleen M. Thiessen, Ph.D. a risk assessment scientist at Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

   

Dr. Thiessen testified that “The animal data on fluoride neurotoxicity are consistent with the epidemiological data in showing a risk of cognitive deficits at doses of fluoride ingested from fluoridated water.”

A Fulbright Scholar, Dr. Phillipe Grandjean is on the faculty of Harvard University and the University of Southern Denmark. He’s received multiple awards throughout his long career for his research on the effects of environmental toxins affecting children and has also been recognized for his advocacy in protecting future generations from the effects of neuro- and developmental toxins.

 

Dr. Grandjean testified that "… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development."

Dr. Howard Hu, from the University of Washington’s School of Public Health, has led international research teams investigating the environmental, nutritional, social, and epi/genetic causes of chronic disease and impaired child development in the USA, Mexico, India, China, and elsewhere around the world.

 

Dr. Hu advises pregnant women and infants to avoid fluoride ingestion to assure normal brain development (Journal of Pediatrics “Current Best Evidence,” July 2020). He wrote, "Fluoride is not essential for growth and development, a cautious step could be avoidance of fluoridated products and water by women during pregnancy and by infants during the first 6 months of life."

Dr. Lanphear is on the faculty at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, where his research focuses on preventing common diseases and disabilities in children, as well as quantifying the impact of risk factors to children’s health including exposures to heavy metals and chemicals.

An Op-Ed by Dr. Lanphear; Linda Birnbaum, PhD, Former Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and Christine Till, PhD, co-author of the JAMA-Pediatrics research article “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada”  reported:

 

“Mounting evidence suggests fluoride may be hampering brain development and reducing kids' IQ. The US needs to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children.” 

JAMA Pediatrics Journal editor Dimitri Christakis, MD, said. “I would advise them [pregnant women] to drink bottled water or filtered water because it is not a particularly odious thing to do and actually does reduce the risk,” in a discussion of the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride/IQ study. 

Fluoridation was declared safe for 75 years. “Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent,” write Till and Green in “Controversy: The evolving science of fluoride: when new evidence doesn’t conform with existing beliefs.” Till and Green both advise pregnant women to avoid fluoride. 

Dr. Till's youtube presentation about her research which garnered intense scrutiny before being published in JAMA-Pediatrics is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp3L_jwJtio 

EPA scientists, in a recent research paper, write "Fluoride was observed to have the greatest increase in impacting cognitive ability and it is often reported to affect memory and cause cognitive deficits."  (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 2020)  

EPA scientists, in a recent research paper, write ""Fluoride was observed to have the greatest increase in impacting cognitive ability and it is often reported to affect memory and cause cognitive deficits."  (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 2020)  

Recently, An Australian legislator/PhD who read every official government fluoridation report, mostly from the WHO, Australia, UK and the US, says all of the reports assumed fluoridation safety.  She was shocked to discover the actual data doesn't support that assumption. 

More on the fluoride lawsuit here: https://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/

 

                                                            END 

Fluoride From a Rock????

America's chief fluoridationist, dentist Howard Pollick, told the San Diego City Council that fluoride comes from a rock. This is true.  But the reason it is taken out of the rock is because it is so toxic that animals fed the stuff died. So, instead, its fed to humans. The following explanation of how and why that happens was put together by Chris Gupta.

Here is a bit of history that illustrates why they feed us hydrofluorosilcic acid in our water. Show this to those who ask why should the authorities slow poison us!

"One of the main reasons for processing the raw phosphate rock for agricultural purposes is because of the fluoride content mainly in the form of fluorosilicates/silicon tetrafluoride.

Back in the early part of the 20th century when industrial farming was first starting-up, they did many experiments on cheap mineral supplements for animals to keep costs down and profits up.

Raw, powdered phosphate rock was the first choice because of the abundance and it was dirt-cheap. Bone meal was the second choice, but it was more expensive because it had needed cooking in ovens (calcining) at high temperatures before the animals could digest it properly.

When the animal nutrition researchers did the first experiments with the powdered phosphate rock, the animals started to get sick. The cow�s milk was drying-up, and there was a high rate of calf stillbirths.

It was really knocking the pigs health for a loop many of them became so sick, they just quit eating, quit breeding, and the researchers said they seemed to give up the will to live.

Well, as for the chickens, they just up and died after eating food supplemented with the raw phosphate rock.

They knew that fluorides were toxic and determined that it was the fluorides, but in later experiments, they found that it wasn't just any type of fluoride, but the fluorosilicates* that were doing most of the damage. They used sodium fluoride (like what they use in toothpaste) and sodium fluorosilicate to compare the poisonous effects on the farm animals, and found that the sodium fluorosilicate was a much more effective poison. Another reason for processing the raw phosphate rock is that the fluoride content is also enough to be toxic to many agricultural crops the raw rock will actually inhibit the growth of crops. Some plants like gladiolas will just wilt will die when fertilized with raw phosphate rock because of the fluoride content.

* Also known as hydrofluorosilcic acid. 

The outcome of those early studies strongly suggested that using raw phosphate rock as a cheap fertilizer or animal mineral supplement is not the way to go if you wanted to make a profit and have healthy plants and animals."

Extracted form the book: "Phosphate Fluorides - Toxic Torts" By Gary O. Pittman (page 26)

For more see: Earth Island Journal - Special Feature: "Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection." It was an expose about how America�s public drinking water is fluoridated with pollution scrubber liquor from phosphoric acid processing. This is must read! (Note: Investigative Journalist, George Glasser, wrote this several years ago when Florida was virtually the only source of fluoridation chemicals. Now, countries with proven lax safety standards such as  Mexico and China are supplying the US  with its phosphate fertilizer waste to be used for fluoridation.)

Fluoridation Chemicals Endanger Workers

New Book: "Fluoride Phosphates Toxic Torts," by Gary O. Pittman  

   Gary Pittman gave up his life for his job. 

That wasn’t Gary’s plan when he started working at Occidental Chemical Corporation’s phosphate plants.  He just wanted to make a decent living and provide for his family.  Occidental offered the best pay and best benefits for a high school graduate.

Gary was exposed to 100’s of toxic chemicals with only a hard hat and safety glasses for “protection.” So it’s no surprise that he and many of his co-workers developed debilitating chemical-induced diseases. Most workers were uneducated. Some could barely read and write, Gary says.  They were no match for Occidental’s highly-paid corporate lawyers. But Gary refused to back down and pursued a personal injury lawsuit (toxic tort litigation) against Occidental with several co-workers.

Gary paints a bleak picture of what’s inside the plants – the noise, the smell, the darkness, the boot-eating acids. It’s what you would imagine that Hell would look like, Gary says.

Occidental may have protected themselves legally. But ethically, it stinks as badly as the sulfuric acid stench permeating the plants. However, the one deadly chemical all employees were exposed to didn’t have a smell – fluoride – yes, the stuff they put on your teeth and into your drinking water in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay.

   Fluoride, in the form of fluorosilicates or silicon tetrafluoride, is a toxic contaminant of the phosphate rock. These fluorides must be removed to make safe fertilizer and animal feed products.

Gary says, when researchers fed raw powdered fluoride-containing phosphate rock to farm animals, cows’ milk dried up and had high rates of calf stillbirths.   Pigs quit eating and breeding. Chickens died almost instantly.

And to avoid killing animals and plants surrounding the factory, fluorosilicates must be captured or scrubbed out of air emissions. This captured and contaminated waste product is sold unpurified to fluoridating communities.

Gary writes, “When we had to clean the pollution scrubbers, most of us went home with acid burns and coughing up blood.” 

“Once inside those vessels and scrubbers, we had no respirators, and had to breathe that stale, moist acidic air all shift. Sometimes, workers would fall ill with flu-like symptoms, the older workers called it ‘chemical pneumonia,’” writes Gary.

“I remember one time when they assigned me the task of cleaning the filter hood on the pollution scrubber. Powdery fluorosilicate dust was everywhere. As we were cleaning, the dust covered us. It was very hot - 100 to 120 degrees - and we were sweating profusely. When the fluorosilicate dust mixed with the perspiration, it formed acid on the skin and blistered us if we didn't wash it off in time. We were breathing those dusts, too. They didn't give us respirators,” Gary writes.

The pollution scrubbers’ fluorosilicates contain heavy metals such as lead and mercury and radionuclides including radium-226, radon-222 and uranium-238. 

An autopsy of a man who died from several minutes exposure to concentrated fumes at a phosphate fertilizer plant revealed a coating of silica on his lungs. The cause of death, however, was fluorine poisoning, reports Gary.

A dentist speaking at a San Diego City Council meeting, when asked where fluoridation chemicals comes from, answered “from a rock.” He wasn’t lying.  He just didn’t tell the whole truth.

Some fluoridation promoters soften fluorosilicates image by calling them  “co-products” as if the phosphate fertilizer industry made the stuff on purpose. Whatever it’s called, fluorosilicates have never been safety tested in animals or humans.  Yet, it's dumped as is into about 70% of US public drinking water supplies and given a stamp of approval by organized dentistry and its followers.

Gary’s story reveals the horror of working in an industry that provides the chemicals of modern living and how poorly the workers were treated by their employer whose main concern was money. Most of us have no idea how we indirectly put lives in peril. Maybe Gary’s book will get people thinking about it – especially those who endorse, promote or legislate fluorosilicates into our public water supplies. 

Maybe the US phosphate fertilizer industry has improved worker conditions. But now, unbelievably, China, Mexico, Japan and Belgium are selling us their phosphate fertilizer waste fluorosilicates.

China has a history of selling us products with unwanted and/or toxic ingredients. Chinese fluorosilicates have already clogged up water systems in the US.

Organized dentistry, both inside government and out, and the officials they influence have a moral, ethical and maybe legal responsibility to know what toxins are in all fluoridation chemicals, where they come from and whose lives were endangered by handling them. They all need to read this book.

Support Gary's Work:   

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/phosphate-fluorides-toxic-torts/15739397

Dentists Protect Fluoride Instead of Babies

For Babies, Fluoride is Nothing to Smile About

Almost half of US children have fluoride-discolored teeth (dental fluorosis). So, health officials advise avoiding mixing fluoridated water into infant formula. But New Hampshire dentists, not only fought against publicizing such efforts but, glorified fluoride instead. 
 

The New Hampshire Dental Society (NHDS)  lobbied against  required formula/fluoride warnings  on water bills (1) then promoted fluoride with a new website and press release conspicuously excluding infant warnings.

Fluoride is added to water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay.  There is no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth and bones. 
 

Fluoride is also present in all infant formulas, according to  Dr. Howard Koh,  Assistant Secretary for Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Koh says, “…tooth enamel formation occurs from birth until about 8 years old. This is also the time when dental fluorosis may occur with excess fluoride consumption...low-fluoride bottled water [should] be used for routinely reconstituting infant formula.”  (2)

Similar warnings have been made by the Centers for Disease Control, American Dental Association, Academy of General Dentistry, Mayo Clinic, Health Canada, Vermont Dep’t of Health, Minnesota Dental Association, Delta Dental, Environmental Working Group and many fluoride researchers. But new parents and pediatricians, who see more babies than dentists, are rarely informed.

According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), the NHDS and the NH Oral Health Coalition “claimed that they supported educating parents about infant exposure to fluoride, but believed that the  notice should be given only in the doctor’s office, and not be placed on water bills where they claimed it could ‘scare’ water customers.”

NH Legislators suggested that the bill be re-introduced in 2012, and require warning notices on annual consumer confidence reports.  New Hampshire dentists agree, reports FAN. So why didn’t they incude this information on their “Fluoride Facts” website? Maybe the rest of their fluoride "facts" aren't so factual either.

“Exposure to excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may lead to increased likelihood of bone fractures in adults, and may result in effects on bone leading to pain and tenderness,” according to the Environmental Protection Agency. (3)

Dental fluorosis afflicts more than 41% of adolescents, reports the CDC.  We don't know if these fluoride-overdosed children have weakened bones because no such studies have been done. 

Other health defects linked to fluoride have also not been studied in fluoride-overdosed children such as lower IQ, thyroid dysfunction, irritable bowel syndrome, arthritis. Absence of evidence shouldn’t be misinterpreted as absence of harm.

HHS recently lowered recommended water fluoride levels to 0.7 ppm because they acknowledge US children are fluoride overdosed. However, it makes more sense to stop fluoridation entirely to protect our children from further fluoride abuse to satisfy the politics of organized dentistry.

Fluoride never was FDA safety-tested for human ingestion. FDA regulates fluoridated toothpaste as a drug for topical application which requires poison warning labeling. The EPA regulates fluoride as a water contaminant and air pollutant. The CDC does not do original fluoride research. The CDC's Oral Health Division is hired to promote fluoridation.  The American Dental Association represents the best interests of fluoride manufacturers.

According to a study in The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology ”Fluorosis has some hormonal, gastrointestinal, hematological, skeletal, renal, respiratory, cardiovascular, immunological, neurological and development side effects.”

Public water supplies should not be used to dispense fluoride drugs to the entire population.  People need to take back their water supply from Organized Dentistry and demand their legislators side with  science which shows ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and harmful to health.

Dentists prefer to treat the water of low-income people rather than their teeth.  80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients.  100 million Americans don’t have dental insurance.  US children have died from the consequences of untreated tooth decay and the inability to find a dentist willing to treat them.  Our emergency rooms are flood with people in dental pain costing the tax payers thousands of dollars which an $80 filling could have prevented.

Dentists need to be mandated to treat more low income people – either for free, on a sliding scale or accept government sponsored insurance.  If not, they need to step aside and allow Dental Therapists to do the job. We know dentist love mandates because they are behind virtually every fluoridation mandate in this country.

References:

1)  Dental leaders in Dover tout economical benefits of fluoride

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110325/GJNEWS_01/703259936

2) 

Government Perspectives on Healthcare

    HHS:  Proposed Guidelines on Fluoride in Drinking Water

    A Commentary By Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738322

3) http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm#three

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: 

http://www.truth-out.org/confronting-myths-water-fluoridation-promoters65562?print

Pres Obama's Science Czar on Fluoridation

John P Holdren is now President Obama's Science Adviser or "Science Czar"

The following is from a book Holdren co-wrote in 1977, "Eco Science" with Paul R Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich:

(page 575 "Direct Assaults on Well-Being")

Fluorides

Fluoridation of public water supplies for partial protection against tooth decay is an emotion-charged subject. The scientific evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of mass fluoridation at the generally recommended level of 1 milligram per liter of water (1 ppm) is not as good as it ought to be, but neither is there convincing evidence that it is harmful. although there are certainly some cranks in the antifluoridation school, there are also some serious and competent scientists and responsible laymen who have been unmercifully abused because of the position they have taken on this controversial issue. Perhaps the strongest argument against mass fluoridation of drinking water is that individual treatment with fluoride is simple and can be supplied cheaply on public funds for those wishing to use it.

There is no question that fluoride is toxic in high concentrations, and fluoride pollution from a variety of industrial activities is a significant problem. Fluorides are discharged into the air from steel, aluminum, phosphate, pottery, glass, and brick works. These sources together emit perhaps 150,000 tons of hydrogen fluoride annually, and the same activities emit some tens of thousands of tons of fluorides annually into waterways. Intentional addition of fluorides in fluoridation programs makes a modest but not negligible contribution of perhaps 20,000 tons per year to the human-caused fluoride inputs to the environment.

The main problems encountered in trying to evaluate health threats from fluoride pollution are familiar ones: the boundary between safe and unsafe levels is a fuzzy one; some individuals are more sensitive than others; and fluorides may act in combination with other pollutants to do damage at concentrations where the fluorides alone would not be harmful.

Fluorides have been shown to concentrate in food chains, and evidence suggesting a potential for significant ecological effects is accumulating. Harm to terrestrial plants and algae at concentrations encountered in polluted environments has been documented, and the ability of certain plants and microorganisms to synthesize particularly toxic organic fluorides has been demonstrated. The toxicity of inorganic and organic fluorides to soil organisms is essentially unexplored and is a potential danger point.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18564724/Eco-Science-One

Dentists Continue to Ignore Low-Income Children

Children in America are dying from untreated tooth decay. And dentists are resisting any change that might alleviate the problem. Sixty-six percent of Medicaid eligible children (12.6 million) are not receiving any dental care. And the number of dentists has gone down in recent years and the number of dentist-shortage areas has gone up.

At least 50 percent of the average dentist's income now comes from elective cosmetic procedures. If dentists spent less time giving wealthier Americans artificially whitened grins, they would have more time to treat the serious oral disease that plagues millions of poorer Americans.

In 2000, the US Surgeon General revealed the ugly truth - that the low-incomed and minorities aren't getting the dental care wealthier Americans take for granted.

Many reports, meetings, symposiums, studies, conferences and years later, nothing has changed. Representative Dennis Kucinich held his fourth hearing on this issue on October 9, 2009 as chairman of the Domestic policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In his opening statement, Kucinich said:

"On February 25, 2007 Deamonte Driver, a twelve-year-old boy from Prince George's County, Maryland died from a brain infection caused by untreated tooth decay. Deamonte's tragic death could have been easily prevented by access to dental care - dental care he was entitled to.”

About two dozen dentists contacted refused to treat Deamonte Driver because he was on Medicaid.

"At our first hearing in May 2007, we learned that Deamonte Driver was not the only Maryland youth who wasn't receiving dental care to which he was entitled by Medicaid, said Kucinich. His investigation found that approximately 11,000 Maryland children on Medicaid had not seen a dentist in at least four years.

Representative Elijah Cummings, a member of the committee, said he grew up without dental care and believed his constant tooth decay pain was normal. He doesn't want any kids to have to endure that, especially when it's easily treated, he said.

Cummings said he has lots of kids from fluoridated Baltimore going to the University of Maryland for dental care, partially because of Deamonte Driver's death because "I want them to grow up," he said. Many of them have such bad tooth infections that traveled to and infected their eyes - which happens before the infections reaches the brain which killed Deamonte Driver, said Cummings.

Kucinich said, “A GAO report (2007), the first of its kind since 2000, revealed that millions of Medicaid-enrolled children suffer from tooth decay - almost one-third of the total Medicaid population. Medicaid children are roughly twice as likely as privately-insured chidren to suffer from tooth decay. Moreover, this pattern has persisted for years; very little had been done to improve access to and utilization of dental services. In a sense, the problem of tooth decay is getting worse because the rate of decay in the teeth of children aged two through five has increased in recent years."

Today, there are millions of children just like Deamonte Driver - entitled to dental care but not getting it, said Kucinich