Content starts here
CLOSE ×
Search
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

 

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

372,336 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

36,512 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

35,256 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

26,933 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

 

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

 

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

 

Really? 

 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

 

 

View solution in original post

22,811 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful Oz!"  - Professor in the Wizard of Oz

 

Pew, in association with the CDC and various dental health coalitions, has taken the lead in the creation of a series of "effective messaging" trainings which are based in psychological manipulation of public opinion rather than science. 

 

  1. Poisoning Minds: The Pew training includes advice on 'inoculating' key community stakeholders with pro-F literature and warnings about fluoridation opponents.

  2. Sales Literature: Pew provides 'media packets' aimed at editors and reporters, essentially writing articles and editorials for them, i.e. creating infomercials to sell a product. These materials emphasize authoritative endorsements and dismissively ignores contrary evidence. 

  3. Astroturfing: Pew also provide sample letters to the editor and sample comments for local fluoridationists to copy and paste. Dentists, dental hygienists, dental students and members of local Boards of Health have been their traditional shills. However, they are expanding into high school youth groups with 'mentoring' programs. 

  4. Bullying: Pew emphasizes inserting "outrage and anger" into local conversations. That particular intimidation technique scares some locals away from commenting on line or otherwise speaking out about their opposition to fluoridation, while tainting the science for for those who might be receptive to objectively looking at the facts. To underscore their promotional intitiative, members of the Pew sponsored "Rapid Response Team" comment on every local article and letter published in the English speaking world. Perhaps ten to twelve folks, the RRT team is primarily made up of older dentists and members of the ironically named "skeptics" group, and of course a few irregular "intranet trolls" who simply enjoy being abusive. 

Pew and CDHP Fluoridation Advocacy Reporthttps://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdhp-fluoridation/CDHP_FlouridationAdvocacyReport_FINAL.pdf 

 

AARP - Speak up! 

32,432 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"....infants fed formula made with fluoridated water suffer higher rates of dental fluorosis."

- Dr. Paul Connett, former Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry and founder of the Fluoride Action Network (see post on infant exposure

 

NysCof posted a link in a comment above to a blog post that describes how the f-lobby got the mandatory California fluoridation on the books, then bragged about their secretive tactics to avoid public input and debate. In that post, it mentions a CA team led by Howard Pollick team that studied 2,520 California preschool children. A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.They report. "Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water," reports Pollick et al.

 

Pollick also reports in the "International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health" that "infant formula made with optimally fluoridated water might create brown and pitted permanent teeth." That is consistent with many studies that show children's teeth will grow in stained if fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.

 

Yet, Pollick remains committed to fluoridation, even when his own dental research proves it has no benefit, and causes permanent harm to infants and young children. Pollick assidiously avoids exploring any of the neurological, thyroid, or kidney damage science attached to childhood exposure. Pollick is also committed to back room dealings of questionable ethics, both on a state and national level. See following extracted from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) email communications released this year. 

CDC Clearance Chain: 2010 email collaboration between Steven Levy and Gary Whitford of IFS, Jay Kumar of NY DPH and ADA staff with CDC regarding wording of a 2011 ADA report on infant formula  supposedly based on IFS data revealed a less than scientific approach to decision making. The collusion softened the language and obfuscated findings so as to remain supportive of  CDC fluoridation policy. A concern voiced in the email trail was not to provide “fodder to antifluoridationists.” This biased “wordsmithing” by individual authors and ADA with CDC input calls into question the scientific integrity of dental researchers, IFS project and ADA.  The peer review of the report by JADA found the report to be too confusing. The JADA editor suggested that the authors focus on major findings, include less data, and articulate clearer conclusions, which ironically was what the group was trying so hard not to do.  

 

I particularly like the comment by Howard Pollick of the University of California, San Francisco on June 4, “We should say something about why we are recommending fluoridated water, even though there has been no or little research on the benefits of fluoridated water in infant formula in the prevention of dental caries.” This led to discussion about the inclusion of endorsements of fluoridation to justify recommendations not supported by data, a puzzling action for a panel claiming to promote an “evidence-based approach” to care for national implementation. Including any of those endorsements, like the one from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), provides the textbook example of circular logic. The AAP based their endorsement on PHS/CDC endorsements of dietary fluoride from the discredited 1940s and 1950s trials…. trials that IFS was trying, unsuccessfully, to substantiate. 

 

Also in this email trail, Krishna Aravamudhan, the Asst Director of Evidence-Based Dentistry, on 2/22/2010 suggested it might be better to phrase the report so as to let the reader wonder if there was a connection between formula and fluorosis rather than imply it, although he stated on 3/2/2010 that there was a statistically significant association between elevated fluorides and reconstituted formula. On 5/3/10, Krishna states the thorny questions of the group on a call included, ‘How can we say mostly mild dental fluorosis in the report when 3% of the fluorosis cases in the Iowa study are moderate to severe?’ It seems that Krishna was personally fine with using “mostly” as the qualifier. 

 

Another email trail in these FOIA documents concerned the ADA and CDC co-sponsoring recommendations for topical fluorides, a continuation of the ‘successful  ADA-CDC collaboration on many project over the last few years.’  Krishna Aravamudan of the ADA specifically complimented CDC staff, Dr. Barbara Gooch, Dr. Eugenio Beltran and Dr. Jennifer Cleveland of the CDC for their assistance to the ADA in their endeavors, most of which seem to be for the purpose of fluoride promotion.  Jane McGinley, ADA Manager of Fluoridation and Dr. Wm Bailey of the Chief Dental Officer of the PHS were other primary stakeholders in these collaborations. 

Baby Boomers, if you figure it's too late for you..... consider your grandchildren. 

Tell the AARP you want a Position Paper in opposition to fluoridation! 

31,839 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Many Alaskans know of the dangers of water fluoridation with many Alaskan cities and towns are fluoride free. We in the Facebook Group: Fluoride Free Alaska, hope to make our state water fluoridation free!
31,057 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"Early researchers had it backwards." -  Lahey Clinic and Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital

 

Websites of several major hospitals include this phrase about fluoridation, "Early researchers had it backwards." They go on to state that fluoride works topically as in toothpaste, not by ingestion, and that fluoridation is unncesssary for dental health. Research out of the IFS longitudinal studies have also found that despite the best efforts of dental researchers, "Current evidence strongly suggests that fluorides work primarily by topical means through direct action on the teeth and dental plaque. Thus ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries prevention,”  but does cause dental fluorosis. This is consistent with the 2015 Cochrane Review and 2000 York Review that both noted the poor quality limited evidence in dental studies purporting benefit. They both went on to note that those studies demonstrated more BIAS than benefit, and SELECTIVE SAMPLING rather than safety. (Also see 20th century analysis by Dr. Philip Sutton, Dr. John Colquhoun, and Dr. John Yiamouyiannis

 

So why are we taking these risks: 

Hooper Bay Alaska was just one example of all too common accidents, albeit one of the more dramatic poisoning examples (see comments by lm89599076 and rs5526.)* In my state of Massachusetts, just this century:  

  1. 1. Wakefield 2000 fluoride overfeed that resulted in gastrointestinal distress and neurological symptoms, i.e. extreme dizziness. 
  2. 2. Marlboro 2003 fluoride overfeed that resulted in warnings not to use the water, even for washing, as it could irritate skin and even cause chemical burns.
  3. 3. Westminster 2005 fluoride spill at water treatment plant that resulted in hospitalization of several workers. 
  4. 4. Amesbury 2011 fluoride clogs in the equipment and related costs prompted the process that led to the discontinuation of water fluoridation 

Also, consider the health impact on water workers who handle fluoride, many if not all of whom, develop fluoride illnesses before reaching retirement, such as Susan Kanen who has commented in this thread.

 

From the manual, Water Fluoridation Principles and Practices, 5th Ed (2011):

  • “Always wear protective safety gear when handling fluoride chemicals. In particular, full face shield, splash-proof goggles, rubber gloves and boots, and acid proof aprons should be worn….”  Workers are also warned to never eat near fluoride and that the disposal of fluoride bags and other containers are “usually a problem.”

 

So since it is UNNECESSARY for preventing cavities, inflicts life long damage to teeth of approximately half the children in fluoridated communities, has the potential for serious accidents causing debilitating illness or death, and poisons water departments staff ..... why are we fluoridating our water?

 

AARP - It is time for you to write a Position Paper opposing fluoridation!

See AAEM for examples:  

FLUORIDATION RESOLUTION: https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/FluorideResolution.pdf

CHEMICAL SENSITIVITIES POSITION PAPER: https://www.aaemonline.org/chemicalsensitivity.php

 

* Richard Sauerheber and I assumed that  lm89599076 was referring to the Hooper Bay, AK overspill that resulted in a death and hundreds of life threatening illnesses in a very small community.  However, lm89599076 tells us later in this thread that her experience that resulted her child's severe dental fluorosis and tooth loss was actually in an unreported extended duration overfeed in Juneau, Alaska.  

 

31,209 Views
0
Report
Periodic Contributor

I and my family were accidentally poisoned by an overspill of sodium fluoride into the municipal water system in a small Alaskan town in the 90's, and that is how I became aware of fluoride toxicity and overexposure. Ironically my son, who was a fetus/infant at the time, has very poor enamel with major mottling which continues to get worse as he gets older. I expect him to have false teeth in his twenties. I have had huge trouble with my thyroid function ever since. Glad to hear AARP is considering a policy against fluoridation. This definitely would interest me in joining!
31,245 Views
9
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Thank you so much for your comments on the overfeed in Alaska. It was the overfeed in Hooper  Bay AK that inspired me to investigate the mechanism of acute fluoride toxicity in those poisoned in that event, which is probably the worst poisoning disaster fron use of fluoridated water in the country. This after 15 years led to the published article in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490. It is available free online (due to kind donations from private persons) at:

 

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

 

Thank you

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
31,236 Views
8
Report
Periodic Contributor

Richard, our overspill was in Juneau and was never publically acknowledged. It took me about 2 years to put two and two together and figure out what happened to us. I did eventually get private confirmation from a contact at the water utility who was a friend of a friend. They have since stopped fluoridation there after a long battle.

 

I don't think most toxic overspills of fluoride are ever publically acknowledged, and they are a lot more common than people think. After all, fluoride is extremely corrosive and eventually all fluoridation equipment malfunctions for that reason. Small towns with small municipal budgets have difficulty keeping up with the maintenance, but instead of stopping the fluoridation until they can maintain the equipment properly - they just keep on putting it in the water. It's crazy!

31,160 Views
5
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

  Thanks. Yes the media do not often report fluoridation overfeeds. I recall one newspaper reporting an overfeed in Wisconsin where the water official said, "it's only 50 ppm, so it's not a big deal if people drink it because when they do they will just vomit it up anyway." Nevertheless since the water was deemed unsuitable for drinking, the entire treated amount, scores of  thousands of gallons, were dumped into a local field. The casual treatment of industrial fluoride ingestion is amazing.  Also, in drought-laden CA, water waste like that would result in a huge fine. 

  Well, the FDA wrote to me last week and stated that the fluoridated water ban petition FDA-2007-P-0346 and its supplemental letters of support (83 in total) will, rest assured, be carefully evaluated -- and that no further comment can be made until the reveiw committee reaches a decision. The petition was accepted for review in 2007 and we have not given up hope that it will, at least in part, be honored.

 Thus far, the FDA remains the only U.S. government body that has made a number of official rulings against fluoridation of water supplies. One ruling was that it must not be used in kidney dialysis equipment because whole body dialysis in kidney disease patients results in too high a blood fluoride level which is associated with increased morbidity in those who have been so treated. We are hoping this nonsense can all be disposed of with a formal ban on the sale or production of industrial fluoride compounds intended to be ingested. Fluoride compounds have of course never been FDA approved for ingestion, but we hope the FDA can help us a little bit more, with a ban. 

   The Erin Brockovich legal group has officially come out against fluoridation, but we are asking AARP and other organizations to also examine the evidence in full.  

  And congratulations to the people of Juneau and also Fairbanks, AK. My sister lives in Anchorage where help is still needed to halt this ineffective, harmful, illegal waste of taxpayer dollars. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
27,836 Views
4
Report
Periodic Contributor

There are people in Anchorage working to get fluoride out of the water.I liked their facebook page so I could read their posts. That's another one of the towns where I was getting slowly poisoned for many years. It's nice to see Alaskans wising up and getting rid of fluoride. Such an ironic tragedy for people living in that beautiful pristine state to have their water poisoned. How could I have guessed that people would put rat poison in my water and that I wouldn't be able to smell it, taste it or see it? The whole thing is just awful, really. I probably wouldn't believe it if I hadn't experienced first hand what fluoride can do to you. It **bleep** near killed me! Glad I figured out what was going on before it did. I still hadn't figured out it was fluoride making us sick at the time I moved out of Alaska after living their all my life, something I thought I'd never do. But I went on a few vacations out of state and realized I was getting better while away, and getting sicker again when returning to Juneau. I wasn't sure what was doing it, but I got my family out. Later, after I put two and two together and figured out it had been fluoride in the water sickening us, I contacted people I knew who were still there to tell them.

29,459 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“A good scientist spends his whole career questioning his own facts. One of the most dangerous things you can do is believe.” - Nigel Noriega, Environmental Scientist and Endocrine Biologist (2011)

 
There is no argument that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, nor that it causes inflammations and has an impact on the immune system. Fluoridationists argue that water concentrations are too low to trigger those effects, despite the visible evidence of dental fluorosis in approximately half of today's children, many of whom also drink filtered and bottled water which reduces their dosage. 
 
  1. - This summer, yet another study confirms fluoride inflames the immune system and AT CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN ARTICIALLY FLUORIDATED WATER! 
    Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages. I. Gutowskaa, I. et al. Toxicology in Vitro. Volume 29, Issue 7, October 2015, Pages 1661–1668. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233315001605 

  2. - Another study proves for the first time that the central nervous system, spinal column and brain, has an immune system susceptible to inflammation. This likely explains why those with autoimmune diseases also complain about neurological symptoms. 

    Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels. Louveau A. et al. Nature. 2015 Jul   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524 

     
 
Regardless of what anyone believed the science proved in 1949, leadership should be making decisions based on MODERN SCIENCE
 
AARP, the ADA and CDC are in too deep to do an about face. Be a LEADER.... speak up
 
28,450 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"....infants fed formula made with fluoridated water suffer higher rates of dental fluorosis."

- Dr. Paul Connett, former Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry and founder of the Fluoride Action Network (see post on infant exposure

 

NysCof posted a link in a comment above to a blog post that describes how the f-lobby got the mandatory California fluoridation on the books, then bragged about their secretive tactics to avoid public input and debate. In that post, it mentions a CA team led by Howard Pollick that studied 2,520 California preschool children. A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.They report. "Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water," reports Pollick et al.

 

Pollick also reports in the "International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health" that "infant formula made with optimally fluoridated water might create brown and pitted permanent teeth." That is consistent with many studies that show children's teeth will grow in stained if fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.

 

Yet, Pollick remains committed to fluoridation, even when his own dental research proves it has no benefit, and causes permanent harm to infants and young children. Pollick assidiously avoids exploring any of the neurological, thyroid, or kidney damage science attached to childhood exposure. Pollick is also committed to back room dealings of questionable ethics, both on a state and national level. See following extracted from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) email communications released this year. 

  • CDC Clearance Chain: 2010 email collaboration between Steven Levy and Gary Whitford of IFS, Jay Kumar of NY DOH and ADA staff with CDC regarding wording of a 2011 ADA report on infant formula  supposedly based on IFS data revealed a less than scientific approach to decision making. The collusion softened the language and obfuscated findings so as to remain supportive of  CDC fluoridation policy. A concern voiced in the email trail was not to provide “fodder to antifluoridationists.” This biased “wordsmithing” by individual authors and ADA with CDC input calls into question the scientific integrity of dental researchers, IFS project and ADA.  The peer review of the report by JADA found the report to be too confusing. The JADA editor suggested that the authors focus on major findings, include less data, and articulate clearer conclusions, which ironically was what the group was trying so hard not to do.  

 

  • I particularly like the comment by Howard Pollick of the University of California, San Francisco on June 4, “We should say something about why we are recommending fluoridated water, even though there has been no or little research on the benefits of fluoridated water in infant formula in the prevention of dental caries.” This led to discussion about the inclusion of endorsements of fluoridation to justify recommendations not supported by data, a puzzling action for a panel claiming to promote an “evidence-based approach” to care for national implementation. Including any of those endorsements, like the one from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), provides the textbook example of circular logic. The AAP based their endorsement on PHS/CDC endorsements of dietary fluoride from the discredited 1940s and 1950s trials…. trials that IFS was trying, unsuccessfully, to substantiate. 

 

  • Also in this email trail, Krishna Aravamudhan, the Asst Director of Evidence-Based Dentistry, on 2/22/2010 suggested it might be better to phrase the report so as to let the reader wonder if there was a connection between formula and fluorosis rather than imply it, although he stated on 3/2/2010 that there was a statistically significant association between elevated fluorides and reconstituted formula. On 5/3/10, Krishna states the thorny questions of the group on a call included, ‘How can we say mostly mild dental fluorosis in the report when 3% of the fluorosis cases in the Iowa study are moderate to severe?’ It seems that Krishna was personally fine with using “mostly” as the qualifier. 

 

  • Another email trail in these FOIA documents concerned the ADA and CDC co-sponsoring recommendations for topical fluorides, a continuation of the ‘successful  ADA-CDC collaboration on many project over the last few years.’  Krishna Aravamudan of the ADA specifically complimented CDC staff, Dr. Barbara Gooch, Dr. Eugenio Beltran and Dr. Jennifer Cleveland of the CDC for their assistance to the ADA in their endeavors, most of which seem to be for the purpose of fluoride promotion.  Jane McGinley, ADA Manager of Fluoridation and Dr. Wm Bailey of the Chief Dental Officer of the PHS were other primary stakeholders in these collaborations. 
  • 2011 Infant Formula Report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21243832  
  • 2001 CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
  • 2007 Over 80% dentists got it wrong: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17899898 
  • 2015 FOIA: http://nidellaw.com/wp-content/uploads/FOIA2.pdf (formula exchange near end) 

Baby Boomers, if you figure it's too late for you..... consider your grandchildren. 

Tell the AARP you want a Position Paper in opposition to fluoridation, now! 

28,195 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 “Community water fluoridation is a malignant medical myth!”  - Dr. Joel Kauffman, Professor Emeritus in Chemistry (2006)

 

Fluoridation is unfair: 

  1. 1. Since fluoridation causes approximately double the dental fluorosis in non-white populations, it is a Civil Rights and Environmental Justice issue.

  2. 2. Since fluoridation is harmful to susceptible populations that include the elderly, the very young, those with prolonged illness, and those with insufficient protein, calcium or vitamin C in their diets (the poor),  it is a Human Rights issue. 

  3. 3. Fluoridation ignores our rights & freedoms that include freedom of choice & informed medical consent.   
    1. a. When fluoride is in municipal water, it is ubiquitous in our food supply making it impossible for us to avoid this drug. 
    2. b. Fluoride is also absorbed through skin, and is an irritant for those with eczema and other skin conditions. 
  4. 4. Fluoridation is NOT necessary to provide fluoride to the public. Saying so creates a false choice, i.e is  flawed logic
    1. a. If someone wants to ingest fluoride, they still have that option by adding drops to their own drinking water.  
    2. b. Since fluoride is available in toothpaste and the only confirmed actual science of benefit states that high concentrations as in toothpaste make cavity causing bacteria “less sticky,” the 1940s justification for fluoridation is no longer valid.
    3. c. The argument about fluoridation benefiting poor children has been rejected by both the 2000 York Review and 2015 Cochrane Review of dental literature purporting SES benefit.  

2015 Cochrane Review featured in Newsweek: 

http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251

 

AARP, now is the time to take action. The science this century proving harm is robust and staggering. The 2014 and 2015 science alone is justification for writing a position paper opposing fluoridation. 

27,672 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

  My understanding is that the litigation over the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed is still not resolved. The city blames the State for making them fluoridate, and the State blames the city for doing the fluoridating.

  It should be noted that in CA, the State chief fluoridaiton officer David Nelson (now retired) helped write the CA fluoridation law and forced Los Angeles to fluoridate in 2007. He actually told me that the Hoper Bay accident was not the fault of the water treatment facility. He claimed it was the victim's wife's fault!  This is because she is a nurse and "should have known that the first sign of fluoride overdose is vomiting, so she should not have given him more water when he asked for more after vomiting."

  I responded by saying there are many causes of vomiting, and why would anyone suspect the water supply when you tell cities that fluoridation is perfectly harmless? And are you telling me the wife went around the whole town of Hooper Bay and gave them fluoride poisoned water to drink so that all 302 people would be poisoned by it?

  He realized how foolish he was being, stopped discussing it, and then said, "I only do what the CDC tells me to do."

  Hence CA remains a state where fluoridation is an attempted mandate. But remember that there is no law that can mandate what violates Federal water law. And the CA law does not mention the source of fluoride material to be used, so the law is not actionable and is null and void. Further, the first line in the law makes the assumption that fluoride in water decreases incidence of caries. This has been fully disproven in vast studies, so the mandate has no actual meaning, is not legally binding, and is basically a worthless historical anecdote.

  In fact, the CA Department of Public Health has written that no city is litigated if it does not fluoridate, and in their view it is the city itself that decides whether to fluoridate.

  So all you CA city councils out there, go ahead and halt fluoridation, and nothing wrong will happen. Caries will not increase, because they were not reduced in the first place, and there is no State law that forces you to infuse this industrial hazardous waste.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
27,802 Views
1
Report
Contributor

That's interesting.  I watched on the internet as the San Diego City Council voted to fluoridate even though they didn't want to, didn't understand it and the voters rejected it several times.  The reason they voted in favor was that they were told if they didn't, they would be fined daily or weekly for not doing so.

 

Fluoridation was foisted on Californians in a stealthy manner - deliberately avoiding notification so citizens couldn't object and then they bragged about it in the California Dental Association journal

See:  http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/how-dentists-manipulate-legislators-to.html

 

Nelson was one of the nastiest of fluoridationists.

27,832 Views
0
Report
Periodic Contributor

The National Academy of Sciences 2006, The recent Cochrane Report, the Australian Review, the York Review, all agree - the quality of scientific research on the benefits and adverse health effects is surprisingly poor - considering that hexafluorosilicic acid, a known toxic waste product from the fertilizer industry and other industries (Aluminum and Oil) has been added to our clean water for over 50-60 years!

Fluoride was touted as a nutrient yet we know now that not one cell in our body needs the fluorine element to function properly, and in fact, it reduces thyroid function!

Why are we still paying the industries to dilute their toxic waste for a chemical that is not regulated by the FDA yet we drink this drug every day? If we don't drink fluoridated water, we get fluoride in our tea, our meat, our soda, wine, beer, anything that has been made with fluoridated water! Yet if we have arthritic pain, we do not get tested for fluoride over exposure. If we have memory loss, we do not get tested for fluoride overexposure. If we have reduced thyroid or reduced kidney function, no doctor routinely checks our exposure to fluoride, this untested, unregulated, unapproved drug.

By the American Dental Association still promoting water fluoridation, they are not doing their homework.

Please AARP - provide a task force that does it's own unbiased research on this and inform your members on your findings. We need to know.

thank you

 

28,326 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

We can't afford to wait for those who have endorsed water fluoridation to finally realize this has been a gross mistake and an immoral human experiment. I changed my professional opinion on water fluoridation only after realizing how I have been poisoned lifelong by many exposures to fluorides. Thank you CarryAnne for the great information you have posted.

 

 

At 60 years old, I have had a lifetime of uncontroled and unmonitored fluoride exposures including fluorine fumes working at a water treatment plant. I am a chemist and was responsible for making fluoride standards to measure the amount of (I didn't know then-TOXIC and INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRODUCT)  HFSAcid added to Washington DC drinking water. At 60 years old, I suffered many health catastrophes many that are slowly reversing now 2 years avoiding fluoridated water for drinking or bathing, drugs, dental products etc.

 

I speak from painful personal experience. As AARP considers a stand on water fluoridation, please be advised you should have no confidence in the integrity the system that produced the 'science' of water fluoridation. (see numbered links below)

I am a biochemist involved with an experiment since 2005 on lead service lines supplying drinking water to homes in Washington DC (1). My dissenting opinion has been that industry research and compliance with U.S. Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)1991 systematically underestimates lead contamination of drinking water(2). I have been recognized as a whistleblower (3). EPA has continued for years ignoring my input (4). Recent studies in 2013 (5) confirm my concerns (6). I also suffer painful, serious health effects and consequences of 60 years exposure to fluoridation chemicals made apparent to me only since May 2013 (7), perhaps exasperated by fluorine gas I was exposed to at the water treatment plant in Washington DC.

The US EPA, CDC, municipalities, and water utilities continue to this day, as they have for decades, to mislead the public about their true exposure to lead in drinking water leaching from lead service lines and the real possibility that fluoridation chemicals increase lead leaching from lead service lines still often used in older sections of major US cities.. THIS IS THE SAME SYSTEM that produced the 'science' of water fluoridation replete with decades of willful blindness, bias, grants for preconceived research results, repression of true scientists, propaganda slogans, down playing of negative health effects, professional bullying, junk science techniques, cherry picking data, fraud, powerful corrupt politics, and industrial interests.

To unduly threaten the health of seniors with water fluoridation based on schemes that masquerade as true science is foolishness indeed.

 

Sincerely,

Susan Kanen

Biochemist

Fluoride Free Alaska (a facebook group)

 

Links and additional comments:

(1). http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/91229.pdf starting at C-87 Washington Aqueduct Lead Service Line Pilot Study. Misrepresented and miscalculated lead release from lead service lines by 4000%.

(2). http://water.epa.gov/drink/ndwac/upload/ndwacdec11122013.pdf Comments by SKanen to National Drinking Water Advisory Council

(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apZynV7lfic at 12:43 Dr Marc Edwards of Virginia Tech mentions Sue Kanen as a whistleblower in the DC Lead in Drinking Water scandal

(4) http://www.epa.gov/dclead/corrosion_research.htm Minutes of EPA conference calls, Susan Kanen participated since 2011

 

(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23879429 Environ Sci Technol. 2013 Aug 20;47(16):9300-7. doi: 10.1021/es4003636. Epub 2013 Aug 2.

Detection and evaluation of elevated lead release from service lines: a field study. Del Toral MA1, Porter A, Schock MR. Abstract: Comparative stagnation sampling conducted in 32 homes in Chicago, Illinois with lead service lines demonstrated that the existing regulatory sampling protocol under the U.S. Lead and Copper Rule systematically misses the high lead levels and potential human exposure.

(6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC2Y4LI49R4 Lead in Drinking Water Sampling Manipulation 3 minute video by SKanen demonstrating my concerns on lead leaching from lead service lines.

(7) I was exposed to fluorine gas in the basement at the water treatment plant in 2005 (HF etched glass and corroded window and door frames until they collapsed) My lungs and throat burned, I lost sense of taste and smell, had nausea and shortness of breath,and brain fog. Nevertheless, I had no idea I was being exposed to HF in the air at the point the fluoridation chemicals are added to drinking water. Fluoride is an accumulative poison, I continued my lifelong consumption of fluoridated water, food and exposure while bathing, swimming, and in hot tubs. I have dental fluorosis as a child of a military dentist. Front teeth have veneers. Uterine fibroids and prolapse. Multiple internal hernias. In 2007, I was hospitalized with acute pancreatitis, two emergency room visits in Sept 2012 with a 0.7 mm kidney stone, diagnosis of degeneration of hip and lower spine, elevated serum calcium and parathyroid hormone, parathyroidectomy of 5200 mg in Nov 2012 with persistent elevated parathyroid hormone, osteoarthritis required hip replacement in Aug 2013, osteopenia, painful multinodual calcified goiter of the thyroid with hypo and hyperthyroid symptoms, autoimmune thyroiditis, GERD and irritation of GI and urinary tract, Barrett's esophagus, calcified ligaments with X-ray evidence of calcification of the interosseous membrane of the forearm, phleboliths, bilateral renal cysts, enlarged heart, fatigue not relieved by rest, neurological symptoms such as numbness, anxiety, forgetfulness, perhaps pre- Alzheimer symptoms-just to name a few classic responses to fluoride intoxication. None of my AMA doctors had a clue what was wrong with me. As a biochemist, I finally speculated I might be fluoride poisoned. I insisted on getting a fluoride analysis of the deformed head of my femur bone sawed off during hip replacement. It measured 1500 ppm fluoride of ashed bone weight, pointing to the diagnosis of the initial stage of skeletal fluorosis. My medical bills 2012-2014 were almost $150,000. Fluoride is a lifelong accumulative toxin and slowly harms and, if exposure is excessive, eventually destroys every human organ system for everyone in water fluoridated or non-fluoridated areas alike. It really is absolute foolishness to add more fluoride to drinking water. I did not give my consent to be an experimental toxic waste dump for the last 60 years! Now since May 2013 avoiding fluoride, I am slowly getting better.My thyroid has shunk to 61% of the goiter of two years ago, antibodies against thyroid are reduced, my parathyroid hormone level is now midrange normal after persistently elevated levels post parathyroidectomy, no reoccurrance of kidney stones, less GI irritation and less neurological symptoms like numbness, anxiety, lack of ability to concentrate. and forgetfulness, less pain.

 

Fluoride toxicity symptoms are threantening to steal away the golden years of the 'baby boomers', the first generation to be experimental subjects to lifelong water fluoridation.

 

AARP act now!!!

18,935 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

”Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time."  - Dr. Robert Carton, EPA (1992)

 

Thank you Susan Kanen for your comment above! 

AARP - Are you reading this?

  • EXCERPT "None of my AMA doctors had a clue what was wrong with me. As a biochemist, I finally speculated I might be fluoride poisoned. I insisted on getting a fluoride analysis of the deformed head of my femur bone sawed off during hip replacement. It measured 1500 ppm fluoride of ashed bone weight, pointing to the diagnosis of the initial stage of skeletal fluorosis. My medical bills 2012-2014 were almost $150,000....... I did not give my consent to be an experimental toxic waste dump for the last 60 years! Now since May 2013 avoiding fluoride, I am slowly getting better. My thyroid has shunk to 61% of the goiter of two years ago, antibodies against thyroid are reduced, my parathyroid hormone level is now midrange normal after persistently elevated levels post parathyroidectomy, no reoccurrance of kidney stones, less GI irritation and less neurological symptoms like numbness, anxiety, lack of ability to concentrate. and forgetfulness, less pain."
18,855 Views
0
Report
Periodic Contributor

This is a really great article: please help get this neurotoxin out of our water, and our food. 

I am starting a coalition against artificial fluoridation in NYC - please email nyc.caaf@gmail.com if you are interested in helping getting the word out - this stuff is toxic, not a nutrient, not safe and we shouldn't be drinking it!

19,107 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

First, eating and drinking fluoride ion has no effect whatsoever on dental caries, as published in detailed studies by Zigelbecker, and also by Sutton, and by Teotia and Teotia, and also by Yamouyiannis. The fluoride concentration in saliva that bathes teeth topically (at 0.016 ppm, NRC, 2006) is 75,000 times less than that in toothpaste. Second, systemic fluoride dissolves in the blood and throughout all tissues at 0.2 ppm from regular consumption of treated drinking water. The ion accumulates lifelong permanently into bone causing the formation of new bone of poor quality. We now have 1/3 million U.S. elderly who suffer from broken hips which usually is lethal due to pneumonia that ensues while waiting for fluoridated bone to heal. Cruel experiments in dogs indicate that broken bones heal far more slowly when animals are given fluoridated water. Finally, adding fluoride into drinking water is illegal. No EPA regulated water contaminant, including fluoride, can be discharged into public drinking water intentionally without an NPDES permit from the EPA, as stipulated by the Clean Water Act. And the Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the requirement of any substance added into water other than to sanitize the water. The EPA Office of Water argues that, as a substance that is being used to treat humans, the FDA is responsible for regulating fluoridation. The FDA argues that, as a pollutant being added intentionally into water, the EPA is in charge of its regulation. The HHS recommended that fluoride levels not exceed 0l7 ppm but refuses to accept liability for its use, in particular to avoid litigation over the easily proven increase in unwanted unsightly abnormal dental enamel hypoplasia dental fluorosis that plagues 42% of U.S. teens as a result of water "fluoridation." Please get involved and halt this absurd experiment from being continued.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
19,355 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Richard Sauerheber who added a post in this thread is a chemist, college professor and researcher who has published some excellent work on the toxicity of industrial fluoride in drinking water. As a result of his research, he has written letters opposing fluoridation to the FDA and other regulatory agencies, urging they take action, i.e. actually consider science to regulate the industries in order protect the health of the public:

 

 

Thank you, doctor! 

 

“When industry and government agree, people suffer.” - Proverb 

18,926 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide ... it is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses. It is a scientific disgrace that a well organized lobby of the American Dental Association ever managed to stampede American legislators into ignoring the highly technical but very cogent objection to fluoridation." - James B. Patrick, Ph.D., antibiotics research scientist at National Institute of Health

 

Latest study on fluoride concerns its capacity to cause INFLAMMATIONS even at very small exposure level, such as that from water fluoridation. I especially like this key finding, "Long-term exposure to fluoride may affect activities of many enzymes."

 

Do we really want a drug that interferes with the normal functioning of our enzymes, as well as causing or worsening inflammations to be an ubiquitous contaminant in our water and food?  

 

 

Baby Boomers - this is your life and the lives of your children, grandchildren, and g-grandchildren at risk. DO SOMETHING!

 

Contact the AARP, your politicians, the White House.... tell them to get the F* out of our water.... Municipalities can use the financial savings to replace ineffective and dangerous chloramine which also kills enzymes and causes disease with a more effective and safe disinfectant alternative. And you can use the better quality of life and lower doctors bills to enjoy life. 

19,506 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

For those who like visuals, this 1955 film shows what happens to enzymes in human blood with fluoride concentrations consistent with drinking a glass of "optimally" fluoridated water. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32op3srFDk8 

 

This enzyme death in the blood explains why some of us experience Chizzola maculae, a distinctive bruise like hive that affects a minority of women and children in the early stages of fluoride poisoning. It's an abnormal blood coagulation and the destruction of blood vessels, an autoimmune reaction. 

 

19,333 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"When a statistical analysis of 1,000 children was conducted in London, and results were not as fluoridation proponents wanted, the study was quickly abandoned." - Dr. Malcolm Naylor, 1987 winner of Tomes Medal for imminence in dental research

 

Cochrane is the international gold standard panel for public health review. They found bias rather than benefit in their review of the dental studies. Moreover, like every large independent review of the dental science, the Cochrane panel finds that the evidence of dental benefit is poor quality, highly suspect, and does not support the rationale that fluoridation benefits the poor. In the meantime, the scientific and legal arguments against fluoridation as harmful to health mount. 
 

Write the AARP and your local newspaper! Tell them that Cochrane confirms the dentists are lying and that you side with consumer adovcate Erin Brockovich, Civil Rights leaders, and 21st century researchers like the Harvard team of neuroscientists in opposing fluoridation as a Human Rights violation! 

19,661 Views
1
Report
Periodic Contributor

Great idea!

I'm starting a coalition in NYC Against Artificial Fluoridation - Fluoride in not a nutrient, we shoudn't be exposing ourselves to neurotoxins by drinking the toxic waste product of the fertilizer industry. Please email nyc.caaf@gmail.com for more information.

19,345 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable.- David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, in “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008)

 

Prof. Rita Barnett-Rose of Chapman University includes a nice mix of science and law in her 2014 legal analysis of the U.S. fluoridation policy. She concludes, "The evidence continues to suggest that compulsory water fluoridation is no longer justifiable as a public health benefit.... the cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens."

 

See: http://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/ 

 

Phone, email or write the AARP directly. Tell them they need to step up and write a position statement opposing fluoridation, for the sake of the elderly, those in fragile health, pregnant women and their fetuses, and the very young. 

19,763 Views
1
Report
Info Seeker +

Right on write on wil do!!!
18,835 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

From: Moms Against Fluoridation 

Erin Brockovich and signers put the Health agencies on notice: April, 2015

Erin Brockovich has just put the government on big notice of their shortcomings in interpreting science and protecting the health of American citizens.  Please take time to read this document about fluoridation.  This is one of the very the best documents/ letters we have seen.  The references are great; the critical thinking is excellent, and the range and depth she covers are compelling.  And, it has some 'teeth'.  Just read the first 2 pages if you are short on time. Read Letter

 

 

I suggest the Signature page (p 16) and the Questions attachment (last page) provide the best summary of this 24 page document, but go ahead, read the whole thing. It's worth your time!   

19,891 Views
0
Report
Periodic Contributor

Adding additional contaminants to water is not required by law and should be seen as a hindrance in the goal to provide the cleanest most natural water to customers.

21,997 Views
5
Report
Regular Contributor

You are correct.  Contaminating water has strict laws and penalties.  Fluoridation is tradition, faith, speculation based rather than based on current science.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
9,488 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

The addition of water additives is a standard, important and well accepted component of proper drinking water utilities. Fluoride is but one of the over 40 water additives available to utilities. By your standard all are "additional contaminants."
11,238 Views
1
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know

AARP Limited Time Offer: Memorial Day Sale! Join or renew for just $9 per year when you sign up for a 5-year term and get a FREE gift.

AARP Memorial Day Membership Sale

Forums