by George C. Glasser

Cities all over the US purchase hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh pollution concentrate from Florida – fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) – to fluoridate water.

Fluorosilicic acid is composed of tetrafluorosiliciate gas and other species of fluorine gases captured in pollution scrubbers and concentrated into a 23% solution during wet process phosphate fertilizer manufacture. Generally, the acid is stored in outdoor cooling ponds before being shipped to US cities to artificially fluoridate drinking water.

Fluoridating drinking water with recovered pollution is a cost-effective means of disposing of toxic waste. The Fluorosilicic acid would otherwise be classified as a hazardous toxic waste on the Superfund Priorities List of toxic substances that pose the most significant risk to human health and the greatest potential liability for manufacturers.

Phosphate fertilizer suppliers have more than $10 billion invested in production and mining facilities in Florida. Phosphate fertilizer production accounts for $800 million in wages per year. Florida’s mines produce 30% of the world supply and 75% of the US supply of phosphate fertilizers. Much of the country’s supply of fluoro-silicic acid for water fluoridation is also produced in Florida.

Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and mining are not environment friendly operations. Fluorides and radionuclides are the primary toxic pollutants from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer in Central Florida. People living near the fertilizer plants and mines, experience lung cancer and leukemia rates that are double the state average. Much of West Central Florida has become a toxic waste dump for phosphate fertilizer manufacturers. Federal and state pollution regulations have been modified to accommodate phosphate fertilizer production and use: These regulations have included using recovered pollution for water fluoridation.

Radium wastes from filtration systems at phosphate fertilizer facilities are among the most radioactive types of naturally occurring radioactive material

(NORM) wastes. The radium wastes are so concentrated, they cannot be disposed of at the one US landfill licensed to accept NORM wastes, so manufacturers dump the radioactive wastes in acidic ponds atop 200-foot-high gypsum stacks. The federal government has no rules for its disposal.

During the late 1960s, fluorine emissions were damaging crops, killing fish and causing crippling skeletal fluorosis in livestock. The EPA became concerned and enforced regulations requiring manufacturers to install pollution scrubbers. At that time, the facilities were dumping the concentrated pollution directly into waterways leading into Tampa Bay.

A Phosphate Worse than Death

In the late 1960s, EPA chemist Ervin Bellack worked out the ideal solution to a monumental pollution problem. Because recovered phosphate fertilizer manufacturing waste contain about 19% fluorine, Bellack concluded that the concentrated “scrubber liquor” could be a perfect water fluoridation agent. It was a liquid and easily soluble in water, unlike sodium fluoride – a waste product from aluminum manufacturing. It was also inexpensive.

Fate also intervened. The aluminum industry, which previously supplied sodium fluoride for water fluoridation, was facing a shortage of fluorspar used in smelting aluminum. Consequently, there was a shortage of sodium fluoride to fluoridate drinking water.

For the phosphate fertilizer industry, the shortage of sodium fluoride was the key to turning red ink into black and an environmental liability into a perceived asset. With the help of the EPA, fluorosilicic acid was transformed from a concentrated toxic waste and a liability into a “proven cavity fighter.”

The EPA and the US Public Health Service waived all testing procedures and – with the help of the American Dental Association (ADA) – encouraged cities to add the radioactive concentrate into America’s drinking water as an “improved” form of fluoride.

The product is not “fluorine” or “fluoride” as proponents state: It is a pollution concentrate. Fluorine is only one captured pollutant comprising about 19% of the total production.

By 1983, the official EPA policy was expressed by EPA Office of Water Deputy Administrator Rebecca Hanmer as follows: “In regard to the use of fluosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.”

A Hot New Property

In promoting the use of the pollution concentrate as a fluoridation agent, the ADA, Federal agencies and manufacturers failed to mention that it was radioactive. Whenever uranium is found in nature as a component of a mineral, a host of other radionuclides are always found in the mineral in various stages of decay. Uranium and all of its decay-rate products are found in phosphate rock, fluorosilicic acid and phosphate fertilizer.

During wet-process manufacturing, trace amounts of radium and uranium are captured in the pollution scrubber. This process was the subject of an article by H.F. Denzinger, H. J. König and G.E. Krüger in the fertilizer industry journal, Phosphorus & Potassium (No. 103, Sept./Oct. 1979) discussed how radionuclides are carried into the fluorosilicic acid.

While the uranium and radium in fluorosilicic acid are known carcinogens, two decay products of uranium are even more carcinogenic:

radon-222 and polonium-210.

During the acidulation process that creates phosphoric acid, radon gas contained in the phosphate pebble can be released in greater proportions than other decay-rate products (radionuclides) and carried over into the fluorosilicic acid. Polonium may also be captured in greater quantities during scrubbing operations because, like radon, it can readily combine with fluoride.

Engineer Thomas Reeves has acknowledged the presence of radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid.

Radon-222 is not an immediate threat because it stops emitting alpha radiation and decays into lead-214 in 3.86 days. Lead-214 appears to be harmless but it eventually decays into bismuth-214 and then into polonium-214. Unless someone knew to look for specific isotopes, no one would know that a transmutation into the polonium isotope had occurred.

Polonium-210, a decay product of bismuth-210, has a half-life of 138 days and gives off intense alpha radiation as it decays into regular lead and becomes stable. Any polonium-210 that might be present in the phosphate concentrate could pose a significant health threat. A very small amount of polonium-210 can be very dangerous, giving off 5,000 times more alpha radiation than the same amount of radium. As little as 0.03 microcuries (6.8 trillionths of a gram) of polonium-210 can be carcinogenic to humans.

The lead isotope behaves like calcium in the body. It may be stored in the bones for years before turning into polonium-210 and triggering a carcinogenic release of alpha radiation.

Drinking water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid contains radon at every sequence of its decay to polonium. The fresher the pollution concentrate, the more polonium it will contain.

As long as the amount of contaminants added to the drinking water (including radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid) do not exceed the limits set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has no regulatory problem with the use of any contaminated products for drinking water treatment.

Big Risks: No Tests

Despite the increased cancer risk from using phosphate waste to fluoridate drinking water, the EPA nor the Centers for Disease Control have never commissioned or required any clinical studies with the pollution concentrate – specifically, the hexafluorsilicate radical whose toxicokinetic properties are different than the lone, fluoride ion.

Section 104 (I) (5) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) directs the Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the EPA, the Public Health Service and the National

Toxicology Program to initiate a program of research on fluoride safety. However, after almost 30 years of using Fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate to fluoridate the drinking water, not one study has been commissioned.

The fluoride ion only hypothetically exists as an entity in an ideal solution of purified water – and tap water is far from pure H2O. All clinical research with animal models is done using 99.97% pure sodium fluoride and double distilled or deionized water. Among the thousands of clinical studies about fluoride, not one has been done with the pollution concentrate or typical tap water containing fluorides.

Synergy Soup

The fluorosilicic acid is also contaminated with small traces of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead, sulfates, iron and phosphorous, not to mention radionuclides. Some contaminants have the potential to react with the hexafluorosilicate radical and may act as complex ionic compounds. The biological fates and toxicokinetic properties of these complex ions are unknown.

The reality of artificial water fluoridation is so complex that determining the safety of the practice may be impossible. Tap water is chemically treated with chlorine, soluble silicates, phosphate polymers and many other chemicals. In addition, the source water itself may contain a variety of contaminants.

The addition of a fluoridation agent can create synergized toxicants in a water supply that have unique toxico-kinetic properties found only in that particular water supply. Consequently, any maladies resulting from chronic ingestion of the product likely would be dismissed as a local or regional anomaly unrelated to water fluoridation.

Technically, artificially fluoridating drinking water is a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under statutes of the SDWA, federal agencies are forbidden from endorsing, supporting, requiring or funding the practice of adding any chemicals to the water supply other than for purposes of water purification. However, the Public Health Service (PHS) applies semantics to circumvent Federal law in order to promote and fund the practice.

PHS states that they only recommend levels of fluorides in the drinking water, and it is the sole decision of a state or community to fluoridate drinking water.

Federal agencies are forbidden from directly funding or implementing water fluoridation but Federal Block Grants are given to States to use as they see fit. Through second and third parties (such as the American Dental Association, state health departments and state fluoridation coordinators), PHS encourages communities to apply for Federal Block Grant funds to implement fluoridation.

The legality of using of Federal Block Grant funds to fund water fluoridation, a practice prohibited by Federal law, has never been addressed in the courts.

Vendors selling the pollution concentrate as a fluoridation agent use a broad disclaimer found on the Material Data Safety Sheet that states: “no responsibility can be assumed by vendor for any damage or injury resulting from abnormal use, from any failure to adhere to recommended practices, or from any hazards inherent to the product.” [Emphasis added.]

The next time you turn on the tap and water gushes out into a glass, reflect on the following disclaimer from the EPA’s 1997 Fluoride:

Regulatory Fact Sheet: “In the United States, there are no Federal safety standards which are applicable to additives, including those for use in fluoridating drinking water.”

Report That  …Brain Function Is Vulnerable To Fluoride…

Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.

P.O. Box 753

Andover, Massachusetts 01810-3347

Tele. (978) 475-9196

FAX (978) 749-9447

5 May  1999

BSA Environmental Services
21403 Chagrin Boulevard
Suite 101
Beachwood, OH 44122

Re: Request for information on drinking water fluoridation

Dear Drs. Romoser-Breno and Beaver:

The April 15 request for comments regarding water fluoridation is vague in that no assurances are offered as to how my written opinion will be used. Thus, a copy of this letter will be sent to Mr. Gilbert Gonzales at Fort Detrick. Without the benefit of having read the “Environmental Assessment” report to which you referred to in your letter, I run the risk of being redundant with regard to the material already prepared. With these caveats, I offer the following comments about the advantages and disadvantages of water fluoridation.

To start, I must correct a statement you made in your letter regarding my being an “expert on drinking water fluoridation issues.” Prior to 1982, my knowledge of fluoride was limited to television commercials saying it was good for my teeth. Rather, my expertise was detection of neurotoxicity, which brought me to the Department of Psychiatry at Boston’s Children’s Hospital and Neuropathology at the Harvard Medical School. It was there that I met Dr. Jack Hein, Director of the Forsyth Dental Center and the scientist responsible for putting mono fluorophosphate (MFP) into toothpaste. Dr. Hein was a student of Dr. Harold Hodge, the chief pharmacologist on the Manhattan Project who conducted the world renowned studies on fluoride (1) and started water fluoridation. Dr. Hein invited me to Forsyth to study the neurotoxic potential of materials that dentists use, starting with fluoride, and we set up the first toxicology department in any dental research institution in the world. I was made Head of the department, and Dr. Hodge moved to Boston and became a member of my department where he stayed until his death in 1990. Another Manhattan Project scientist and fluoride researcher, Dr. Ben Amdur, also joined the department.

My investigations of the neurotoxicity of fluoride started in 1987. Using a new computer pattern recognition system capable of a sensitivity and objectivity other behavioral measures did not possess, we studied an animal model first developed for the study of dental fluorosis. Frankly, we expected to find nothing. The results from the first experiment we thought must be wrong, so we kept repeating the study with more animals, different doses, sexes, ages and methods of administration. Like quicksand, every effort we made sank us further into the realization that brain function was impacted by fluoride. Scientific integrity dictated that we publish our results (2,3), but employed at a dental research institution made us weak in the knees to do so.

In our 1995 paper (2), we reported that brain function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues. Rats exposed as adults displayed behavior-specific changes typical of cognitive deficits, whereas rats exposed prenatally had dispersed behaviors typical of hyperactivity. Brain histology was not examined, but the behavioral changes were consistent with those seen when hippocampal development is interrupted and memory problems emerge. Overall, we concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans.

Criticisms of our study by dentists say that our results in rats are not relevant to humans because the doses we used were too high (75-125 pprn NaF in drinking water). These criticisms are without merit because our doses in rats produce a level of fluoride in the plasma equivalent to that found in humans drinking 5- 10 ppm fluoride in water, or humans receiving some treatments for osteoporosis. This plasma level is exceeded ten times over one hour after children receive topical applications of some dental fluoride gels. Thus, humans are being exposed to levels of fluoride that we know alters behavior in rats. Perhaps dentists see no problem with this fact, but scientists involved with toxicity risk assessment will view it differently. The fluoride levels in the drinking water of our rats were not high, they were taken from the well known animal model developed for the study of dental fluorosis, a model used repeatedly by dental researchers for several years.

Other criticisms of equal absurdity have been expressed by dentists about our study. However, they are not important to dwell upon now because that first study was but one piece of an emerging picture. Soon after our study was published, we learned of two epidemiology studies from China showing IQ deficits in children over-exposed to fluoride via drinking water or soot from burning coal (4,5). Next, we found a literature review that assembled case reports spanning 60 years on neurological effects in humans exposed to fluoride (6). A common theme in these reports was that fluoride exposure impaired memory and concentration and that it caused lethargy, headache, depression and confusion. The depression is not something to ignore because suicide occurs more frequently than expected in populations of fluoride workers (7).

More recently, another laboratory investigation found that chronic exposure to fluoride (I ppm) in drinking water of rats compromised neuronal and cerebrovasculature integrity (blood brain barrier) and increased aluminum concentrations in brain tissues (8). Another study found that fluoride in drinking water of rats decreased membrane lipids important to proper brain function (9). Moreover, the latest studies have shown that fluoride accumulates in human and animal pineal glands where it impairs melatonin production (10, 11), a finding critical when it is considered that melatonin is an agent that protects the central nervous system from radiation by scavenging free radicals (12). Finally, there is a recent study published which reports that silicofluorides in fluoridated drinking water increase levels of lead in children’s blood, a risk factor that predicts higher crime rates, attention deficit disorder and learning disabilities (13).

Unfortunately, the link between fluoride and the brain does not end with the above mentioned studies. In 1993 while studying the neurotoxicity associated with the treatments of childhood leukemia, we demonstrated that the fluorinated steroid dexamethasone disrupted behavior in rats to a greater degree than did its non-fluorinated counterpart prednisolone (14,15). This finding prompted a clinical study of children treated for leukemia, where it was found that the fluorinated steroid was more detrimental to IQ than the non-fluorinated steroid, in particular reading comprehension, arithmetic calculation and short-term working memory deficits were greater (16). In short, this finding has fueled a growing concern about the contribution of fluorinated pharmaceuticals to the total body burden of fluoride.

As you decide whether or not to fluoridate the water supplies of Fort Detrick, it is imperative that you consider the impact on total body burden of fluoride. The soldier today is a different individual, facing a very different situation than that encountered fifty years ago when fluoridation was promoted as a “safe and effective” means to protect against tooth decay. The difference stems from the fact that 1) fluoride exposures today are out of control, well beyond the dose touted as optimum for caries prevention; and 2) people today, especially soldiers, are exposed to substances and conditions that will interact with fluoride exposure and magnify harmful effects (i.e., exposure to beryllium, lead, strontium, aluminum, cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides, uranium hexafluoride, stress, nutritional deficiencies, increased water consumption due to extreme exercises, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, and nerve gases including sarin).

In summary, my opinion is that there are no advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today far exceed the hoped for benefit. Dr. Hodge during the Manhattan Project requested funds from Col. Stafford L. Warren to do animal experimentation to determine central nervous system effects of fluoride (17). He did so because he had clinical evidence that the fluoride component of uranium hexafluoride caused “mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude among the workmen. Yet, he never got to do those studies, and because this information was classified, he never discussed his findings with me. Perhaps, however, this explains why he was so intensely interested in my fluoride studies up to the time of his death.

Therefore, in good conscience I can only discourage the notion of fluoridating the water supply of Fort Detrick. The evidence against the safety of this public health policy will keep mounting and never disappear again. My ignorance of fluoride in the beginning was a matter of chance. If you ignore this evidence today, it will be a matter of choice. Good luck with doing the right thing.

Sincerely,

Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D.

This reading List is not Comprehensive

we welcome additions  from readers.

ACT NOW FOR FREEDOM AND PURE WATER

Standing Committee on Social Policy ACT -1991

by J.C. Stannard

1991                         105 pages

.

Analytical Chronology of Fluoridation: Politics Versus Science

by Leading Edge International Research Group

174 pages

.

A Struggle With Titans (Forces Behind Fluoridation)

by G.L. Waldbott

1965                        383 pages

.

Are We Safe? by John Polya –

1964                        143 pages

.

Fluoridation 1979 Scientific Criticisms and Fluoride Dangers

by Philip R. N. Sutton

1980                       284 pages

.

Fluoridation and Truth Decay

by Gladys Caldwell and Philip E. Zanfagna, M.D

1974                       301 pages

.

Fluoridation Poison On Tap by Glen S. R. Walker                                                                                                      1982 (?)                458 pages

.Fluoride – The Freedom Fight by Dr. Hans Moolenburgh

1987                208 pages

.

Fluoride In Australia – A Case to Answer

by Wendy Varney Hale & Iremonger

1986             157 pages

.

On the Water Front by John Archer  ABC

1991               96 pages

.

Standing Committee On Social Policy – Inquiry into Water Fluoridation in the ACT (Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory)

1991                309 pages

.

The Fluoride Question by Anne-Lise Gotzsche

1975                176 pages

.

The Aging Factor Health Action Press

by J. Yiamouiannis                 1993

.

When Smoke Ran Like Water        by Devra Davis (Harper-Collins)

2002             316 pages

.

The Secret War and The Fluoride Conspiracy

By Dr Geoffrey E. Smith                 1997                187 pages

.

Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride   by Bernard Meyer Wagner

.

Scientific Knowledge in Controversy:

The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate  by Brian Martin

.

Medical Mafia  by Guylaine Lanctot

.

Racketeering in Medicine   by James P. Carter

.

Grim Truth About Fluoridation   by Robert M. Buck

.

Fluoride Drinking Ourselves to Death   by Barry Groves

.

“Fluoride Facts and Fancy” by National Pure Water Association

.

“Fluoridation and the Forgotten Issue”         by Doris Grant

.

“Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma”       by Dr. George Waldbott

.

“Fluoride”     by Barry Groves

.

“The Fluoride Deception”    by Christopher Bryson.

.

“Fluoride Fatigue” – Fluoride Poisoning; Is Fluoride In Your Drinking Water – Or From Other Sources – Making You Sick?”

by Dr. Bruce Spittle

.

Nutritional and Physical Degeneration   by Weston A. Price

.

Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride by Bernard Meyer Wagner

.

The Grim Truth About Fluoridation by Robert M. Buck

.

Fluorides in the Environment by Leonard H. Weinstein, Alan Davison

Veterinary Research Communications

Publisher: Springer Netherlands

ISSN: 0165-7380 (Paper) 1573-7446 (Online)

DOI: 10.1023/A:1006325710222

Issue: Volume 23, Number 7 Date: November 1999

Pages: 457 – 465

LEAD POISONING IN MOUNT ISA

AND FLUORIDATION

A new study has suggested one child develops lead poisoning every nine days in the northwest Queensland mining city of Mount Isa.

…”There are about 400 children born every year in Mount Isa and about 11 per cent of those children, according to the last blood lead study, have a blood lead level in excess of the current acceptable guideline value”…

“In view of the above the Queensland Government’s plan

to fluoridate Mount Isa’s water supply is a no brainier”

FLUORIDE AND LEAD

by

Frances Frech

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

All of the fluoride products used in the artificial fluoridation of water are contaminated with lead and arsenic.

(We received the evidence from Margaret Stasikowski, an official with the EPA, in the form of copies of pages from Water Chemicals Codex, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1982.)

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

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

The fluosilicates are the by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. In the manufacture of this kind of fertilizer, phosphorus is obtained from phosphate rock, which has to be broken down with sulfuric acid.

(1) Fluorine occurs naturally in combination with the phosphates.

(2) In these two facts lie the keys to the presence of lead in the fluosilicates.

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

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

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

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

Sodium fluoride is also lead-tainted (and with arsenic, as well.) Aluminum ore (bauxite) is usually contaminated with lead and arsenic (and a number of other elements.) In order to obtain a pure product, these have to be removed. (10) They become part of the major by-product of aluminum refining, sodium fluoride.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

Department of Zoology, University School of Sciences, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad 380 009, India

D M Guna Sherlin

Jai Research Foundation, Vapi, Valvada 396 108, India

Oral administration of sodium fluoride (40 mg/kg body weight) from day 6 to 19 of gestation caused, as compared to control, significant reductions in body weight, feed consumption, absolute uterine weight and number of implantations. Significantly higher incidence of skeletal (wavy ribs, 14th rib, <6 sternal centre, dumbell-shaped second and fifth sternebrae, incomplete ossification of skull and thickening of tibia) and visceral (subcutaneous haemorrhage) abnormalities were also observed in NaF-treated dams than that of control. Oral administration of vitamin C (50 mg/kg body weight) and vitamin E (2 mg/0.2 ml olive oil/animal/day) from day 6 to 19 of gestation along with NaF significantly ameliorates NaF-induced reductions in body weight, feed consumption, absolute uterine weight (only with vitamin E treatment) and number of implantations. As compared with NaF-treated alone, the total percentage of skeletal and visceral abnormalities were significantly lowered in fluoride plus vitamin C-treated animals. Vitamin E was less effective. These findings suggest that vitamin C significantly reduced the severity and incidence of fluoride-induced embryotoxicity in rats.

Key Words: fluoride • vitamins • embryotoxicity • amelioration

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 20, No. 12, 619-623 (2001)

The Thyroid Gland

By Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield MBBS LRCP MRCS

Medical Advisor to Thyroid UK

.

There is a daunting amount of research studies showing that the widely acclaimed benefits on fluoride dental health are more imagined than real. My main concern however, is the effect of sustained fluoride intake on general health. Again, there is a huge body of research literature on this subject, freely available and in the public domain.

But this body of work was not considered by the York Review when their remit was changed from “Studies of the effects of fluoride on health” to “Studies on the effects of fluoridated water on health.” It is clearly evident that it was not considered by the BMA (British Medical Association), British Dental Association (BDA), BFS (British Fluoridation Society) and FPHM, (Faculty for Public Health and Medicine) since they all insist, as in the briefing paper to Members of Parliament – that fluoridation is safe and non-injurious to health.

.

This is a public disgrace. I will now show by reviewing the damaging effects of fluoridation  with special reference to thyroid illness.

.

It has been known since the latter part of the 19th century that certain communities, notably in Argentina, India and Turkey were chronically ill, with premature ageing, arthritis, mental retardation, and infertility; and high levels of natural fluorides in the water were responsible. Not only was it clear that the fluoride was having a general effect on the health of the community, but in the early 1920s Goldemberg, working in Argentina showed that fluoride was displacing iodine; thus compounding the damage and rendering the community also hypothyroid from iodine deficiency.

.

‘ Highly Damaging To The Thyroid Gland ‘

This was the basis of the research in the 1930s of May, Litzka, Gorlitzer von Mundy, who used fluoride preparations to treat over-active thyroid illness. Their patients either drank fluoridated water, swallowed fluoride pills or were bathed in fluoridated bath water; and their thyroid function was as a result, greatly depressed. The use in 1937 of fluorotyrosine for this purpose showed how effective this treatment was; but the effectiveness was difficult to predict and many patients suffered total thyroid loss. So it was given a new role and received a new name, Pardinon. It was marketed not for over-active thyroid disease but as a pesticide. (Note the manufacturer of fluorotyrosine was IG Farben who also made sarin, a gas used in World War II).

This bit of history illustrates the fact that fluorides are dangerous in general and in particular highly damaging to the thyroid gland, a matter to which I shall return shortly. While it is unlikely that it will be disputed that fluorides are toxic – let us be reminded that they are Schedule 2 Poisons under the Poisons Act 1972, the matter in dispute is the level of toxicity attributable to given amounts; in today’s context the degree of damage caused by given concentrations in the water supply. While admitting its toxicity, proponents rely on the fact that it is diluted and therefore, it is claimed, unlikely to have deleterious effects.

.

They Could Not Be More Mistaken…

It seems to me that we must be aware of how fluoride does its damage. It is an enzyme poison. Enzymes are complex protein compounds that vastly speed up biological chemical reactions while themselves remaining unchanged. As we speak, there occurs in all of us a vast multitude of these reactions to maintain life and produce the energy to sustain it. The chains of amino acids that make up these complex proteins are linked by simple compounds called amides; and it is with these that the fluorine molecules react, splitting and distorting them, thus damaging the enzymes and their activity. Let it be said at once, this effect can occur at extraordinary low concentrations; even lower than the one part per million which is the dilution proposed for fluoridation in our water supply.

.

The Body Can Only Eliminate Half Of The Total Intake.

Moreover, fluorides are cumulative and build up steadily with ingestion of fluoride from all sources, which include not just water but the air we breathe and the food we eat. The use of fluoride toothpaste in dental hygiene and the coating of teeth are further sources of substantial levels of fluoride intake. The body can only eliminate half of the total intake, which means that the older you are the more fluoride will have accumulated in your body. Inevitably this means the ageing population is particularly targeted. And even worse for the very young there is a major element of risk in baby formula made with fluoridated water. The extreme sensitivity of the very young to fluoride toxicity makes this unacceptable. Since there are so many sources of fluoride in our everyday living, it will prove impossible to maintain an average level of 1ppm as is suggested.

.

What Is The Result Of These Toxic Effects?

First the immune system. The distortion of protein structure causes the immune proteins to fail to recognize body proteins, and so instigate an attack on them, which is Autoimmune Disease. Autoimmune diseases constitute a body of disease processes troubling many thousands of people: Rheumatoid Arthritis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosis, Asthma and Systemic Sclerosis are examples; but in my particular context today, thyroid antibodies will be produced which will cause Thyroiditis resulting in the common hypothyroid disease, Hashimoto’s Disease and the hyperthyroidism of Graves’ Disease.

Musculo Skeletal damage results further from the enzyme toxic effect; the collagen tissue of which muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones are made, is damaged. Rheumatoid illness, osteoporosis and deformation of bones inevitably follow. This toxic effect extends to the ameloblasts making tooth enamel, which is consequently weakened and then made brittle; and its visible appearance is, of course, dental fluorosis.

The enzyme poison effect extends to our genes; DNA cannot repair itself, and chromosomes are damaged. Work at the University of Missouri showed genital damage, targeting ovaries and testes. Also affected is inter uterine growth and development of the foetus, especially the nervous system. Increased incidence of Down’s Syndrome has been documented.

Fluorides are mutagenic. That is, they can cause the uncontrolled proliferation of cells we call cancer. This applies to cancer anywhere in the body; but bones are particularly picked out. The incidence of osteosarcoma in a study reporting in 1991 showed an unbelievable 50% increase. A report in 1955 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed a 400% increase in cancer of the thyroid in San Francisco during the period their water was fluoridated.

.

My Particular Concern Is The Effect Of Fluorides

On The Thyroid Gland

Perhaps I may remind you about thyroid disease. The thyroid gland produces hormones which control our metabolism – the rate at which we burn our fuel. Deficiency is relatively common, much more than is generally accepted by many medical authorities: a figure of 1:4 or 1:3 by mid life is more likely. The illness is insidious in its onset and progression. People become tired, cold, overweight, depressed, constipated; they suffer arthritis, hair loss, infertility, atherosclerosis and chronic illness. Sadly, it is poorly diagnosed and poorly managed by very many doctors in this country.

What concerns me so deeply is that in concentrations as low as 1ppm, fluorides damage the thyroid system on 4 levels.

1. The enzyme manufacture of thyroid hormones within the thyroid gland itself. The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and liothyronine (T3), is slowed.

2. The stimulation of certain G proteins from the toxic effect of fluoride (whose function is to govern uptake of substances into each of the cells of the body), has the effect of switching off the uptake into the cell of the active thyroid hormone.

3. The thyroid control mechanism is compromised. The thyroid stimulating hormone output from the pituitary gland is inhibited by fluoride, thus reducing thyroid output of thyroid hormones.

4. Fluoride competes for the receptor sites on the thyroid gland which respond to the thyroid stimulating hormone; so that less of this hormone reaches the thyroid gland and so less thyroid hormone is manufactured.

These damaging effects, all of which occur with small concentrations of fluoride, have obvious and easily identifiable effects on thyroid status. The running down of thyroid hormone means a slow slide into hypothyroidism. Already the incidence of hypothyroidism is increasing as a result of other environmental toxins and pollutions together with wide spread nutritional deficiencies.

.

141 Million Europeans Are At Risk

One further factor should give us deep anxiety. Professor Hume of Dundee, in his paper given earlier this year to the Novartis Foundation, pointed out that iodine deficiency is growing worldwide. There are 141 million Europeans are at risk; only 5 European countries are iodine sufficient. UK now falls into the marginal and focal category. Professor Hume recently produced figures to show that 40% of pregnant women in the Tayside region of Scotland were deficient by at least half of the iodine required for a normal pregnancy. A relatively high level of missing, decayed, filled teeth was noted in this non-fluoridated area, suggesting that the iodine deficiency was causing early hypothyroidism which interferes with the health of teeth. Dare one speculate on the result of now fluoridating the water?

.

Fluoride Displaces Iodine In The Body

These figures would be worrying enough, since they mean that iodine deficiency, which results in hypothyroidism (thyroid hormone cannot be manufactured without iodine) is likely to affect huge numbers of people. What makes it infinitely worse, is that fluorine, being a halogen (chemically related to iodine), but very much more active, displaces iodine. So that the uptake of iodine is compromised by the ejection, as it were, of the iodine by fluorine. To condemn the entire population, already having marginal levels of iodine, to inevitable progressive failure of their thyroid system by fluoridating the water, borders on criminal lunacy.

I would like to place a scenario in front of those colleagues who favour fluoridation. A new pill is marketed. Some trials not all together satisfactory, nevertheless, show a striking improvement in dental caries. Unfortunately, it has been found to be thyrotoxic, mutagenic, immunosuppressive, cause arthritis and infertility in comparatively small doses over a relatively short period of time.

.

Do you think it should be marketed?

Fluoridation of the nation’s water supply will do little for our dental health; but will have catastrophic effects on our general health. We cannot, must not, dare not, subject our nation to this appalling risk.

.

…—————…

Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield obtained his Medical degrees in 1960 at Guy’s Hospital London. He left the NHS in 1980 to specialise in thyroid illnesses drawing inspiration from the work of infamous Dr Broda Barnes, at the Foundation that bears his name, Connecticut, USA. He has been a medical practitioner for over forty years specialising in metabolic disorders during which time he became a leading authority in the UK for thyroid and adrenal management. For over twenty years he also ran a successful private clinic and became a nation-wide leading authority on thyroid and adrenal dysfunction, but clashed with establishment medicine in the management of thyroid illness. He is the author of The Great Thyroid Scandal (see opposite page), he currently lectures at nutritional colleges in London as well as conducting his own teaching seminars. Barry will shortly be opening a diagnostic clinic in the UK for thyroid and adrenal disorders where he will provide advice on diagnosis and treatment with special interests in nutritional aspects. For further information contact: Dr B Durrant- Peatfield 36A High St, Mersham, Redhill Surrey, RH1 3EA.

Tel: 44 (0)1737 215462 <mailto:Email: info@drpeatfield.com>Email: info@drpeatfield.com

Web site: http://www.drpeatfield.com

.

References:

L Goldemberg – La Semana Med 28:628 (1921) – cited in Wilson RH, DeEds F -”The Synergistic Action Of Thyroid On Fluoride Toxicity” Endocrinology 26:851 (1940).

G Litzka – “Die experimentellen Grundlagen der Behandlung des Morbus Basedow und der Hyperthyreose mittels Fluortyrosin”

Med Wochenschr 63:1037-1040 (1937) (discusses the basis of the use of fluorides in anti-thyroid medication, documents activity on liver, inhibition of glycolysis, etc.).

W May – “Behandlung der Hypothyreosen einschlieblich des schweren genuinen Morbus Basedow mit Fluor” Klin Wochenschr 16: 562 – 564 (1937).

Sarin: (GB: isopropyl methylphosono-fluoridate) is a colorless, odorless volatile liquid, soluble in water, first synthesized at IG Farben in 1938. It kills mainly through inhalation.

Cyclosarin (GF) and Thiosarin are variants. Pennsylvania Department of Health

http://www.dsf.health.state.pa.us/health/cwp/view.asp?a=171&q=233740

Sarin: (GB: CH3-P(=O)(-F)(-OCH(CH3)2)

Source: A FOA Briefing Book on Chemical Weapons http://www.opcw.org/resp/html/nerve.html Gerhard Schrader, a chemist at IG Farben, was given the task of developing a pesticide. Two years later a phosphorus compound with extremely high toxicity was produced for the first time.

IG Farben: “…the board of American IG Farben had three directors from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most influential of the various Federal Reserve Banks. American IG Farben. also had interlocks with Standard Oil of New Jersey, Ford Motor Company, Bank of Manhattan (later to become the Chase Manhattan Bank), and AEG. (German General Electric) Source: Moody’s Manual of Investments; 1930, page 2149.”

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_02.htm

At a later date, Namaste will be publishing a more in-depth article outlining the devastating affects that fluoride, aspartame and MSG have on the endocrine system.

Dr Durrant-Peatfield will be answering frequently asked questions on thyroid illness in Namaste’s next issue. Send your questions to us preferably by

email to: info@namastepublishing.co.uk

Has anyone read the book, The Great Thyroid Scandal by

Dr. Barry Durrant-Peatfield?

.

Does anyone know about the doctor? I saw that he has

had his license revoked for about 18 months due to

what his colleagues call bad medicine.

Seems like a mark in his favor

Barry

bxpansive@…

Unethical Pressure – Colin

on

Incomplete Dissociation of Silicofluorides

Under Physiological Conditions

The Kinetics of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition and the Influence of Fluoride and Fluoride Complexes on the Permeability of Erythrocyte Membranes

Dissertation to receive Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Hamburg

By Johannes Westendorf

Hamburg, Germany – 1975

Reviewer:

Prof Dr. A. Knappwost

Co-Reviewers:

Prof, Dr, Malomy Prof,

DR, Strehlow Prof,

Dr. Hilz Prof

Dr. Gercken

The oral defense took place on 2/18/1975

A Foreword intended to place the Westendorf research in current context indicating why it is relevant to a wide range of contemporary health and behavioral problems has been prepared by Myron J. Coplan and Roger D. Masters whose credentials are also attached.

Mikecoplan@aol.com Roger.D.Masters@Dartmouth.edu

Foreword by

MJ Coplan and RD Masters, April 2001

Westendorf’s 30-year PhD research work is important for reasons beyond its specific scientific findings. First his work was motivated by the assumption that ingested fluoride was beneficial. Knappwost, his thesis supervisor, believed that fluoride in saliva afforded protection against tooth decay and was seeking a means of enhancing the output of fluoride-bearing saliva for that purpose. Therefore, it can hardly be said that Westendorf’s work was biased against water fluoridation.

Second, Westendorf’s research was based on knowledge that fluoride ion is an enzyme inhibitor. Indeed, that feature of ingested fluoride seemed to offer multiple benefits. Knappwost believed that ingested fluoride, by inhibiting cholinesterase, could achieve both greater expression of total saliva and an increase in its fluoride content. The research of his student quite logically examined different forms of ingestible fluoride for their effect on several variants of cholinesterase, Westendorf’s results showed that fluoride in the form of the silicofluoride complex (SiF), as well as several other complexes, was a substantially more powerful inhibitor of cholinesterases than the simple fluoride ion released by sodium fluoride (NaF). This was simply an objective finding.

Third, to account for the more powerful inhibition effect of SiF, Westendorf studied the course of its fluoride release in fine detail. He found that under physiological conditions, dissociation was no more than 66% in the concentration range considered “optimum” for fluoridated water by United States health authorities. If the released fluoride came uniformly from all of the initially injected SiF, the molar concentration of the residual non-dissociated species would be the same as that of the injected SiF. It would follow that dilution of fluosilicic acid to a nominal 1 part per million of free fluoride in water at pH 7.4 induces each [SiF6]2- to release 4 fluorides to be replaced by hydroxyls. The partially dissociated residue would be the ion [SiF2(OH)4]2- which would then be present in the water at the same concentration as the originally introduced SiF. The biological consequences of ingesting such a species are probably not innocuous, with enzyme inhibition being only one of several possibilities.

Westendorf’s visualized course of SiF dissociation, based on actual experimental evidence, is materially at odds with the dissociation route assumed by US EPA and CDC, based on theory. In judging the reliability of the theoretical approach and claims of health safety presented by these government agencies, one should be aware that both the nature of the complicated mixture called “fluosilicic acid” and the course of its dissociation upon dilution remain unresolved despite nearly a century of research. Two recent documents demonstrate this. In the first, an expert in the recovery of fluoride in phosphate rock processing, addressing a group of his peers at a 1999 International Fertilizer Association (a) meeting held in the former USSR, said:

“The chemical formula of fluosilicic acid is H2SiF6. However, things are not as simple as that due to the fact that rarely is fluosilicic acid present as pure H2SiF6. . . There are well reported references to the existence of H2SiF6 SiF4. . . Hereon in this presentation, FSA [fluosilicic acid] means a mixture of HF, H2SiF6 and H2SiF6 SiF4.”

This is a highly significant statement coming from someone who ought to know the subject under discussion. It means that a key intermediate dissociation product postulated by CDC and EPA theories to be transient species only fleetingly after SiF is introduced into the water at the water plant, may be present in concentrated fluosilicic acid before dissociation begins. Such a starting condition would cast serious doubt on the postulated theoretical equations predicting “virtually 100%” dissociation that supposedly “guarantee” no adverse health effects from undissociated SiF residues in drinking water treated with these compounds.

Equally important is a letter (b) dated March 15, 2001, written by the Director of the EPA Water Supply and Water Resources Division, which concludes with the statement:

“In January, representatives from the [EPA] Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Office of Science and Technology and Ground Water and Drinking Water met to discuss a number of water related issues including Fluoridation. Several fluoride chemistry related research needs were identified including; (1) accurate and precise values for the stability constants of mixed fluorohydroxo complexes with aluminum (III), iron (III) and other metal cations likely to be found under drinking water conditions and (2) a kinetic model for the dissociation and hydrolysis of fluosilicates and stepwise equilibrium constants for the partial hydrolysis products.”

In plain English, senior EPA research staff now believe their staff needs to go back to the lab for at least another year or two to find out if the EPA’s longstanding confidence in the “virtually total” dissociation of SiFs may have been misplaced. Whatever the outcome may be of their new study of SiF dissociation, it is clear the EPA does not intend to perform animal tests to ascertain health effects of chronic ingestion of SiF treated water under controlled conditions.

Animal experiments according to accepted toxicology testing protocols would be the logical way to examine health effects of enzyme inhibition by SiF that Westendorf observed at the cellular level. Three published reports bearing directly on this matter should be noted. In the early 1930s, the Ohio agriculture department wanted to develop a replacement for bone meal as a source of calcium and phosphorus in the feed ration of farm animals. Natural “rock phosphate,” comprising largely calcium phosphate, was a candidate, but it was known to carry about 2 to 5% of fluoride bound in some chemical form. Thus it was necessary to study possible adverse health effects due to ingestion of fluoride from several sources.

A report (c) issued in 1935 compared health effects primarily from calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride, and rock phosphate. Highly significant for present purposes was one small experiment that included sodium fluosilicate. With equal dosage and equal amounts of fluoride retained, rats fed sodium fluosilicate excreted three times as much non-retained fluoride in urine as rats fed sodium fluoride, who eliminated more fluoride in feces. Apparently about three times as much fluoride had crossed the gut/blood membrane into the bloodstream from SiF than from NaF. A second report, this one by the US PHS, (d) was published about ten years after water fluoridation had begun. The study compared the time, starting from the date of fluoridation either with sodium fluosilicate or sodium fluoride, for urinary fluoride level to reach equilibrium with ingested fluoride from fluoridated water. The study populations were boys and men. There were two noteworthy results. First, for either fluoridating agent, urine fluoride levels in older males reached equilibrium with ingested fluoride levels sooner than in younger males. The longer time for young males can be accounted for by the fact that the weight of the older males was essentially constant, while the younger males were adding bone mass over the several years of the experiment. The bodies of younger males were therefore providing a time-related increase in storage compartment capacity for ingested fluoride.

A more important finding was that for the younger males it took longer for their urine level of fluoride to reach equilibrium with ingested water fluoride from SiF than from NaF. Apparently in growing boys SiF fluoride must have been metabolizing differently from NaF fluoride.

A third relevant study (e), conducted around the same time as Westendorf’s research, involved feeding water treated with the same fluosilicic acid used to fluoridate the local water supply to squirrel monkeys for up to 14 months. Morphological and cytochemical effects were reported for the liver, kidney, and nervous system due to ingestion of 1-5 ppm of fluoride in water. Although the study did not compare results from exposure to NaF, the report emphasizes the fact that the kidneys of monkeys ingesting SiF treated drinking water “Éshowed significant cytochemical changes, especially in the animals on 5 PPM fluoride intake in their drinking water.”

The report later observes that work by others in the 1940s and 1950s “Éshowed that fluoride has an inhibitive effect on the activity of succinate dehydrogenase. These studies indicate that under the effect of fluoride intake, a serious metabolic distress may develop in the kidneys.” In concluding, the report notes that “Earlier, some workers had also indicated that inorganic fluorides have a strongly adverse effect on the activity of some enzymes and of these, mitochondrial enzymes, acid and alkaline phosphatases and ATP-utilizing enzymes and aldolase may be the most affected (Batenburg & Van den Bergh, 1972; Katz & Tenenhouse, 1973).”

This study of squirrel monkeys is a rare (possibly singular) American experiment with SiF. If the research team had known that Westendorf was finding greater effects of silicofluoride than sodium fluoride on enzyme activity at virtually the same moment, the U.S. study might have taken a different turn. In any case, two of these three American experiments compared effects from NaF and SiF, and both found that SiF and NaF do not produce the same effect. Moreover, all three studies found the strongest adverse clinical effect of silicofluoride in the kidney. But damage to the kidney is hardly the only possible health effect of ingested SiF.

“Life” involves an incalculable number of chemically active molecules initiating, continuing and terminating a bewildering variety of chemical events. Throughout this panoply of events and in every organ where they occur, various enzymes play crucial roles. A particularly important example is the quenching by enzymes of muscle stimulation induced by the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh), an ester comprising the acetyl moiety bound by an oxygen bridge to the choline molecule. The principal “quenching” enzyme, acetylycholinesterase (AChE), comes in several variations and the ACh/Ache dyads operate in numerous ways in many organs. Related enzymes called pseudocholinesterases are found in serum and include the butyrylcholinesterases.

At latest count over 7,000 enzymes have been detected and catalogued, (f) and there is no reason to suppose that the effect of SiF is limited only to a sub-class. In any event, one would be hard put to identify a more important enzyme subclass than “esterases,” which cleave molecules called “esters” at the right time and place in the healthy organism. While a great deal is known about many of the ways these enzymes function, there are still large knowledge gaps to be filled. To do just that, an extensive survey of contemporary knowledge about cholinesterases has recently been published (g) by an employee of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances in EPA’s Health Effects Division. The published article carries this disclaimer:

“Although this article was written as part of the author’s official duties as an EPA scientist, the opinions and conclusions expressed in it are his alone, and do not reflect the position of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Dementi’s review deserves a great deal of attention, so one wonders why it was not published as official work of the EPA. The EPA has acknowledged (h) that it has no data on health effects of the SiFs, shown by Westendorf to be a significant cholinesterase inhibitor and being added to the diets of 140 million people at the rate of 200,000 tons a year. The many different biochemical responses this dosage can be expected to elicit may well support a recently published (l) hypothesis proposing an explanation for Fibromyalgia, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It is not at all unlikely that chronic ingestion of SiF treated water also bears on ADD/ADHD, teen violence, and even some of the ambiguities associated with Gulf War Syndrome.

Common sense suggests that wide-spread, albeit clinically vague, adverse health effects should be expected when a strong enzyme inhibitor is added to the daily diets of over half of US residents, as would be the case given the results of the research work described herein. With millions of people suffering from one or another poorly understood condition with likely roots in environmental toxins, it is time to re-examine entrenched governmental doctrines in the light of Westendorf’s research which, while 30 years old, has received little or no attention heretofore.

(Read Westendorf’s thesis)

Notes and Credits

NOTE 1. The following English language text, translated from the German in which it was written by Dr. Johannes Westendorf, (Toxicology Department, Eppendorf-Hamburg University Hospital) was submitted to him in March 2001 for his comments with a series of questions. This was his response.

“With respect to my thesis I finished this kind of work in 1976, when I changed to the Medical faculty, where I still am. After my thesis I continued the work on fluoride for another year and we especially worked on the stability of hexafluoro complexes of silicon and iron. We used radioactive isotopes, such as F-18 and Si-31 . . . when we analyzed the electrophoretic mobility. In the presence of silicon and iron, fluoride ions showed a different mobility compared to fluoride [ion] itself. Unfortunately I have no access to these old experiments and we did not publish it.

. . . During hydrolysis we got a continuous shifting of the mobility, indicating that the different forms of hydrolysis with 2-6 fluorine at the Si are present at the same time, ending up at the more stable form of Si(OH)4F2. If we increased the pH to 9 and higher, a total hydrolysis occurs.

…In answering your final paragraph I can say:

1) The English translation of my thesis is excellent.

2) I have no evidence from others that contradict to my old findings.

3) Your idea of the enzyme inhibition by the complex could be right, however slight changes in the pH, caused by the hydrolysis of hexafluorosilicate, would also result in an increased inhibition of acetylcholinesterase. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the toxicology of hexafluorosilicate should be investigated because it may be different from simple fluoride.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you. Johannes Westendorf” Westendorf@uke.uni-hamburg.de

NOTE II. Although the main body of the Westendorf thesis was not published in a circulating journal as such, three short articles based on this work were. Copies of the two most relevant ones appear at the end of the English text of the full thesis.

CREDITS: The thesis was called to our attention and photocopied from the document on file in the archives at the University of Hamburg by Peter Meiers (Weissenburgerstr. 28, D-66113 Saarbrucken; the translation was prepared by Jakob von Moltke (Dartmouth College); final proof editing was done by Myron Coplan with the aid of Norman Mancuso.

References:

a) Smith, PA. “History of Fluorine Recovery Processes”: Paper delivered at the IFA Technical Sub-Committee and Committee Meeting in Novgorord, Russia; Sept 15-17, 1999 (http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/publicat/techpprs/tech0999.asp)

b) Gutierrez, SB. (signed by Thurnau RC); Letter from the Director of the US EPA National Risk Management Laboratory to Roger D. Masters, dated March 15, 2001.

c) Kick CH, et al. “Fluorine in Animal Nutrition”; Bulletin 558, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station; Wooster, Ohio; November 1935; pp 1-77.

d) Zipkin, I et al. “Urinary Fluoride Levels Associated with Use of Fluoridated Water”; Pub Hlth Rpts 71 PP 767-772; 1956.

e) Manocha SL, et al. “Cytochemical response of kidney, liver and nervous system to fluoride ions in drinking water”; Histochemical Journal, 7 (1975); 343-355.

f) On February 7, 2001, the Brookhaven Registry of Enzymes listed 7,164 enzymes on their web-site, http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/enzymes/

g) Dementi, B. “Cholinesterase Literature Review and Comment”; Pesticides, People and Nature; 1 (2); 59-126; 1999.

h) Letter to the Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, US House Committee on Science, from EPA Assistant Administrator J. Charles Fox, June 23, 1999.

i) Laylander, J. “A Nutrient/Toxin Interaction Theory of the Etiology and Pathogenesis of Chronic Pain-Fatigue Syndromes: Parts I & II,” Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; 5(1), 67-126, 1999.

Synopsis of Foreward Authors’ Relevant Professional History

Roger D. Masters, Ph.D., is President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government Emeritus at Dartmouth College. For the last 30 years, he has studied the implications of modern biological science in understanding human behavior. He serves as editor of the “Biology and Social Life” section of Social Science Information (an international journal published at the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme in Paris) and member of the Council of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. He is a published expert in the history of Renaissance politics, especially the contribution of Niccolo Machiavelli.

After undergraduate studies at Harvard (where his instructors included Henry Kissinger), he served in the US Army before graduate studies at the University of Chicago. Despite his work in other areas, he retained a strong professional interest in military and international affairs. In addition to writing The Nation is Burdened: American Foreign Policy in a Changing World (Knopf, 1967), he served as US Cultural Attache to France. Among his many other books are The Political Philosophy of Rousseau (Princeton, 1968), The Nature of Politics (Yale, 1989), Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the Science of Power (Notre Dame Press, 1996) and Fortune is a River: Leonardo da Vinci and Niccolo Machiavelli’s Magnificent Dream to Change the Course of Florentine History (Free Press, 1998). Before turning to issues of environmental pollution, health and behavior, he also published widely on the effectiveness of leaders’ nonverbal behavior on television (working with colleagues on experiments in France and Germany as well as in the US).

Among many other publications on biological factors in human behavior, he was co-editor (with Michael T McGuire) of The Neurotransmitter Revolution, Serotonin, Social Behavior and the Law (Southern Illinois University Press, 1994); senior author (with Brian Hone and Anil Doshi) of “Environmental Pollution, Neurotoxicity, and Criminal Violence,” in J. Rose, ed., Aspects of Environmental Toxicity (London: Gordon & Breach, 1998), pp. 13-45; and co-author (with MJ Coplan) of “Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity,” International Journal of Environmental Studies, 56: 435-449 (July-August 1999) as well as of other publications.

In addition to an earlier teaching position in political science at Yale, he served as US Cultural Attache to France, Fellow of the Hastings Center, Chair of the Executive Committee of the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research (a foundation specialized in linking biology to the study and practice of law), a visiting professor at Yale Law School and Vermont Law School, and a consultant to Upjohn Corp, to the Commissioner of Corrections of Vermont, and to several agencies of the Federal Government. As a result of these varied professional activities, Dr. Masters has had extensive experience applying new scientific research in biology of human behavior to the establishment of successful government policies.

Myron J. Coplan, PE is a consultant in chemical engineering and chemical sciences, doing business at “Intellequity” after retirement in 1987 as Vice President and General Manager of the Albany International Co. Membrane Development Venture. The fruits of this latter activity include a product line of membranes now used by a major multi-national company to supply a market for industrial gases measured in the $ billions.

Coplan’s working career started during WWII first as a civilian employee of the US War Department and then as a production chemist for a firm supplying the military with two crucial commodities: DDT, without which the S. Pacific campaign might not have been successful, and a wire insulating chemical, without which the US Navy’s capacity to deal with disastrous convoy damage by Nazi mines might not have been achieved. He was one of the few civilians deferred throughout WWII for his critical occupation status.

Post WWII, while pursuing his own advanced degree studies, Coplan headed an academic chemical engineering department, supervising doctoral research of others. This was followed by a 37-year relationship with an independent consulting and r/d firm specializing in material sciences (chemistry, polymer systems, statistical analysis, physics, fluid dynamics, statistical mechanics, etc.) which eventually became the central research laboratory of a large multinational corporation.

Coplan is recognized in American Men of Science, holds 32 patents, is a member of several professional organizations and has published many technical papers. He authored a series of bench-mark articles on mathematical probability statistics and wrote a manual on statistical quality control for internal corporate use. He also personally carried out a wide range of laboratory research and engineering tasks and supervised the work of as many as 35 other professionals of many disciplines. He has been consulted by research staffs and corporate executives from some of the world’s largest corporations. To mention only one example, over about ten years he had 28 assignments from GE.

His services were also engaged by NASA, USDA, EPA, Interior Dept, Post Office Dept and several other government agencies, including virtually every branch of the DOD. In these assignments, Coplan was cleared on a “need-to-know” high level security basis several times for consulting and research work in such diverse fields as “decoy” chaff used to frustrate radar-tracked anti-aircraft fire to protective measures for ground-troops at risk of exposure to chemical, biological and nuclear attack.

In due course, Coplan’s activities became more focused on the interests of the large company which in 1972 had acquired the firm he had joined in 1951. After 1972, he took on the corporate mission of identifying and exploiting science-based new business opportunities, including direct management of scientific entrepreneurial r/d for new products and technologies. He became Senior Corporate Scientist and then Vice President and General Manager of a membrane development venture that eventually licensed his patented inventions to other large corporations. Membrane treatment of phosphate waste pond waters was among the applications studied. Coplan, therefore, has first-hand knowledge of the processes from which the principal water fluoridating agents (the silicofluorides) are derived.

www.fluoridealert.org/westendorf-foreword.htm

How to Recognize and Avoid the Devastating Effects of Fluoride

by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis

Health Action Press

6439 Taggart Road

Delaware, Ohio 43015

First edition published 1983

Third edition published 1993

Excerpts from the book, with permission from the author.

Chapter 17 . . . The Conspiracy: The Second Generation

At the center of the second-generation conspiracy is John Small. While he is only a high school graduate with no college degree, his credentials do include six years as an information officer for a government department on chemical warfare. He is now and has been the U.S. Public Health Service ‘expert’ on fluoridation since the 1960s.

Mr. Small’s functions at the USPHS include the writing and printing of anonymous memos, on USPHS letterheads, covering up the harmful effects of fluoridation, and distributing these memos to promoters of fluoridation, and when necessary, getting his hands on memos and reports put out by the government (even the White House) and rewriting them so they no longer express their original concerns about the toxicity and ineffectiveness of fluoridation. Most of the information supplied to dentists and physicians concerning fluoridation comes either directly or indirectly from Mr. Small. He is the cover-up supervisor, an expert relied upon by the USPHS to supply answers to Congress.

He also has the task of harassing, intimidating, and destroying anyone whose publications, utterances, or activities work to the detriment of fluoridation. In some cases, he calls upon other divisions of the Public Health Service to ‘neutralize’ studies or articles showing adverse effects of fluoridation.

In 1969, when Dr. Yiamouyiannis was a biochemical editor for Chemical Abstracts Service, the world’s largest chemical information center and the largest division of the American Chemical Society, he began to publicly express his concern about the health risks associated with fluoridation.

Mr. Small contacted his employer and communicated his displeasure with the statements of Dr. Yiamouyiannis. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was notified by his employer several times and finally told that if he spoke out against fluoridation one more time, he would be fired. He was told that $1.1 million in federal funding was in jeopardy if Chemical Abstracts Service did not shut him up.

After the meeting, his employer wrote to Small, “I have again talked to Dr. Yiamouyiannis and I have again made my position as strong and as clear as possible. He will not repeat this kind of performance and remain as an employee of Chemical Abstracts Service.” Within weeks after Dr. Yiamouyiannis next spoke out against fluoridation, he was put on probation, was told that he would never receive a raise again, and was advised to find another job. He was ultimately forced to resign.

Two years later, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was appointed science director of the National Health Federation where he was able to devote more time on the fluoridation issue.

During the 1970s, the fluoridation battle was stalemated. On one side, those opposing fluoridation were winning elections to stop fluoridation. On the other side, there was the force and money and power of the USPHS, the ADA, and industry that kept fluoridation going. In 1978, Yiamouyiannis served as a consultant and witness in a court case in Pennsylvania that proved fluoridation was harmful and banned it. The fluoridation promoters had to do something.

ADA’s White Paper

In 1979, the American Dental Association came out with a “White Paper on Fluoridation” characterizing fluoridation opponents as either “uninformed or misinformed” or “self-styled experts whose qualifications for speaking out on such a scientific issue as fluoridation were practically nonexistent or whose motivation was self-serving.” It suggested that dentists should propagandize politicians while they are in the dental chair. The White Paper proposed setting up the conspiracy between the American Dental Association, Centers for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Health Statistics, National Institute of Dental Research, state dental societies, and state dental directors for “identification of communities where the timing for political action is favorable as well as unfavorable and where the opponents of fluoridation are considering the initiation of referendums” and for “promoting fluoridation.”

It urged that “individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports . . . on fluoridation to be effective participants in the promotion program” and that the ADA should cooperate with the USPHS to get EPA to soften its statements regarding fluoride as a contaminant. It suggested behavioral studies to “help anticipate the behavior of opponents of fluoridation,” e.g. studies that would determine “Why would some persons deny the life-long health benefits of fluoridation to children? What kind of mentality would reject the opinion of those who are qualified by education, training and experience . . .”

It suggested that ADA’s responses to opponents of fluoridation should be prefaced by: “The ADA reiterated its longstanding support of fluoridation . . . Numerous studies have shown . . . There is no evidence of any relation . . . Investigators have observed . . . .” It suggested that “The advice of behavioral scientists should be sought with regard to more realistic, convincing rebuttals” and that “The ADA should produce a step-by-step manual for the development and conduct of a fluoridation campaign . . . The ADA should provide field assistance if needed in a fluoridation campaign or cooperate with the [US]PHS and state health departments in providing such assistance.”

Strategies of the Second Generation

This conspiracy solidified in the formation of a planning committee to organize a symposium (sponsored by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), USPHS, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Care and Assistance, Maternal and Child Health Division, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Prevention Services, Dental Disease Prevention Activity, the W. K Kellogg Foundation, Delta Dental Health Plan of Michigan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, and Medical Products Laboratories). This symposium took place at the University of Michigan on August 9-10, 1983.

Members of the planning committee included Mr. Small, Mr. James Collins of the CDC, Dr. Stephen Corbin of the USPHS, Dr. Robert Mecklenburg, Chief Dental Officer of the USPHS, Dr. William Warren, Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Joel Boriskin, chairman of the American Dental Association’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, Dr. Wilbert Fletke of the ADA, Dr. Anthony Kiser of the ADA, Ms. M. Lisa Watson of the ADA, Ms. Martha Liggett of the American Association of Dental Schools, Dr. Michael Easley, formerly of the Ohio Dept. of Health and CDC, and Dr. Ray Kuthy of the Illinois Department of Health, who were and/or are some of the central figures in the conspiracy.

The stated purpose of the meeting was to “discuss the status of organized opposition to fluoridation; to analyze probable motives influencing the anti-fluoride movement; to assess the need for a national fluoridation strategy; to develop political and legal strategies for the defense and promotion of fluoridation; and to evaluate past legal and political pro-fluoridation initiatives, focusing on the defeats as well as the victories.”

An examination of the seminar speakers, their affiliation, and the content of their presentations provides a further look into the “un-American” nature of this taxpayer-supported event.

Speakers included:

Dr. William T. Jarvis, a member of the board of advisors of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). He spoke on the “Psychology of Anti-fluoridationism.” With regard to those opposing fluoridation, he stated: “I do not believe in providing such people a public platform from which they can create confusion and doubt about fluoridation . . . For several years I have put on fluoridation debates in my dental classes, taking surveys before and after to determine attitudes toward fluoridation. Invariably, each class became more anti-fluoridationist as a result of the debate.”

Dr. Sheldon Rovin, a member of ACSH and coauthor with Stephen Barrett of the book, The Tooth Robbers, a book defaming anti-fluoridationists. He spoke on how to win fluoridation battles through the political process, pointing out that “if it is at all humanly possible, the referendum should be avoided.” In the discussion following, Dr. Myron Allukian asked what could be done to stop anti-fluoridationists from getting signatures to put fluoridation on the ballot.

Dr. Stephen Corbin of the USPHS. As chairman of his workshop, he reported that his committee felt “the lead entities, namely the U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental Association” should accept a plan “to close the ‘windows of vulnerability’ in our defense.” He suggested avoiding trials based on the merits of fluoridation. Finally, he suggested that a mandatory state fluoridation law be developed. During the following discussion, Dr. Easley suggested a conspiracy to deny those seeking relief through the courts their right to due process.

Dr. Dennis H. Leverett of the University of Rochester. As chairman of his workshop, he reported that his committee felt that fluoridation was “a political rather than a scientific situation” and encouraged research on the adverse effects of fluoridation “that will presumably show no effect or will show equivocal results.”

Dr. D. Scott Navarro of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, as chairman of his workshop, suggested that the cost of litigation defending fluoridation should be borne by taxpayers, professional organizations, health groups, universities, and research institutes.

Colleen Wulf of the Ohio Department of Health. As chairman of her workshop, she reported that her committee suggested the formation of a nonprofit organization which would coordinate with the CDC and ADA, pointing out that CDC has already drafted promotional materials for fluoride and that the ADA and the USPHS had already formed the Ad Hoc Committee to Plan for the Legal Defense of Community Water Fluoridation. She suggested that the name of the new group might be something like “Coalition for Improved Dental Health or something similar.”

ASLAP

As a matter of fact, the name of the group ended up being the American Oral Health Institute, incorporated in the state of Ohio on February 19, 1985 as a not-for-profit corporation. In 1985 and 1988, this organization came out with the first and second editions of a book, titled Abuse of the Scientific Literatune in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet (ASLAP), edited by Coleen A. Wulf, Karen F. Hughes, Kathleen G. Smith, and Michael W. Easley. The 215-page second edition of this book attacked the 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1988 editions of a very well referenced Question and Answer pamphlet titled Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation by Dr. Yiamouyiannis that was effectively being used to fight fluoridation.

The preparation of this book was a collaborative effort of 18 federal and state health officials who were promoting fluoridation. Those with an asterisk after their name were invited to or attended the University of Michigan on August 9-10, 1983 symposium discussed above. There was not a single scientist among them: 10 were dental hygienists (Colleen A. Wulf*, Karen F. Hughes*, Kathleen G. Smith*, Linda S. Crossett*, Elizabeth King, Sharon Pierce, Ruth Nowjak-Raymer, Beverly Wargo, Geraldine Wirthman, and Karen Zinner), 2 were dentists (Michael Easley* and Elizabeth Bernard), 5 had degrees in public relations, education, psychology, or public health (James Collins*, Taimi M. Carnahan*, Claire Gelband, Judy Harvey, and Helen S. Hill), and one had no college degree at all (John Small*). The person who wrote the introduction was a psychiatrist (Stephen Barrett). . .

page 186

Consumer Reports

With the help of fluoride promoters, Consumer Reports prepared and published a two-part article on fluoride in its July and August 1978 issues. The writer of these articles was Mr. Joseph Botta. Mr. Botta holds a Master of Arts Degree in English, but no scientific degree. In this article he passed along the same lies and slander used by the promoters to the trusting readers of Consumer Reports.

The Consumer Reports article on fluoridation is the most artfully written piece incorporating the lies and slander necessary to discredit the research and personalities of scientists showing that fluoridation is harmful. It is by far the Number One article distributed by the government bureaucrats in their promotion of fluoridation. This is not because government bureaucrats are not skillful liars. It is because, by having their spoon-fed material rewritten and published by a “consumer” magazine, their lies become more believable. Dr. William Bock of the Centers for Disease Control thought it was so good that he ordered 10,000 reprints and paid for them with federal tax dollars. The American Dental Association gave Mr. Botta an award for writing it.

This Consumer Reports article was used by U.S. Public Health Service bureaucrats to provide a “scientific” foundation for their views on fluoridation. The situation has become ludicrous. For example, Dr. Vernon Houk, the director of the Environmental Center for Health of the Centers for Disease Control, traveled all the way from Atlanta, Georgia, to St. Paul, Minnesota, to give his “expert” testimony by reading from the Consumer Reports article.

The “Big Lie” in this article and the phrase most often quoted from it is the claim that “The simple truth is that there’s no “scientific controversy” over the safety of fluoridation.” In 1990, Dr. Edward Groth III, the technical director for Consumer Reports, nullified this claim by stating: “The point is that this is a legitimate scientific controversy. Proponents of fluoridation insist that there are no grounds for controversy at all, and with that, I totally disagree.” This hasn’t stopped proponents from quoting the same phrase to this day.

Who is Stephen Barrett?

Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, helped in the preparation of the 1978 Consumer Reports article and of the 1988 book Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet. He has close ties with the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the U.S. Public Health Service. He is a recipient of the FDA award for “quack-busting” and is a coauthor, along with William Jarvis and others, of the 1993 book Readers’ Guide to Alternative Health Methods, published by the American Medical Association. In this book, he cites, and gives summaries of, the two publications mentioned above to inform his readers about fluoridation. He is a science and editorial adviser to the American Council on Science and Health.

A glimpse into his character can be gained through his habitual use of words to mean their exact opposite. For example, in an article entitled “Poison Mongers,” Dr. Barrett refers to people who are trying to stop the addition of fluoride, a poison, to the water supply as poison-mongers. Now a monger is one who sells something, e.g. a fishmonger is a person who sells fish. Therefore, it is quite evident that a poison-monger is a person who sells poison. Thus, one opposed to having fluoride added to the water supply is exactly the opposite of a poison-monger. The word usage of Dr. Barrett is comparable to the process called “Newspeak” described in George Orwell’s 1984, where what is true becomes false and what is false becomes true. The first few paragraphs of Dr. Barrett’s article “Poison-Mongers” is the best example of how Dr. Barrett has used “Newspeak.” “In hundreds of American communities citizens have voted against healthier teeth.

“Why?

“They were confused by poison-mongers.

“These alarmists in our society are using confusion and a scare vocabulary as weapons against fluoridation. They are cheating all of us, but especially our children.

“The benefits of fluoridation are supported by 10,000 scientific studies which prove the poison-mongers are wrong.

“What do the poison-mongers say?

“Instead of telling you that fluoride is found naturally in all water, they call it a ‘pollutant’.

“Instead of telling you that fluoride is a nutrient essential to life, they call it a poison’.

“Instead of the big truth, that fluoridation has never harmed anyone, they tell the big lie and say it causes hundreds of ailments.”

This article was published in newspapers across the country and was printed in the November 1976 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association. It has also been used by the U.S. Public Health Service in its ‘education’ of Congressmen and in its campaign to get various areas around the country fluoridated.

A closer look into Dr. Barrett’s personality can be obtained by examining his correspondence in 1972 with a group of people in Minnesota interested in stopping fluoridation. On March 8, 1972, Dr. Barrett wrote to one of these people, saying:

“I read your letter in Prevention [magazine] with some interest. There have been other attempts to defeat the fluoridationists in court but most have failed. Before investing money, I would like to have full details of what you plan.”

Thanks, Stephen J. Barrett, MD.”

In another letter to these people, dated April 4, 1972, Dr. Barrett wrote:

“Thank you for your recent telephone call. I am sorry that I could not immediately make the financial commitment which you requested. I know how enthusiastic you are and did not want to raise your hopes until I had a chance to discuss the matter with my group.

I am part of a group which is vitally concerned about fluoridation and which has raised a considerable amount of money. We are not yet sure whether it would be more practical to lobby or to go to court in Pennsylvania. The reason your lawsuit interests us is because it might be more practical for us to join your effort rather than go it alone.

“Thus we would need to have a detailed, written description of the plans of your suit. Our attorneys would then be in a position to study how it would effect Pa. law and also to estimate the chances of your suit being successful. We would also need some detail as to how the Attorney General’s favorable attitude will be used to advantage without this becoming apparent to the American Dental Association.

“We realize you are hesitant to say too much about your plans. On the other hand, we could not make a total commitment unless we had full knowledge of what we would be getting for our investment. We realize this asks a lot of you. On the other hand, we think we have a lot to offer.

“You may be assured that whatever information you send us will be handled with appropriate discretion.

“Sincerely yours, Stephen Barrett, M.D.”

On April 12, 1972, he wrote another letter to Miss Mary Bernhardt, the person at the American Dental Association responsible for promoting fluoridation, and related the following:

“Dear Miss Bernhardt:

“At about 6:20 this evening, I received another phone call from Mike Liptak, the organizer of MOFF [Minnesotans Opposed to Forced Fluoridation]. He said that at 4.30, Judge Gordon McRae ordered an injunction ‘to keep the fluoride out of Brainerd.’

“He said that there were 1500 people who watched the trial and that the judge had cautioned them about becoming emotional. They were very quiet. The case presented by MOFF included an affidavit from Dr. Waldbott. The attorney general of Minnesota defended and was given ‘five days for rebuttal.’ According to Mr. Liptak, who again said he went to school with the attorney general, the attorney general said he ‘would not furnish a rebuttal’. He merely stated that the new Minnesota law required fluoridation.

“Mr. Liptak added that there was an additional legal action scheduled for September. In about two weeks, 500 local citizens were planning to gather at a meeting where the vice-president of a local bank would get from them ‘3 year notes for $50 each’ to help finance the suit. He explained that such mass action would not get them much publicity in Prevention magazine and the National Health Federation. It was their plan to seek further injunctions of this type with eventual overturning of the new state laws. He again asked me for a contribution, even a token one. He added that there might be money left over for use in another state such as Pennsylvania.

“On 5/14, Dr. Gross will try to contact leaders of the pro fluoridation forces in the Minnesota Dental Society and will also call the American Dental Association attorney. We have Mr. Liptak’s confidence and hope to continue to use it to our advantage. Perhaps the dental society should consider entering the suit as a guardian of the children. It might also be helpful if some quick way could be devised to dissuade the Brainerd residents from their imminent investment in foolishness.

“Best wishes, Stephen Barrett, M.D.”

Ironically, Dr. Barrett is a co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud.

Subsequently, he and Mary Bernhardt got together and published a book called The Health Robbers, in which they refer to those opposing fluoridation as health robbers. Excerpts from this book, which consist primarily of the substance of his poison-monger article, were reprinted in newspapers around the country, as well as in Family Health Magazine.

Teaming up with others of his kind, including Drs. Thomas Jukes, Warren Winklestein, and Joel M. Boriskin, Dr. Barrett complained about and tried to prevent Dr. Yiamouyiannis from speaking before the Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley. Together they claimed that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was some disreputable person not deserving a forum at the University of California campus.

In another action, Dr. Barrett, Dr. Boriskin and Dr. William Jarvis, who also is on the board of the National Council Against Health Fraud, wrote letters of complaint to the National News Council concerning an article published in the National Inquirer which pointed out that higher cancer risks were associated with fluoridation.

An indication of how Barrett’s ‘Newspeak’ is passed down the line to local dentists is evident from the experience Dr. Yiamouyiannis had when he was called in by local residents of St. Charles, Missouri for a debate on fluoridation. When Dr. Michael Garvey, a local dentist, heard that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was going to be the opposition speaker, he refused to participate in the debate.

According to the November 12, 1982 St. Charles Post: “Dr. Garvey said American Dental Association Officials had told him, ‘running up against Dr. Yiamouyiannis is not recommended’. The man is well-known as an antifluoridation speaker, Dr. Garvey said. ‘This guy is a terror.’”

page 203

Why haven’t Consumer Reports, Stephen Barrett and others who issue false and defamatory statements been sued for libel and slander? Why haven’t bureaucrats responsible for illegally spending tax monies to influence elections been prosecuted and sent to jail? Why haven’t bureaucrats who have lied in court while under oath been prosecuted for perjury?

In many cases they have. However, when legal action was taken against Consumer Reports, the court didn’t even allow a hearing on the case. The court claimed Consumer Reports’ right to freedom of speech outweighed the plaintiffs right to due process of the law.

When charges concerning Dr. Schneiderman’s alleged perjury in the Pittsburgh court case were brought before the district attorney’s office, they pointed out it would be virtually impossible to convict anyone on perjury and they rarely, if ever, prosecute such cases.

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis was not the first in the controversy over fluoridation. Even such accomplished physicians as Drs Ionel F Rapaport and George L Waldbott were severely oppressed in the early stages of the dispute over fluoridation. Even today, similar reprisals continue, as can be seen in the case of Forsyth Dental Research Center toxicologist Phyllis J Mullenix, phd, and USEPA cancer scientist William Marcus, phd. These actions are described by Professor Paul Connett in his “Fluoride: A Statement of Concern”, which is translated into Japanese in this issue of the Journal of the Japanese Society for Fluoride Research, as “a sickening thread that runs throughout this sorrowful 50-year history of fluoride promotion by the agencies of the US Public Health Service.”

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, biochemist and founder of the Safe Water Foundation, USA, died October 8, 2000, passing away peacefully in sleep at his home in Delaware, Ohio, surrounded by members of his family.

by John A. Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. (1943-2000)

The National Health Federation

P.O. Box 688, Monrovia, California 91017

e-mail: contact-us@thenhf.com

Washington,  D.C.,  20002

Abstract. Vitamin C plays an important role in the orderly deposition of fluoride into various tissues. In higher fluoride areas, Vitamin C increases fluoride excretion and normalizes soft and hard tissue fluoride levels and thus prevents the development of fluorosis. At lower fluoride levels, Vitamin C increases the incorporation of fluoride into teeth. Fluoridation of water systems in not the solution to optimal incorporation of fluoride into teeth; in cases of Vitamin C deficiency, fluoridation may lead to fluorosis.

- 7 August 1974 -

While fluoridation of public water systems has been advocated and encouraged by the national and state public health services, a number of questions concerning the need to add fluoride to public waters have gone unanswered.

Mother’s milk, containing as little as 0.01 to 0.05 ppm fluoride confers as much caries resistance on the child as other infants consuming 1 to 2 ppm fluoride present in commercially prepared formulas (1, 2).

In unfluoridated areas, containing natural fluoride levels of 0.1 to 0.5 ppm and even less, there exists a certain part of the population that are free of caries.  In fact, in Nigeria, a population has been found where over 98% of the population is caries free and the fluoride level in their water is within the above range (3).

In a study at Great Lakes Naval Base, the previous life-long residence of caries-free recruits, were examined to determine if any trace elements could be correlated with the low incidence of caries.

The level of fluoride in the drinking water was not implicated.

It has also been noticed that primitive areas in which the people of the area eat unrefined food have a relatively low caries rate as compared to later when these areas became “civilized” and their diets begin to consist of more refined foods.

In these cases, caries rates often soar and addition of fluoride to the water supply is unable to restore the previous caries rate (5, 6, 7).

In areas and among people where nutrition is poor, mottling is observed at levels below the 1 ppm level used to fluoridate public water systems (at levels as low as 0.4 ppm fluoride).

This has been noticed in India (8) as well as among American Negroes whose mottling rate, in the 1-ppm range is higher than that of whites in the same area.

In a comprehensive study in Japan, the fluoride levels associated with the lowest incidence of caries ranged from 0.2 to 0.4 ppm  (9).

In the 1930’s it was found that the ingestion of fluoride causes scurvy-like symptoms and that this was associated with a decrease in the Vitamin C levels of various tissues. Similarities in the symptoms of scurvy and mild fluorosis were also observed  (10, 11).

In 1954, in an area containing 0.34 to 0.8 ppm fluoride in the water, 23% of the children 4-7 years old exhibited mottling (dental fluorosis). The Vitamin C contents in blood for normal children (without mottling) averaged 0.78 mg %. In the mottled enamel group, the blood Vitamin C levels of most children were extremely low (0.15 to 0.3 mg % in 29%, and 0.0 to 0.15 mg % in 31%. Treatment of these subjects with Vitamin C brought substantial improvement  (12).

In 1964-65, the death rate of guinea pig population in Australia had reached epidemic proportion. (The Guinea pig is the only non-primate known that cannot synthesize its own Vitamin C). This death rate was eventually attributed to slightly higher levels of fluoride in feed pellets. Symptoms of sub-acute Vitamin C deficiency were observed. Fluorosis was diagnosed as the cause of death (13). In rats and mice (both of which synthesize their own Vitamin C, no such death rate was reported. U.S.P.H.S. experiments are performed with rats – they do not use guinea pigs (14). Both in the U.S. (15) and Russia (16) Vitamin C is recognized as being capable of retarding the development of fluorosis.

In guinea pigs exposed to fluoride, Vitamin C was found to normalize altered blood Ca, P, and sugar levels, as well as fluoride levels and ash contents in teeth and bone, and fat glycogen, and fluoride levels in the liver. Fed to men exposed to elevated fluoride uptakes, 100mg of Vitamin C increased the excretion of fluoride from 3-5.5 mg/day to 6-8.5 mg/day (17).

Most important, however, are the following findings:

1.) in guinea pig, fluoride added to the diet cannot make teeth more insoluble (caries-resistant) than the addition of Vitamin C to the diet and-

2.)  in low fluoride areas, dietary supplementation with Vitamin C leads to fluoride deposition in teeth equal to the of higher fluoride areas (18, 19).

In conclusion, it appears that Vitamin C is and essential factor in the deposition of fluoride in, as well as the exclusion of fluoride from, various tissues in the body.

While increased fluoride in teeth had been correlated to caries-resistant of teeth, adequate Vitamin C levels in the diet in areas of 0.1 to 0.5 ppm fluoride (and even 0.01 to 0.05 ppm in the nursing infant) leads to adequate uptake by the teeth. Indeed in animals that manufacture there own Vitamin C (e.g. rats), Fluoride is found not to have a caries protective effect until it reaches levels of 10-20 ppm (14); at these levels it acts as a strong antibacterial in the mouth.

The indiscriminate fluoridation of water systems is not the solution to the problems of tooth decay. In the absence of sufficient Vitamin C, fluoridation will lead to Vitamin C depletion, dental fluorosis, and to abnormal levels of metabolites in blood tissues.

Adequate intake of Vitamin C may explain why people or populations in low fluoride areas can be caries-free.

REFERENCES

(1)           Y. Ericsson, U. Ribelius, Caries Research 5, 78 (1971);

(2)           F.J. McClure, Personal communication.

(3)           A. Sheiham, British Dental Journal 123, 144 (1967;

(4)           J.P. Quinn, NDRI-PR-68-03, (June 1968) 11pp. US Nat.Tech. Inf.

Serv. Reo. No. AD0839 129;

(5)           S.J. Barnaud Journal 2, Med. Trop. 29, 593 (1969);

(6)           J.A. Cran, Australian Dental Journal 2, 277 (1957);

(7)           F. Prader, Schweiz. Mschr. Zahnhk. 71 885 (1961);

(8)           R.S. Nanda, Indian Journal of Dental Research 60, 1470 (1972);

(9)           Y. Imai, Koku Eisei Gakkai Zasshi 22, 144 (1972);

(10)          P.H. Phillips, J. Biol. Chem. 100, (Proc. Am. Soc. Biol. Chem.

Lxxix (1933);

(11)          P.H. Phillips, F.J. Stare, C.A. Elvenhem, J. Biol. Chem. 106, 41

(1934);

(12)          N.A. Ivanova, Voprosy Okhrany Materinstva I Detstva 4, 29 (1959);

(13)          F.F.V. Atkinson, G.C. Hard, Nature 211, 429 (1966);

(14)          N.M. Stiles, National Institute Of Dental Research, Personal

Communication;

(15)          J.W. Suttie, P.H. Phillips, The Pharmacology and Toxicology of Fluorine, J.C. Muhler, M.K. Hine, Ed. (Bloomington, Indiana University

Press, 1959) pp 70-7;

(16)          V.S. Andreeva Voprosy Okhrany Materinstva I Detstva 4, 25 (1959);

(17)          R.D. Gabovich, P.N. Maistruck, Voprosy Pitaniya 22, 32 (1963);

(18)          D. J. Thompson, P. H. Phillips, J. Dent. Res. 45, 845 (1966);

(19)          D. Triers, C.G. Elliott, M.D. Smith, J. K. Dent. Res. 47, 1171

(1968);

(20)          W. Buttner, Advances in fluorine Research and Dental Caries

Prevention, J. L. Hardwick, H.R.Held, K.G. Konig, Ed. (New

York Pergamon Press, 1965) pp. 19-30;

(21)          Hardwick & Bunting, J. Dent. Res. 50 (Supplement, Pt. 1), 1212

(1971)

This Is Our Main Posting:

BRISBANE ANTI-FLUORIDATION ASSOCIATION

1975 – 2010

Originally formed in 1975 in response to the push by the

then State Government who proposed fluoridating

Queensland’s Water Supplies.

On 12 Feb 2008, the Fluoride Bill was introduced to The Parliament of Queensland. The Brisbane Anti – Water Fluoridation Association warned the Premier, but Anna Bligh chose to ignore our letters, documents and the warnings from many other interested groups, and immediately began the promotion of her water fluoridation plan,  featuring a number of false statements.

This web site is to correct many of the misconceptions and myths

that still persist after years of research world wide.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Over view and Implications – sixty years of misdirected funds             page 2

Calcium Fluoride – Caf2. “Natural Fluoride” also a problem                  page 2

Anthropogenic Sources of Fluorides – industrial sources                      page 2

Water Fluoridation – error from the last century                                      page 3

Fluoride Compounds Are – bio-accumulating, synergistic pollutants page 3

Fluoride The Aging Factor – enzymes twisted, all systems damaged   page 4

Commercial Applications –1080 dingo bait, Sarin, Prozac, Rohypnol page 4

Ecocide – Silicofluorides, are untreated toxic industrial wastes            page 5

Recycling Problems – redeemed waste, downstream cities                    page 6

Water Fluoridation & Polonium-210 – in silicofluorides, radioactive page 6

Plants Sensitive to Fluorides – list, bio-markers for air pollution        page 7

Animals Sensitive to Fluorides – List                                                              page 8

Queensland History – Gold Coast, Brisbane                                                 page 9

Queensland Health (Dept.) – out of step with 14 Nobel Scientists        page 9

Fluoridation Is Not Supported By All Dentists, Doctors                          page 9

Kidney Damage – National Kidney Foundation, dis-endorsement      page 10

Indigenous Australians – people with poor kidney function                 page 11

Mass Medication – no informed consent, deceit                                       page 12

Fluoride Overload – concentration is a rate not a dose                          page 12

Three Major Air Pollutants are F. also greenhouse gases                      page 13

Dental Fluorosis – not reversible, disfigure teeth, positional defects page 14

Calcium Fluoride – Caf2. Health problems, spring water – labelling   page 14

Japan, China, India, Middle East, Africa and Australia                            page 14

Research Queensland DPI – Artesian Water Containing Fluoride        page 15

Distribution Problems – uneven, corrosion and leaching lead etc.     page 15

Councils Can Escape Fluoridation Laws & keep faith with voters        page 16

Fluoride Facilitates Uptake Of Aluminum By The Brain – dementia   page 16

Fluoride Reduces IQ – interrupted hippocampal development           page 16

Australia – The Most Fluoridated Country –                                               page 17

No fluoridation in India, Japan, China, Russia or Mainland Europe page 16

National Health And Medical Research Council – failed ethics          page 16

The Final Word On Water Fluoridation – Dr. John Ryan, harm        page 17

How To Avoid Fluoridated Water – six options                                     page 18

Horticultural Implications (some)                                                             page 18

Infants Should Not Have Fluoridated Water Warns ADA (USA)      page 19

…the blood brain barrier is not yet fully developed                              page 19

How To Minimize The Damage From Drinking Fluoridated Water page 20

Considerations, Legal, Political…                                                               page 21

The End Fluoridation May Be In Sight !                                                    page 21

Final Comments and References                                                       page 22 – 27.

WATER FLUORIDATION –

OVERVIEW AND IMPLICATIONS:

Trillions of dollars have been spent in the last 60 years advocating artificial water fluoridation around the world. Yet very few countries adopted the practice and many of these have since discontinued it, with no increase in tooth decay. This money should have been spent on serious dental science, e.g. research into the anti-caries properties of vanadium, strontium 38, molybdenum, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium and xylitol, plus diet, genetics, ‘good’ mouth bacteria – (oral microbiological antibodies), and finally the ultimate – stimulation of gums to grow more teeth, – tissue engineering. The harmful implications of poor nutrition as well as the damaging effects of lead, (old roofs and solder on rainwater tanks) Copper, Cadmium, Fluorides, Aluminium, Arsenic, * Beryllium, Chromium, Iron, Mercury, and Nickel have been virtually ignored.

Over 400 medications including Clonidine (Catapres), a high blood pressure medication also used to treat (ADHD) – increase tooth decay…

.

CALCIUM FLUORIDE – CaF2.

Calcium Fluoride occurs naturally in some waters. Countries with this naturally occurring fluoride, such as China and India pursue costly national programs designed to take the fluoride OUT of their drinking water, as they are all too aware of the health damage it causes!
F. is 14th by weight in abundance as an element in the earths crust. Fluorine forms compounds with all elements except helium and neon.
Seawater contains 1-1.4 ppm. of F. – Salmon swim up rivers to hatch eggs in F. free water. Google: Fluoride; Toxicity; Salmon species…
Volcanoes (hydrogen fluoride) and waters emanating from deep-water wells CaF2; are the main sources of natural fluoride contamination prior to the industrial revolution. Fluorides also occur naturally, locked up with other elements, unless separated by heat.

.

ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES OF FLUORIDES

The burning / smelting of any material will release fluorides into the environment, the amount will depend on the material being heated e.g. “dirty” brown coal releases more F. into the air than the hard “clean” coal anthracite. Fluorides are released into the environment via coal combustion and process waters and waste from various industrial processes, including steel manufacture, primary aluminium, copper and nickel production, phosphate ore processing, phosphate fertilizer production and use, glass, brick and ceramic manufacturing, and glue and adhesive production, oil refining, and car exhausts. The uses of fluoride containing pesticides, sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant (trade name ProFume ®) as well as the fluoridation of drinking water, also contribute to the release of fluoride from anthropogenic sources.
Based on available data, phosphate ore production and use, as well as aluminium manufacture are the major industrial sources of fluoride release into the environment.

.

WATER FLUORIDATION -
AN ERROR FROM THE LAST CENTURY

Fluorosis is a pathological condition. It affects humans and animals.

Dental fluorosis occurs during teeth formation in the presents of fluorides in air, water, or food, and is also an indicator of skeletal fluorosis, which can also occur after exposure later in life, after teeth formation, but this will not be recorded on the teeth.

The eruption of teeth is delayed in the presents of fluorides,

This eruption delay accounts for the original statistical error,

which led to the belief that fluorides help to prevent tooth decay in children.

Continental Europe has abandoned water fluoridation, and so have many cities in USA, the home of this dangerous unscientific business, promoting and creating a market for toxic industrial wastes.

Tooth decay does NOT increase after countries or cities ceased fluoridation.

The fluoride over-dose (fluorosis) is now pandemic in fluoridated areas.

Tooth decay is caused by Streptococcus Mutans, a bacterium that lives in the mouth, poor nutrition, and poor hygiene; not by a deficiency of fluoride.

The AMA is a profession in denial.

.

FLUORIDE COMPOUNDS ARE:

Bio-accumulating, carcinogenic, protoplasmic, poisons and enzyme inhibitors. They are also teratogenic, phyto-toxic, corrosive (class 8), neurotoxic, fetotoxic, clastogenic, thyrotoxic, mutagenic, immunosuppressive and iatrogenic poisons. Fluorides have a synergistic effect with other pollutants, including radioactive isotopes. They destroy vitamins and are mind-altering allergens, cause arthritis, and infertility. Fluoride is an apoptosis inducing substance.

Repeat – Fluoride is an apoptosis inducing substance.

The PTD (Probably Toxic Dose) is 5 milligrams of fluoride for each kilogram of body weight. This is sufficient to produce severe poisoning symptoms, including death.

Approximately (1. 2 grams) of sodium fluoride “just a pinch” will kill an adult human being.

.

FLUORIDE AND THYROID FUNCTION:

All fluoride compounds interfere with thyroid hormones and are factors in Hashimoto’s Disease. (Between 6% – 10% of Australians are affected by hypothyroidism which results in death after 10 to 15 years without medication.) The distortion of protein structure causes the immune proteins to fail to recognize body proteins, and so instigate an attack on them, which is Autoimmune Disease. Autoimmune diseases constitute a body of disease processes troubling many thousands of people: Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lupus erythematosus, Asthma and Systemic Sclerosis are examples. Fluoride causes thyroid antibodies to be produced, which cause Thyroiditis resulting in the common hypothyroid disease, Hashimoto’s Disease and the hyperthyroidism of Graves’ Disease.

See also on our web site:

“The Effects Of Fluoride On The Thyroid Gland”

By Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield MBBS LRCP MRCS

.

COLLAGEN IS THE BODY’S GLUE

AND FLUORIDE RUINS IT

Fluoride prematurely ages the body, mainly by distortion of enzyme shape. When enzymes get twisted out of shape, they can’t do their jobs. This results in collagen breakdown, eczema, tissue damage, skin wrinkling, genetic damage, and immune suppression. Practically any disease you can name may then be caused. All systems of the body are dependent upon enzymes. When fluoride changes the enzymes, this can damage: immune system, digestive system, respiratory system, blood circulation, kidney function, liver function, brain function and thyroid function. These distorted enzymes are proteins, but now they have become foreign protein, which we know is the exact cause of autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, arthritis, asthma, and arteriosclerosis. Fluoride also accumulates in the organelles of animal cells and shuts down enzyme activity.

When collagen breaks down, tissues simply lose their substance, their framework. Fluoride dissolves the body’s glue simply by preventing new collagen from being formed. John Yiamouyiannis, PhD., gives a masterful explanation of this in his work ‘Fluoride The Aging Factor’. Not only is the collagen incorrectly formed, it is wrongly mineralized. Some collagen, like bones and teeth, should be mineralized in order to give it hardness. Other collagen structures, like ligaments, tendons and, and muscles, should not be mineralized, in order to keep them flexible and resilient. Fluoride mineralizes the tendons, and muscles and ligaments, making them crackly and painful and inflexible. At the same time fluoride interferes with mineralization of bones and teeth, causing osteoporosis and a premature health decline. — Unsafe at any dose. —

.

OTHER COMMERCIAL FLUORIDE APPLICATIONS ARE:

1080 = Sodium fluoroacetate FCH2CO2Na. S7 (Dingo Bait). When ingested through baited food, the animal suffers a prolonged and horrific death. Herbivores take the longest to die – up to 44 hrs, while carnivores can take up to 21 hrs. Besides being tasteless, odorless, colorless and highly concentrated, 1080 has no antidote – Oregon banned the use of 1080.
The N.Z. Ministry of Health’s 1080 limit for drinking water contamination is two parts per billion, (note not million).
1081 Fluoroacetamide (rodenticide).
Sarin = Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl-Fluoride (nerve gas). It is the most potent neurotoxin. (Used by terrorists in Japan – March 1995.)
Soman = Pinacolyl-Methyl-Phosphonos-fluoride.
Both these ‘fluorides’ are nerve gases one drop of either if, absorbed through the skin, will kill an adult human, in seconds.
Prozac = Fluoxetene Hydochloride is an anti-depressant. It affects chemicals in the brain that may become unbalanced and cause depression, panic, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
Rohypnol = Fluorinated Valium – ‘Roofies’ (Date Rape Drug).
Flunitrazepam is a class of drugs depressing the central nervous system.
Anti-cholesterol Drugs require fluorinated intermediates for their synthesis viz. Atorvastatin and Fluvastatin.

The Following Drugs, Also Contain Fluorides:

Diflucan fluconazole, Flixonase or Flixotide (fluticasone), Stelazine trifluoperazine, Fluanxol or Depixol (flupenthixol) or Floxapen (flucloxacillin), and Penthrox. Index of Fluorinated Pharmaceuticals:

www.slweb.org/ftrcfluorinatedpharm.html

As can be seen by the above,  fluorides are medical drugs,

and poisons; therefore fluoridation without consent

constitutes assault with unlicensed medicine

on the general public.

FLUORIDATED WATER IS MEDICATION AND MUST BE CLASSED AS SUCH.

THE MAIN INTERESTS HERE SHOULD BE US, THE CONSUMING  PUBLIC

NOT THE DENTAL PROFESSION OR MULTI-NATIONAL COMPANIES.

THE  LAW  IS  FAILING  US  HERE  ON  A  GRAND  SCALE.

.

WATER FLUORIDATION IS DELIBERATE ECOCIDE

Fluoridation involves the dumping of thousands of tones of industrial waste into the drinking water supply systems of our state. Phosphate fertilizer plants produce large quantities of toxic waste (silicofluorides, “SiFs” – fluosilicic acid or hexafluorosilicic acid, H2SiF6, and sodium fluosilicate or silicofluoride, Na2SiF6), which are recovered and require neutralization and disposal. Normally it would cost several thousand dollars per truckload to do this. But it has been contrived for these unrefined products, with their heavy metal contaminants, to be sold for injection into the water supplies of compliant cities and governments, under the guise of reducing dental decay. Industry thus benefits from not having to pay for it’s disposal, and at the same time makes a tidy profit on the sale of this waste. Water fluoridation is also used to deliberately mask the damage from industrial air pollution, (a few cozy connections here!).
The ecosystem is an integrated and interactive organism; and, like it or not, we are all part of this system.
Queensland’s fluoridating chemical, sodium silicofluoride, is supplied by foreign countries, that do not fluoridated their own water. Phosphate fertilizer manufacturers invest millions of dollars in grants and lobbying of government officials, political parties, and the ADA to promote water fluoridation as a means of their waste disposal.

– Water should be tested and approved in the same manner as food -

-

SILICOFLUORIDES ARE UNTREATED

TOXIC INDUSTRIAL WASTES

The chemicals mostly used to fluoridate drinking water are derived from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer. ∏ These chemicals are captured by the industry’s wet scrubbing systems, in their smoke stacks. The product is not “fluorine” or “fluoride”. It is a pollution concentrate. Fluorine is only 19% of the total product captured. Silicofluorides are contaminated with a variety of toxic chemicals including: Fluosiloxanes, Aluminium, Arsenic*, Iron, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Sulfides and Radionuclides.

THE THERAPEUTIC GOODS ADMINISTRATION, (Department of Health and Ageing) is the Australian Government Department responsible for this matter, and is derelict in its duty to the health of Australians by permitting this abuse of the public water supply to continue.

The marketing of water fluoridation has used promotion by endorsement, intimidation, suppression of research, censorship, propaganda, cover up, and fraud similar to those of Lead, Asbestos, DDT, Tobacco, Thalidomide, Dioxin and 245T. Two peer-reviewed studies, Neurotoxicology, December 2000; International Journal of Environmental Studies, September 1999, found an association between consumption of water containing hydrofluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride and higher blood lead levels in children.  (See our post on this web site ‘Lead Poisoning in Mount Isa and Fluoridation).

Fluoride is toxic and corrosive. It rates ‘four’ on a one to five scale – more toxic than lead, slightly less toxic than arsenic.

As can be seen from the above, tests on animals using

Sodium Fluoride will yield a different set of results to Silicofluorides (still untested).

.

RECYCLING PROBLEMS:

The proposal to recycle water adds an extra complication, as tones of silicofluorides will be redeemed in the recycling process, (if it is efficient enough), which leaves the government with the disposal cost of these toxic industrial wastes.

Normal water (sewage) treatment will not remove fluorides, which can result in this water being re-fluoridated by other cities further down stream if this treated water is discharged into rivers or dams.

How many times will the same water be RE-fluoridated?

RECYCLED WATER MAY STILL CONTAIN FLUORIDE

Recycled water may still contain fluoride which if returned to the Wivenhoe Dam could be a threat to the survival of the Australian Lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri. These fish seem tough survivors but fresh water fish eggs are usually very sensitive to fluoride contamination.

Google:

Effects of Sodium Fluoride on Carp and Rainbow Trout by K.S. Pillai and U.H. Mane – Department of Zoology, Marathwada University, Aurangabad-431 004 India.

Salmon swim up rivers to hatch their eggs in fluoride free water.

(Sea water contains 1.2 -1.4 p.p.m Calcium Fluoride – Caf2.)

RECYCLED WATER MAY CONTAIN PRIONS

Scientists have shown for the first time that “lifeless” prion proteins, devoid of all genetic material, can evolve just like higher forms of life.

Mad cow disease-causing prions, can survive conventional sewage treatment, according to a new study by University of Wisconsin-Madison scientists.

It is also alarming to read of the problems encountered in countries that recycle sewerage such as in parts of Canada and America.  Problems include drugs leaving sewerage treatment plants (works) including antidepressants, oestrogen and other hormones, anticonvulsants, nano-medicines, radio-active materials from chemotherapy, and anti-microbials are among the pharmaceuticals found escaping filtration at toxic levels in their water according to researchers at the John Hopkins Medical Center.

Most liquid hospital waste is usually disposed into the sewers.

Drinking recycled water may have more problem than was first thought

especially recycling hospital waste…

.

RADIONUCLIDES: RADIUM & URANIUM

These radioactive elements are also present in Silicofluorides. These two decay products of uranium – Radon-222 and Polonium-210 are dangerous and carcinogenic. The health risks are enormous, including: bone cancer, internal organs destruction, brain damage and more.

.

WATER FLUORIDATION & POLONIUM-210

Tobacco companies for 40 years have been concerned about the public relations and litigation problems posed by polonium-210 in cigarettes. Polunium-210 is soluble and is circulated through the body to every tissue and cell. The proof is that it can be found in the blood and urine of smokers. The circulating Polonium-210 causes genetic damage and early death from diseases reminiscent of early radiological pioneers: liver and bladder cancer, stomach ulcer, leukemia, cirrhosis of the liver, and cardiovascular diseases. The Surgeon General C. Everett Koop MD (USPHS) stated that radioactivity, rather than tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancers. – The Center for Disease Control stated “Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source.” — As little as 0.03 microcuries (6.8 trillionths of a gram) of polonium-210 can be carcinogenic to humans.

The Death Of The Russian Former KGB (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko has been linked to the presence of a ‘major dose’ of radioactive Polonium-210 in his coffee. Traces of the radioactive substance were discovered at various locations in London visited by Mr. Litvinenko as well as in Russia and on two British Airways (BA) flights.

His body was buried in a lead lined coffin – Dec 2006  (Google).

.

PLANTS SENSITIVE TO FLUORIDES

Forage, food crops and ornamental plants vary in their sensitivity to fluorides. Corn, Grapes, Gladioli, Petunias, Roses, Daylilies (Hemerocallis), Peaches, Apricots, Tulips, Pine Trees and Dracaena are very sensitive to fluoride and can be used as bioindicators for air [soil and water] pollution.

Fluoride-induced injury (air pollution) to coniferous forests can occur at a distance of 32 km from an emitting source, and destruction of some species at 13 km distance. Fluorides are released into the air in both a gaseous state (as hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride) and in solid particles. The particles fall on, and the gases are absorbed by, vegetation near the polluting industry. If this vegetation includes forage crops, which are fed to cattle, sheep, horses, pigs, or kangaroos. (The EPA says fluoride from Alcoa’s aluminium smelter at Portland [Victoria] is making kangaroos sick. 23 Feb. 2010), serious problems can ensue, since these animals, particularly cattle are vulnerable to fluoride. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Airborne fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant.” Huge compensation payments have been made, – mostly as out of court settlements. ∏

❝ The thing to note with plants is that plants will readily absorb fluorine that is sprayed [or falls] on the leaves. If flood [or drip] irrigation is used, the plants accumulate far less fluoride due to calcium absorption in the soil and the plant’s discriminatory uptake through the roots ❞ Dr. Miller.

AQUATIC ORGANISMS

❝…Aquatic organisms living in soft waters may be more adversely affected by fluoride pollution than those living in hard or seawaters because the bioavailability of fluoride ions is reduced with increasing water hardness. Fluoride can either inhibit or enhance the population growth of algae, depending upon fluoride concentration, exposure time and algal species. Aquatic plants seem to be effective in removing fluoride from contaminated water under laboratory and field conditions. In aquatic animals, fluoride tends to be accumulated in the exoskeleton of invertebrates and in the bone tissue of fishes. The toxic action of fluoride resides in the fact that fluoride ions act as enzymatic poisons, inhibiting enzyme activity and, ultimately, interrupting metabolic processes such as glycolysis and synthesis of proteins. Fluoride toxicity to aquatic invertebrates and fishes increases with increasing fluoride concentration, exposure time and water temperature, and decreases with increasing intraspecific body size and water content of calcium and chloride. Freshwater invertebrates and fishes, especially net-spinning caddis fly larvae and upstream-migrating adult salmons, appear to be more sensitive to fluoride toxicity than estuarine and marine animals. Because, in soft waters with low ionic content, a fluoride concentration as low as 0.5 mg F-/l can adversely affect invertebrates and fishes, safe levels below this fluoride concentration are recommended in order to protect freshwater animals from fluoride pollution…❞

This may have implications for the Australian Lungfish,

Neoceratodus forsteri, which inhabit the Wivenhoe Dam and many rivers of south east Queensland.

.

ANIMALS SENSITIVE TO FLUORIDES:

(especially silicofluorides)

Honey Bees, see colony collapse disorder, (Google: ‘Fipronil and Bees’), Fresh Water Fish (Australian Lung Fish), Dogs, Elephants, Turkeys, Chinchillas, Caimans, Cattle, Sheep, Ants, Horses and Kangaroos. Australian wild animals are somewhat F. tolerant. 1080 is used to kill dingos (not strictly native to Australia). Mammalian animals including humans suffering with severe fluorosis, yield milk with a VERY low fluoride level. Nature protects its young…

PTFE – TEFLON COOKWARE

Pet birds can die an extremely painful and agonizing death when exposed to fumes from Teflon cookware polytetraflouethylene (PTFE). “Like so many products developed for the sake of convenience without concern for human health, Teflon coated non-stick cookware when heated has proven to be a primary source of a dangerous toxic fluoride derivative, specifically perfluorinated chemicals”. This non-stick coating is also marketed as Silverstone, Fluron, Supra, Excalibur, Greblon, Xylon, Duracote, and Resistal. PTFE is odorless and invisible. When heated above 260ºC it is lethal to birds (pets) and will give humans flu like symptoms. A Teflon pan reached 721°F in just five minutes as measured by a commercially available infrared thermometer.

DuPont studies show that the Teflon off-gases toxic particulates at 446°F. At 680°F Teflon pans release at least six toxic gases, including two carcinogens, two global pollutants, and MFA, a chemical lethal to humans at low doses. At temperatures that DuPont scientists claim are reached on stovetop drip pans (1000°F), non-stick coatings break down to a chemical warfare agent known as PFIB, a chemical analog of the WWII nerve gas phosgene.

.

QUEENSLAND HISTORY

Gold Coast fluoridation commenced on 5 November 1968, and finished on 14 July 1979. Brisbane Mayor Atkinson April 1985 proposed to fluoridate Brisbane city, but changed her mind after she examined technical literature. Dr. (Sir) Llewellyn (Lew) Edwards, Minister for Health,1974-1978, lost his safe seat in Ipswich when he proposed to fluoridate all of Queensland.

Brisbane Lord Mayors Task Force on Fluoridation 1997:  ”The majority of Taskforce members would not support the introduction of water fluoridation to Brisbane until the recommended Australian research has been carried out”.

The Queensland Government’s official Water Fluoridation Position Statement in 2003 admits that without the express consent of the community, water fluoridation is unethical mass medication and that a referendum ensures community consent.

The Bligh Government ignored history, science, the wishes of the people and common decency. On the 12 Feb. 2008 the Fluoride Bill was introduced to The Parliament of Queensland.

QUEENSLAND HEALTH- (DEPARTMENT) with help from the ADA, both with an agenda of secrecy, seems to have little knowledge of human health, democratic rights, or eco-systems! The laws of nature cannot be reversed to suit commerce, pride, prejudice, pleasure, profit or politics. It matters little how many millions of dollars are spent promoting the absurdity of fluoridation, it will never change the facts. Fluoridation promoters can no longer claim ignorance, and are now morally if not legally accountable. They ARE responsible under “duty of care.”

Fluoridation is medical and dental barbarism

and borders on criminal lunacy.

.

FLUORIDATION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ALL DENTISTS, DOCTORS OR SCIENTISTS

MANY DENTISTS ONLY SUPPORT TOPICAL APPLICATION OF FLUORIDE

Powerful corporate interests are involved in the push for fluoridation. Fluoridation is an entrenched myth from the 1950’s. It is based on flawed research, but has become a mantra for most dental schools whose uncritical staff and students have been indoctrinated about its supposed “benefits” for over two generations. Medical schools have become aligned with this thinking. This is encouraged by the financial support that flows to universities, dental schools and to some practitioners from the sugar purveyors and industries having much to gain financially in various ways from the promotion of fluoridation. – Follow the money…

“…The establishment ‘experts’ generally receive better coverage in the media than ‘dissidents’ on most environmental, health and political issues. In the case of fluoridation the ‘experts’ have succeeded in convincing the vast majority of people in whole countries that opponents must be either cranks, extreme right-wingers or left extremists, or health ‘faddists’. This remarkable propaganda success has been achieved primarily by trading on the authority of the medical profession and by putting pressure on ‘dissident’ medical doctors, dentists and scientists to keep silent. The stereotyping of opponents has placed pressure on scientific and professional journals and the media not to publish material critical of fluoridation…” See ‘Breaking The Silence Barrier’ by Mark Diesendorf.

It takes a brave (or retired) scientist or dentist to speak out against the discredited practice of artificial water fluoridation, without fear of censure, or reprisal, but now some are doing just that.

www.nofluoride.com/esteemed_voices.htm

www.fluoridation.com/quotes.htm

.

KIDNEY DAMAGE

Indigenous Australians & People With Kidney Impairmen

Are At Greater Risk From Fluorides.

Indigenous Australians have smaller kidneys than non-indigenous Australians – a reduced number of nephrons and decreased renal reserve –

(Singh G, White A, Spencer J, Wang Z, Hoy W [1999]).

http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v70/n1/abs/5000397a.html

Indigenous Australians are 6 times more likely than other Australians to be receiving dialysis or to have had a kidney transplant. Death rates from chronic kidney disease are 7 and 11 times as high for non-indigenous males and females respectively.

Australia’s peak medical advisory body, the Australian Government’s National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) advised in their Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2004 that:

“People with kidney impairment have a lower margin of safety for fluoride intake. Limited data indicates that their fluoride retention may be up to three times normal”

Indigenous Australians have high rates of kidney disease and also diabetes, (6 times higher than for non-Aboriginal Australians) which can lead to kidney disease, they are less able to cope with fluoridation, they will have higher plasma fluoride levels, and circulating for longer will accumulate more fluoride in their bodies (particularly bones) because of their decreased ability to excrete fluoride.

The Queensland Government’s proposal to fluoridate indigenous communities, some of which are currently using underground water of untested levels of existing natural fluoride, can be described as reckless stupidity – genocidal, and needs to be reversed immediately.

THE NATIONAL KIDNEY FOUNDATION (USA)

NO LONGER ENDORSES FLUORIDATION

“The 1981 NKF position paper on fluoridation is outdated. The paper is withdrawn and will no longer be circulated, effective from the 10/06/07 – NKF Board of Director’s meeting”.

http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/gfm663v1

❝ The safety margin for exposure to fluoride by renal patients is unknown, measurements of fluoride levels are not routine, the onset of skeletal fluorosis is slow and insidious, clinical symptoms of this skeletal disorder are vague, progression of renal functional decline is multifactorial and physicians are unaware of side effects of fluoride on kidneys or bone. ❞

.

OTHER LOST ENDORSEMENTS FOR FLUORIDATION:

The National Parent-Teachers (USA) Association withdrew its support for fluoridation on 17 April 1991.

From August 1995 to August 1996,

The American Dental Association’s List Of Endorsements Diminished by The Following Associations:

American Cancer Society, American Heart Association,

American Academy of Allergy and Immunology,

American Diabetes Association,

Society of Toxicology,

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Activation Network,

American Psychiatric Association,

American Chiropractic Association,

American Civil Liberties Union National Institute of Law Municipal   Officers.

.

FLUORIDATION IS A VIOLATION OF MEDICAL ETHICS

MASS MEDICATION – WITH NO CHOICE

Fluoridation promoters try to deny that water fluoridation is a form of mass medication, claiming that, as there is often a small amount of natural fluoride in some waters (i.e. calcium fluoride), “…it is just topping up the water with extra fluoride to achieve the ‘optimal’ level…” arsenic also occurs naturally in some waters…?

This is a cunning evasion of the real issues involved, crooked thinking – an unconscionable violation of medical ethics and is against many human rights charters.

Firstly, the “extra fluoride” is in the form of sodium fluorosilicate, an unrefined artificial toxic waste containing fluoride, this does not occur in nature. See above.

Secondly, there is no “optimal level” for fluoride because it is not a nutrient. – No disease has been linked to fluoride deficiency -

Thirdly, the addition of fluoride to water cannot be likened to the blanket use of chlorine in water treatment, which is accepted as a necessary precaution to make the water safe to drink, and can easily removed unlike fluorides.

Finally, a medication is any drug or remedy used to treat a specific medical condition. Here the fluoride is being used as a medication to treat / dose, people, not to purify the water, in this case targeting their teeth. Medical ethics demand that such substances be given to people with the right of refusal (i.e. informed consent), and if consent is obtained the medication is provided with individual dose and other specific recommendations to control its use. This does not occur with water fluoridation, which is an unregulated dose. It is a totally irresponsible, unethical dogma, clumsy and unscientific and a dangerous precedent in medicine, it is based on ignorance and or deceit and is in contempt of social justice…

Member States of UNESCO, this includes Australia, are required to recognize the absolute prohibition of non-consensual medication, and to implement it into national law…

.

FLUORIDE OVERLOAD

Fluoride proponents, talk as if water is the sole source of this element, or that it is in short supply, but many Queenslanders are already at risk of absorbing too much fluoride from other sources. Fluoride use and emissions have become increasingly common in industry since the end of World War II. Apart from superphosphate factories, pollution from aluminium smelters, the nuclear industry – uranium hexafluoride, oil refineries, car exhausts, glass manufacture, burning of coal, pottery firing and steel production are major sources. Others are processed foods, some countries use fluoridated salt in their foodstuffs, soft drinks and fruit juices, canned foods, teas, pesticides, rodenticides, wood preservative some pharmaceutical drugs, fluoridated toothpastes and dental rinses. Fluoride pollution is widespread but is being ignored by the Queensland Government. Fluorides are tasteless and colorless, and as air pollutants they are invisible.

.

AIR POLLUTION:

Three of the six major deadly air pollutants,

also greenhouse gases, are Fluorides:

Hydrofluorcarbons (HFCs)

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)

Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6)

Sulfur Hexafluoride has an atmospheric residence time ranging from

500 to several thousand years.

.

FUMIGANTS: Sulfuryl fluoride

The recent proposed adoption of the extremely toxic sulfuryl fluoride as a fumigant replacing methyl bromide (Australia.) means a significant increase in the contamination of our food supply with fluoride.

.

“OPTIMAL DOSE” ?

Adding fluorides to our drinking water at what is claimed to be the “optimal dose” will affect us all, including you the reader, to suffer fluoride at even high levels. Fluoride promoters confuse the issue by setting a desired concentration 1 ppm of fluoride in the drinking water, but this is a rate, not a dose. The dose is governed by the amount of treated water consumed by each individual. Population sub-groups like out door workers, diabetics, aboriginals, thyroid or kidney-impaired people and babies are the most vulnerable.

For Queensland Health to talk of an “optimal dose” for fluoride in water is transparent humbug and spin because the dose of fluoride is uncontrolled, unmonitored and little understood in many respects. The “dose” one acquires from fluoridated water depends upon how much water each person drinks, which is a great variable, this cannot easily be measured and in practice is ignored, it is dependent on climate, weather, latitude and in Queensland longitude.

Epidemiological studies performed in of Kenya and Tanzania have indicated that higher prevalence and severity of fluorosis may also be related to altitude.

If you believe you are at risk for any reason, have your blood fluoride levels measured. (1 ppm was originally set as a maximum limit for water in rivers caused by industrial pollution.)

.

DENTAL FLUOROSIS

Dental fluorosis is the visible mottling of teeth. It is a pathological condition. It affects humans and animals. First recorded on teeth of Mexicans in 1888. Dental fluorosis also indicates the deposition of fluoride in the bones – skeletal fluorosis, causing brittleness in later life, – especially hip fractures in humans. It can occur after teeth formation but will not be indicated on the teeth once they are formed.

Dental fluorosis

is the most common dental disease in Australia.

The eruption of teeth, animal and human, is delayed in the presents of fluorides. This delay accounts for the original statistical error inferring that fluoride reduces decay in children’s teeth – skews the data-

Dental fluorosis is not reversible and in more severe cases causes disfigurement, pitting, staining, positional defects, (malocclusion) brittleness, and facilitates decay.

In these cases fluoride causes the exact problem it is supposed to prevent.

We need less fluoride in our communities, not more. The Queensland and all Australian Governments should be monitoring industrial areas for fluoride air pollution, and stop the fluoridation of all water supplies immediately, rather than repeating statements of denial which only demonstrate their malfeasance or lack of scientific literacy.

.

CALCIUM FLUORIDE CaF2

Also causes health problems.

Calcium fluoride occurs naturally, although mostly in relatively small amounts, in some rivers, wells and bore waters. However this natural fluoride does cause problems. Excessive fluoride concentrations have been reported in the ground-waters of more than 20 developed and developing countries including in India where 19 states are facing acute fluorosis problems. Large numbers of people in Japan, China, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Mexico and Africa develop dental fluorosis, a biomarker for crippling skeletal fluorosis and other health abnormalities.

Many bottled ‘Spring Waters’ sold in Australia should be tested for fluoride and labeled accordingly. Similar effects are observed in sheep consuming bore waters from the Great Artesian Basin over much of Queensland (and NSW), and became a concern for productivity of flocks. Research by the Queensland DPI [then the Dept. of Agriculture & Stock] in the 1950’s developed management strategies to prevent young sheep (the equivalent of human children and adolescents), from gaining access to bore water, containing fluoride because of the devastating effect on their teeth and bones.

See three enclosures (downloads) with x-ray photos of damage to teeth and bones.

If you have difficulty downloading any of our documents,

e-mail us we will send them to you:

fluoridealertqld@bigpond.com

FLUORIDES – DO KILL

Fluorides are used to kill rodents, insects, and wild dogs. Nature protects its young as far as possible: milk is always low in fluoride unrelated to background fluoride levels. Chronic poisoning, from most toxic agents is rarely diagnosed by physicians in the initial stages. Most systemic poisons induce vague, subtle symptoms before the appearance of features characteristic of a particular kind of poisoning. For instance, the radial nerve paralysis or the lead line on the gums which are typical of lead poisoning are preceded by numerous vague symptoms such as lack of appetite, general fatigue, gastric pains, and bowel disorders. Similarly, the bone changes characteristic of chronic cadmium poisoning become apparent only after a prolonged, slowly progressive illness with changes in kidney function, George L. Waldbott MD.

Chronic exposure to low doses of fluoride cause progressive health problems, larger doses derived from accidents, (terrorists!), or incompetence at treatment works can cause acute toxicity resulting in illness, disability or death. Such incidents are known but are under-reported, or played down, since authorities have a vested interest in suppressing the information, but there have been many over the years. For example, in Hooper Bay, Alaska, 260 people were poisoned and one man died after drinking water contaminated with 150 ppm of fluoride. The accident was attributed to poor equipment and an unqualified operator. Was this a fluke? No not at all. The US Centre for Disease Control has recorded a number of such incidents where human error or equipment failure resulted in a toxic dose of fluoride being released into the water that sickened or killed people.

.

DISTRIBUTION PROBLEMS

Distributing fluoride evenly via kilometers of the intricate system of trunk mains, and water pipes, is an obvious hydraulic nightmare. Readings taken at various locations in the system will be intermittent or constantly varying from day to day depending on testing equipment and time of day. Dead-ends will read high, fibro mains will release asbestos, concrete lined pipes will absorb some fluoride, erode, and reset down-line during low use times (slow flow), forming partial blockages at bends and junctions. Corrosion in domestic pipes, water meters, hot water systems, washing machines, fire mains, valves and back-flow prevention equipment, will be accelerated. The concentration of fluorides in cooling towers (air con.) will increase due to evaporation, increasing corrosion rates further. Fluoride will leach various heavy metals into the water, from lead solder joints, copper, brass and plastic fittings. Accelerated corrosion/rust can also result in staining of laundry. The risk of leaks, spills, and-over feeds, and subsequent political cover-ups, is historic and to be expected as occurred in Brisbane, May 2009. §

.

HOW MUNICIPAL COUNCILS CAN

ESCAPE FLUORIDATION LAWS:

Council’s specifications for fluoridation plant design, construction, and operation need to include serious penalties, e.g. one million dollars a day for delays, one million dollars a day for supplying products below the standard, over or under feeds, contamination of the fluoride product, damage to supply mains etc. Councils could insist on a permanent bond of several million dollars to cover the council’s public liabilities etc. when calling for tenders, or re-tendering. This would discourage and control any construction contractor, fluoride plant operator or supplier of the fluoridation chemicals…

In the light of overseas accidents these requirements are reasonable!

Councils under ESD Principals (Ecologically Sustainable Development) need to immediately apply the

“Precautionary Principal” and reject the proposed construction or operation of fluoridation plants.

.

FLUORIDE FACILITATES

THE UPTAKE OF ALUMINUM BY THE BRAIN

Several studies (1990’s) showed that aluminum uptake by brains of experimental animals doubled in the presence of fluoride. Rats fed the highest doses developed behavior similar to that of senile animals and their brains at post-mortem showed cell loss and other damage characteristic of dementia (Alzheimer’s disease). Since approximately half our population over 70 will eventually develop Alzheimer’s, based on US figures, this link needs to be explored in Australia. Firstly, because a large proportion of our population has been forced to drink fluoridated water for a long period. Secondly, aluminum salts (especially aluminum sulphate), are added to help clarify the raw water at many municipal water treatment plants.

.

EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE REDUCES IQ

This Is The End Of ‘The Smart State’ !

There are now over 20 published studies, including 7 in the last 5 years, reporting an association between high fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. (intelligence capacity), [M. Connett & H. Limeback. 2008. Int Assn Dent Res 83rd Gen Session & Exhibn].

…Overall, the behavioral changes from fluoride exposure are consistent with interrupted hippocampal development… This is the first laboratory study to demonstrate that central nervous system functional output is vulnerable to fluoride, and that the effects on behavior depend on age at exposure and that fluoride accumulates in brain tissues…

Some of these studies were overlooked previously as they are in Chinese science journals, but they are of great concern to us because even in the absence of fluoridated water, our citizens, especially children, can absorb excess fluoride from their diet, toothpaste and environmental pollution. Babies are most at risk from early exposure to fluoride as their brains are still developing and therefore susceptible to interference from toxic chemicals, (fluoride crosses the blood brain barrier and reaches the pineal gland), exposure prenatal resulting in hyper activity and postnatal hypo activity. The US Centre for Disease Control now advises artificially fluoridated water should not be used for infants under one year old. Babies can drink up to four times that of an adult in ratio to their body weight.

Breast milk – even when the feeding mother is on a high fluoride diet, low fluoride breast milk prevails – nature knows best!

Food processing often concentrates fluoride, and foods processed with fluoridated water typically have higher fluoride concentrations than foods processed with non-fluoridated water… A study that found marked differences between cereals processed in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas showed that cereals processed in a fluoridated area had fluoride concentrations ranging from 3.8 ppm to 6.3 ppm…” – Warren JJ, Levy SM. (2003). Current and future role of fluoride in nutrition – Dental Clinics of North America 47: 225-43.

Chinese studies have shown that fluoride lowers IQ levels in children; that fluoride may affect the intelligence of a person as early as “embryonic life or infancy, when the growth of the nervous system is most rapid.” Since fluoride levels in the body are cumulative, and fluoride intake lowers intelligence, the end result is a population with little ability to evolve.”

We cannot afford to have current and future generations “dumbed down” by a process, which is avoidable. Google searches will access many of these research papers and the science behind them. ‡

.

AUSTRALIA – IS THE MOST FLUORIDATED COUNTRY –

Mainland European countries have abandoned, rejected, or banned fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, ethical concerns or that it is unsafe or /and ineffective. Most countries have never taken it up. In 1971, after 11 years of testing, Sweden’s Nobel Medical Institute recommended against fluoridation and the process was banned. The Netherlands outlawed the practice in 1976, after 23 years of tests. France decided against it after consulting its Pasteur Institute, and West Germany, now Germany, rejected the practice because the recommended concentration in water of 1 ppm was “too close to that at which long-term damage to the human body is to be expected”. In other words, there is no margin of safety, as is understood by informed members of the medical profession, in the practice of fluoridation but this precaution is lost on many dentists and others actively involved in promoting water fluoridation. After 41 years, Basel the only city in Switzerland to fluoridate its water ceased.

There is no artificial fluoridation in India, (According to a UNICEF study, across the developing world fluorosis is endemic in at least 25 countries, with perhaps hundreds of millions of people affected. As long ago as 1993, according to one study, 20 of India’s 32 states were identified as facing problems. Fluorosis was recorded in Andhra Pradesh as early as the 1930s.)

Japan, China, Russia, Mainland Europe or Sri Lanka. There are now only 6 countries where the majority of people are forced to drink fluoridated water: USA, Australia, NZ, Ireland, Columbia and Singapore.

200 million people in China suffer from fluorosis from “natural” fluoride in the water and more recently, coal burning.

.

NATIONAL HEALTH AND

MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL’S

FLUORIDE FATWAH ON THE AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC

NEEDS TO BE RESCINDED

Parroting previous promoters and endorsements is no longer good enough. Science is now showing the failure and hazards of fluoridation and the National Health and Research Council must deal with this exposed error to regain public respect and fulfil its policy on ethics. It is now indefensible to maintain its outmoded promotion of fluoridation.

This outcome is inevitable; only the timing is unknown.

.

HOW TO AVOID FLUORIDATED WATER:

1.  Drink Rain Water (from tanks).

This is difficult if you live in a town house, a home unit or a rented property.

2.  Use Reverse Osmosis Filtration

This three-stage system (RO) needs regular servicing and wastes 2-4 times the saved water to continually wash the filtering membranes.

3.  Use Steam Distillation.

These systems give clean water but use electricity.

4.  Dragonfly M18 Air to Water Machine www.urwater.com.au

These machines give very clean water but also use electricity.

(However the ‘Dragonfly’ can be used in conjunction with rainwater tanks)

5.  Buy Bottled Water.

Bottled water is responsible for over 60,000 tones of greenhouse gas emissions every year. Only 35% of plastic PET gets recycled in Australia the rest becomes landfill. Many brands of bottled water are not fluoride free even if they are labelled “Spring Water.”

There is a push to fluoridate bottled water. We can presume this will solve the problem for the bottlers who would otherwise need to install and maintain R.O. filters in their bottling factories.

6.  Move To A Town With No Fluoride In The Water.

Many Australians allergic to fluoride have moved to Queensland only to find that Queensland is now being fluoridated…

TOTAL AVOIDANCE IS IMPOSIBLE:

Absorption Though Skin.

Cleaning, swimming, showering/bathing and clothes washing will result in some assimilation through the skin.

Boiling water will not remove fluoride; indeed it will increase the concentration. This will occur due to evaporation e.g. electric jugs, kettles, aquariums and (wet, atmospheric) cooling towers.

Boiling water will remove chlorine, but not fluorides.

.

“INFANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE FLUORIDATED

WATER…”

WARNS AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION

Baby formula may have contained fluoride before being dried. Adding tap water containing fluoride will increased the dose, No infant should be exposed to fluoride, as the blood brain barrier is not yet fully developed.

The Queensland Government has a responsibility to warn parents.

FLUORIDE TOOTHPASTE:

“In case of accidental ingestion, seek professional assistance, or contact a poison control center immediately,” This is the required labeling by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on all tubes of fluoride toothpaste sold in USA.   www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3351.cfm

.

HOW TO MINIMIZE THE DAMAGE

FROM DRINKING FLUORIDATED WATER:

Vitamin C, Calcium, Magnesium, Iodine, (Bromide used in bread making and PBDEs [flame retardants] like fluorides are toxic antagonists of Iodine and interfere with thyroid function. Fluoride was commonly used to treat HYPER-thyroidism in the early and mid-1900s at doses commonly ingested by people today), Shilajit, [minerals] Boron and Strontium, will need to part of the diet of every one who is concerned about this problem. “Boron effectively counteracts symptoms of fluoride intoxication in humans (Zhou et al. 1987) and in experimentally poisoned rabbits (Elsair et al. 1980a, 1980b, 1981). Humans suffering from skeletal fluorosis experienced 50 to 80% improvement after drinking solutions containing 300 to 1,100 mg of borax/L daily, 3 weeks a month for 3 months (Zhou et al. 1987). Boron enhances sequestration of fluoride from bone and excretion through kidneys and possibly the intestinal tract (Elair et al. 1980a, 1981).

Borax is a compound form of boron, with oxygen and sodium attached. (However excess boron can cause problems. Conditions like ADHD, dyslexia, autism, asthma, allergies, cystic fibrosis, liver and oseophageal cancer can be triggered or made worse with excess boron. Boron increases estrogen and calcium levels and lowers B6, zinc, and blood glucose. Signs of toxicity are nausea, vomiting, lethargy, dermatitis and diarrhea. The antidote is extra vitamin B2. – “Boron, Phenols and Health” 1995 by Mary Duncan.)

Tamarind (Tamarindus indicus) intake is likely to help in delaying progression of fluorosis by enhancing urinary excretion of fluoride.

Societies with poor diets are at greatest risk from fluoride damage, indeed nutrition explains the great variation in damage between individuals, especially variations of vitamin C status.

Experimental animals need to be guinea pigs. Guinea pigs like humans do not make vitamin C in their livers. Lab. rats and mice will increase their vitamin C production to overcome the damage from fluoride or many other drugs being tested on them, and therefore yield false results…

Organising daily life around any of the above is intelligent but necessitates various levels of determination, knowledge, restrictions and a financial burden. – Water from outside the home e.g. work, friends, beer, bread, canned food and drinks, restaurant cooked food and coffee shops etc., will contain fluoride.  Most Queenslanders will have no choice but to be exposed to the accumulating hazards of fluoridated water thanks to the Anna Bligh Government and Dr. Jeannette Young the Chief Health Officer for Queensland. She is an appointee to AHMAC Clinical, Technical and Ethical Principal Committee… fluoridation is incompatible with:

UNESCO – Legal Instruments –

Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 19 October 2005

Article 6 – Consent:

” 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 21… “

.

HORTICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

The addition of 1000 lb (450 kg approx) of superphosphate fertilizer per acre (0.4 hectare) adds, 17.5 lb (8 kg approx) of fluoride, this accumulates in the soil, reducing fertility, and increasing the levels in the crops.

Irrigating with fluoridated water also accumulates in the soil and droplets on foliage and flowers concentrate with evaporation causing damage.

This is a serious problem for the cut flower industry.

Most cut flowers last longer in non-fluoridated water.

.

CONSIDERATIONS: LEGAL, POLITICAL & ECONOMIC

Farmers in Australia for reasons of national security (terrorism) are required to keep fertilizers under lock and key.

Fluoridation plants and the stored silicofluorides need to be under greater security against terrorists, and constructed high above flood level.

Back-flow prevention equipment, (anti-siphon) costing thousands of dollars is legally required to be installed by all hazardous industries and irrigators to protect our water supply. Yet amazingly the Queensland Government spend millions of tax dollars installing machinery to deliberately inject toxic industrial waste, Silicofluorides, directly into our drinking water supply?

If a private citizen deliberately adds poisonous products to our drinking water, or an industry accidentally were to so, a jail sentence would be expected. If a politician deliberately adds poisonous products to our drinking water a jail sentence should also apply…

Local councils need to keep accurate records that they did everything in their power to protect the health of their communities under ‘duty of care’ not to poison residents… regardless of ‘orders’ from the State Government. Ignorance is no excuse in law.

.

THE END MAY BE INSIGHT!

“Fluoridated Water Must Be Treated As A Medicine”, and cannot be used to prepare foods. That is the decision of the European Court of Justice, in a landmark case dealing with the classification and regulation of ‘functional drinks’ in member states of the European Community. (HLH Warenvertriebs and Orthica (Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03, C-316/03 and C-318/03) 9 June 2005). – See Brisbane Courier Mail 28/07/2009

Implications For International Trade In Food Products… 

This ruling also has an equally profound implication for export trade in processed foods and drinks. The Court stated that even if a functional food product (or a food containing it) is legally marketed as a food in one member state, it cannot be exported to any other member state unless it has a medicinal license. So any company making a consumable product using fluoridated water in its preparation or as an ingredient cannot now export that product to any other state in the EC, even if their product is permitted in their home state. 

The economic implications are enormous. Not only does the ruling ban the use of fluoridated water for all retail catering and wholesale food processing in the UK and Ireland, (Guinness!) it also prohibits such trade from these states to other member states of the EC. But it goes much further than even this, because if British and Irish processed foods from fluoridated areas cannot be exported to the EC, this prohibition must also apply to the importing of such products into EC member states from any other country that practices water fluoridation. The decision effectively bans all processed food products from countries such as the USA, Australia and New Zealand, unless these foods can be proven to have been prepared using water that was not fluoridated…

.

FINAL COMMENTS:

Research papers recent and past, local and overseas, as well as fourteen Nobel Prize Scientists who all have said no to artificially fluoridated water, are part of a global move against this practice.

…Recent researchers suggest fluoride should be regarded as an “Emerging Neurotoxin” because of its ability to lower IQ in children at levels proposed for Queensland. [The Lancet Medical Journal Vol.368, Dec 2006]

University of New York (SUNY) researchers found more premature births in fluoridated than non-fluoridated upstate New York communities, according to a presentation made at the American Public Health Association’s annual meeting on 9 November 2009 in Philadelphia.

…❝Everything causes cancer? Perhaps. Conceivably even a single electron at the other side of the universe. The real question is, how likely is any one particular cause? In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical… ❞

Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus, US National Cancer Institute.

Respected Brisbane physician Dr John Ryan (MBBS Qld, FRACGP, DCH (Irel), MSc Nutrition with Distinction (London) and Chairman of Professionals Against Water Fluoridation, says:  …“We urge Queenslanders to study the evidence showing potential serious harm from long-term fluoride ingestion and to inform their councilors and state members how they feel about this matter”…

~~~~~~~~

The very agencies that are supposed to protect us have a vested in maintaining this historic deception. Loads of money and political careers are at stake…

Citizens have an expectation that their governments will supply them with clean drinking water. We certainly do not expect it to be deliberately contaminated and or medicated by them…

It is sometimes the function of Governments to keep its citizens from falling into error; it may often be our function to keep our governments from falling into error.

Legally – The people are the sovereign body in this country not industrialists. The Queensland Government our paid employees, need to be reminded of this.

Fluoridation is mass medication, it is against freedom of choice, is a

violation of our democratic rights, and is in breach of many

international laws including

The Nuremberg Code.

* Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health link low levels of inorganic arsenic in drinking water with type-two diabetes.

20 Aug. 08 (Google)

†”Poison Control:

FLUORIDES, THE DEADLY TOXIN WITHIN”

By Professor Dzulkifli Abdul Razak

National Poison Centre

Universiti Sains Malaysia -
2 September 2001

Following the recent withdrawal of the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipobay, there is now a new perspective to the issue, the drug being a fluoride-containing compound. The drug, also known by its generic name, cerivastatin, is one of the many such compounds pulled off the shelves in the last few years.

Cerivastatin was taken off because of at least 40 deaths worldwide, 31 in the US alone. According to a recently released commentary by a Canadian group, Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children, a series of fluoride containing drugs or so-called fluorinated drugs have been withdrawn from the market in the last 10 years due to their toxic effects on human beings. One notable example is the combination “Fen-Phen” (a generic combination of fenfluramine and phentermine, the former being a fluorinated drug type) which was said to have weight-reducing effects. Others are dexfenfluramine (Redux) and fenfluramine (Pondimin).

There are at least eight other examples of fluorinated drugs withdrawn so far, because serious side effects on the heart, and for suspected adverse influence on thyroid hormone activity.

They include, last year, cisapride (Propulsid) because of its severe side-effects on the heart. In 1999, two drugs were withdrawn.

These were an anti-allergy drug, astemizole (Hismanal); and grepafloxacin (an antibiotic, Raxar) because they too were associated with similar adverse events.

In 1998, patients with congestive heart failure using the drug mibedrafil (Posicor) showed a trend to higher mortality, causing it to be withdrawn.

Alredase (Tolrestat, an anti-diabetic) was withdrawn in 1997 after the appearance of severe liver toxicity and deaths among several patients. In the same year too fenfluramine (part of Fen-Phen) and dexfenfluramine were withdrawn.

In 1993, flosequinan (Manoplax, a heart drug) was withdrawn when it was shown that the beneficial effects on the symptoms of heart failure did not last beyond the first three months of therapy. After that, patients had a higher rate of hospitalization than patients taking a placebo.

Of the many fluorinated drugs that remain in the market some carry warnings of serious cardiac toxicity, for instance halofantrine, a schizonticidal drug. More specifically, other fluorinated drugs, although they have not yet been withdrawn, are known to cause muscle wasting or rhabdomyolysis; like cerivastatin.

For instance, the PFPC commentary noted that the fluorinated antibiotic fluoroquinolone, used to treat infections, is reported to cause tendonitis and rhabdomyolysis. In fact product information for such antibiotics (enoxacin, fleroxacin, norfloxacin, sparfloxacin, and tosufloxacin) was amended in Japan in October 1994, to state that rhabdomyolysis may occur. Reportedly, the tragic story involving fluorinated drugs (the fluorophenyls in particular, initially limited to industrial use involving dyes and pesticides) can be traced way back to the 1930s when they were used to treat hyperthyroidism.

The use followed a discovery by IG Farben (Bayer) and Knoll’s scientists that all fluoride compounds can interfere with thyroid hormone activity.

In the liver especially, organic fluoride compounds undergo extensive transformation, mainly via oxidative demethylation, involving the thyroid hormone (T3) mediated P-450 enzyme system. And the resulting metabolites may have higher activity and/or greater toxicity than the original compound.

The activity of organic fluoride compounds on the P-450 enzyme system is critical as it relates to the elimination of many other drugs. Inhibition of these enzymes can cause other drugs to accumulate to dangerous levels in the body, leading to hazardous drug interactions. In many cases fluorinated drugs are being implicated as documented in hundreds of well-established studies.

Moreover, adds PFPC, the metabolites produced by organic fluoride compounds in the liver can be transferred to the fetus through various pathways, including circulatory via placental passage, gastrointestinal via fetal swallowing, and respiratory secondary to fetal lung absorption. This may lead to congenital abnormalities as in the case of fluconsazole (Diflucan).

In short, going by the above evidence, fluorinated drugs seem to pose a number of risks associated with the fluorine or fluoride contained in them. It raises even more concern when fluoride itself is present in many industries and products, including food and drinks, without any rigorous evaluation or monitoring.

Of late, we have managed to label all toothpastes containing fluoride in this country. But this is clearly a minuscule effort in the attempt to regulate the use of fluoride as an inherent poison. We need to do more now. For more information, contact the National Poison Centre at Universiti Sains Malaysia, tel: 04-657 0099, fax: 04-656 8417, Source: New Sunday Times (Focus) September 2, 2001 The ability of fluoride to reduce thyroid hormone levels has been know for over 100 years (Maumene 1855).

.

‡     Extract from:

FLUORIDE FATIGUE

by Bruce Spittle

Forewords by Albert W Burgstahler and AK Susheela

Revised 4th Printing

…fluoride is ingested from other sources, apart from fluoridated water such as pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, air, food, salt, medications, toothpaste, dental restorations, and health supplements. Fluoride also causes other illness such as osteosarcoma and hip fractures.

Fluoridated water may be having its most devastating effects on the most vulnerable, those in utero and infants less than one year old, whose brains are most sensitive to developmental neurotoxins such as fluoride a. When body weight is taken into account, non-nursing infants receiving formula made with water fluoridated at or near the level of 1mg fluoride (f)/litre (L) or 1 part per million (ppm), less than one year old, have been estimated to have fluoride intake on average of about three times that of adults (0.086 mg/kg/day of F for infants compared to 0.03 mg/kg/day of F for adults b). About 30% of children in fluoridated areas have chalky white areas on the teeth due to dental fluorosis. However the mottled appearance in due only in part to the presence of fluoride per se in the erupted teeth and is a sign that fluoride resulted in a thyroid hormone deficiency during a critical time of tooth development, from in utero to approximately 30 months for deciduous teeth (milk teeth, the first teeth to erupt) and permanent incisors (the upper and lower two teeth on each side, closest to the midline, and medial to the canine teeth).c

Thyroid hormone is crucial regulator of all the tissues-specific differentiation programmes during developmental processes. When fluoride reduces the level of thyroid hormone during tooth development, by activating a calcium-transducing G-protein receptor G q/11, there is delayed tooth eruption, delayed removal of enamel matrix proteins, and delayed enamel maturation. The evidence of the deficiency is seen later with mottled teeth. While the teeth a developing so also is the brain. There in a growing concern about the effect of fluoride on the developing brain b and a possible connection between fluoride and autism has been queried. Another emerging area of interest is the interaction between fluoride and iodine resulting in a functional iodine deficiency. Iodine is required for the proper functioning of many organs of the body and reduced tissue iodine levels, possibly though the inhibition of mammary gland deiodinases by fluoride, may be a factor in the development of breast cancer. ab However, this book will concentrate on the fatigue, not relieved by sleep, and other symptoms due to fluoride from drinking water and other sources…

a Eskin BA, Anjum W, Abraham GE, Stoddard F, Pretrud A, Brooks AD. Identification of breast cancer by differences in urinary iodide. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Research 2005;46:504

b Eskin BA Iodine and mammary Cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol 1977;91:293-304

c McDonagh M, Whiting P, Bradley M, Cooper J, Suton A, ChestnuttI, Misso K, Wilson P, Treasure E, Kleijen J, A systematic review of public water fluoridation. Report 18.York NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2000.

§ F. poison System Failure USA

Fluoridation can be particularly hazardous, The manual warns, in small water systems lacking sufficient safety controls and procedures, or run by poorly trained operators, or both.28 How many thousands of small water supply systems exist in America is not known. “The lack of good monitoring and surveillance programs in states with fluoridated communities has been a concern of state dental directors and CDC for some time.”

On May 21-23, 1992, after fluoridation plant failure, one Alaska Native died and 296 were poisoned (in a population of 470 served by the affected well) in Hooper Bay, Alaska. F. levels in the water supply reached 150 ppm. Symptoms were mostly gastrointestinal; the man who died drank many glasses of water. Seven days after the failure, F. was lower in urine of non-cases

Three kidney dialysis patients died and six other patients suffered acute reactions at the University of Chicago Hospitals when the F. removal system failed.¹³¹ Encrustation on inner surfaces of pipes in Seattle, WA, revealed 1,044 ppm of F, which can break away to block filter systems.¹³²

Dr. David Williams warned of potentially disastrous water pollution at the start of year 2000. American illnesses caused by drinking water total over one million a year (some estimate seven times that many), and are increasing exponentially; deaths are estimated at 9,000 every year.¹³³ Deaths and illnesses increase after temporary breakdowns of water-system regulation…

* * * * * * * * *

∏

The reader has been spared many scientific explanations in the above document, but Google searches will supply them.

If you have difficulty downloading any of our documents,

e-mail us we will send them to you:

fluoridealertqld@bigpond.com

Mouse warriors see also:

www.FluorideAlert.org

www.qawf.org

www.fluorideresearch.org

www.ukcaf.org

We make no apologies for providing extracts from, and references to papers and journals.

Most of this information is in the public domain, and if it is not it should be.

Our web page fluoridationqueensland.com is evolving, and we will continue to add to it as more relevant studies and new information comes to hand.

Copying and redistribution of all or any part this article is permitted in any medium.

There is no right way to do the wrong thing. Oren Arnold