Although 1 part fluoride ion in one million is argued to be ‘safe’
for human consumption, understand that one litre of water
fluoridated with 1.0 ppm fluoride ion contains around
3.18 billion billion atoms of fluoride ion.

f-elephant-in-room-f

FLUOROSILICIC ACID:

A Mixture of Dozens of Elements & Compounds

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

nsf-logo

The National Sanitation Foundation is the only organization which
certifies the safety of fluoridation chemicals. NSF sets the
quality standards for so-called fluorosilicic
acid, the most widely used type of
fluoridation chemical, and the
one which King, Snohomish,
and Pierce Counties add
to their drinking water.

The NSF is a trade group
which functions as a de facto FDA,
falsely certifying fluoridation materials to be safe.
The giant chemical and fertilizer companies which produce
fluoridation materials are eligible to sit on the Board of NSF.

See: →  www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham.

This so-called fluorosilicic acid is actually composed of many elements
and compounds. NSF has reported that various tanker loads of
so-called fluorosilicic acid have contained the following
elements and compounds:

NSF admitted in 2000 that some tanker loads emit beta radiation.

This information comes from three publications by NSF, the first an April 24, 2000, letter from NSF to the Fluorida Department of Public Health, the second the 2008 NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation, and third the 2012 NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation, plus a typical Certificate of Analysis from Simplot, which supplies King and Snohomish counties with fluoridation materials.

The various constituents of this so-called fluorosilicic acid “morph” into different forms. They combine, break down, and join with other elements and compounds as the pH and dilution changes, from very low pH in the tanker truck to around 7.6 pH as it emerges, diluted, from the water treatment plant, to around 3 pH in the stomach (where half the fluoride ion morphs into hydrogen fluoride), to around 7.4 pH in blood.

The body copes with fluoride by sending it to the bones, where it binds with calcium. It is sealed off and can never be excreted because the alkaline pH of the bones prevents it from ionizing and separating from bone calcium. It is trapped there forever and accumulates [permanently for the lifetime of the consumer].

The concentration of these various elements and compounds both in the tanker truck and in the drinking water after the so-called fluorosilicic acid has been diluted down around 230,000 times to the point where the fluoride ion concentration is at an “optimal” level of 1.0 ppm, are as follows:

    FLUORIDE ION

1.93% of the contents of the tanker truck, 1.0 ppm in water leaving the treatment plant,

    FLUOROSILICIC ACID

23% of the contents of the tanker truck, near 0 ppm in water leaving the treatment plant,

    SODIUM CARBONATE

aka soda ash, added at the treatment plant to reduce acidity, 17 ppm in water leaving the treatment plant,

    HYDROGEN FLUORIDE

1.5% of the contents of the tanker truck, 0.02 ppm in tap water at pH 7.6, .5 ppm in the stomach at pH 3

    ORTHOSILICIC ACID

very little in the tanker truck, 0.6 ppm after dilution at the water plant, this amount contributed by the fluoridation materials

    SELENIUM

up to 3.2 ppb after dilution at the water plant, this amount contributed by the fluoridation materials,

    COPPER

up to 2.6 ppb after dilution at the water plant, this amount contributed by the fluoridation materials,

   LEAD

up to 1.6 ppb after dilution at the water plant,  this amount contributed by the fluoridation materials, up to 63 ppb at random taps measured in Everett, up to 1,600 ppb in Seattle school drinking fountains as a result of lead leaching caused by orthosilicic acid, a breakdown product of fluorosilicic acid

   ARSENIC

up to 1.6 ppb after dilution at the water plant, this amount contributed by the fluoridation materials,

   BERYLLIUM

up to .6 ppb after dilution at the water plant, this amount contributed by the fluoridation materials,

  BARIUM

up to .3 ppb after dilution at the water plant, this amount contributed by the fluoridation materials,

  CHROMIUM

up to .2 ppb after dilution at the water plant, this amount contributed by the fluoridation materials,

  CADMIUM

up to .12 ppb after dilution at the water plant, this amount contributed by the fluoridation materials,

  THALLIUM

up to 0.06 ppb after dilution at the water plant, this amount contributed by the fluoridation materials, a radionuclide which emits beta radiation contribution from fluoridation materials

  MERCURY

0.04 ppb in tap water, contribution from fluoridation materials.

The phrase “contribution from fluoridation materials” means the amount of each element added as part of the fluoridation chemicals added and not the amount which might come from the source water or that part which is leached out of pipes. Although fluoridation materials add up to 1.6 ppb lead, much more lead is added as fluorosilicic acid breakdown products such as orthosilicic acid leach lead from pipes, producing lead levels at various taps in Everett at up to 63 ppb and in Seattle school drinking fountains at up to 1,600 ppb, which equals 1.6 ppm, more than the fluoride level. [note that 0.6 ppm silicic acid is 6.4 x 10^-4 molar and reacts one to one with lead bicarbonate to form 6.4 x 10^-4 moles of lead ion which is 1,300 ppb, comparable to the detected 1,600 ppb lead in Everett school fountains]. The NSF standard 60 requires that a score of toxicological studies be done on fluoridation materials, however, NSF has admitted that it is not enforcing this requirement. Laws in some 47 states such as WAC 246-290-220 state that fluoridation may be done only with fluoridation materials which comply” with NSF Rule 60. Because the toxicological studies are not being done, our fluoridation materials do not “comply” with NSF Rule 60. Fluoridation with fluorosilicic acid is therefore illegal. There are other reasons why fluoridation is illegal.
Our city councils and water districts ignore this conspicuous violation of law at the peril of themselves someday being personally liable in court.

The compounds contained in pesticides, for example, typically break down into otherwise harmless elements.
Even ‘Roundup’ eventually breaks down into hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus. However, the elements listed above do not break down. They are elements, and elements are indestructible. They can continue their enzymatic activity indefinitely.
Although the concentration of these contaminants might appear small when expressed as a percentage or as parts per million or billion, the absolute number of atoms of these contaminants in a liter of water is enormous. For example, when lead is present in water at 1.6 ppb, there are as many as 4.6 x 1012 atoms of lead per liter, which is 4.6 trillion atoms of lead. I will show you how to calculate the number of atoms below. These 4.6 trillion atoms of lead penetrate every part of the body, are hard for the body to excrete, are highly toxic, and are indestructible. A “small” amount of lead is not a small number of atoms of lead, and is wrongheaded to dismiss it as insignificant.

Here is some necessary background information: An atom is exceedingly small, and the number of atoms in even a small amount of water is enormous. Avogadro’s Number is the number of atoms (or molecules) in one mole of an element (or compound). A mole of  an element or compound contains the molecular weight of the element or compound. The molecular weight of water, for example is 18, so a mole of water is 18 grams of water. In 18 grams of water there are 6.02 x 1023 molecules of water. In plain language that is 602 sextillion or 620,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. Note that I moved the decimal 23 digits to the right. Let’s do the same calculation for fluoride ion, assuming a concentration in tap water after dilution of 1.0 ppm. The atomic mass of fluoride ion is 19, and therefore the gram molecular weight of fluoride ion is 19. There is not 1 gram of fluoride ion in fluoridated water, but 1 milligram, which is .001 gram. To get the number of moles of fluoride ion in a liter of water divide .001 by 19, there is.000053 moles of fluoride ion in a liter of water, which is 5.3 x 10-5 (because we moved the decimal point 5 places to the right) moles of fluoride ion in a liter of fluoridated water. Multiply 5.3 x 10-5 x 6 x 1023 = 31.8 x 10-18 or 3.18 x 1017 or 3,180,000,000,000,000,000.

That is 3.18 billion billion atoms of fluoride ion in a liter of water containing fluoride ion at 1 ppm.

Although 1 part fluoride ion in one million is argued to be ‘safe’ for human consumption, understand that one litre of water fluoridated with 1.0 ppm fluoride ion contains around 3.18 billion billion atoms of fluoride ion.

The kidneys eliminate half of all ingested fluoride contaminant, but are unable to prevent the remaining fluoride ion from binding to bone permanently for the life of the consumer, since calcium fluoride is locked inside extracellular bone which retains a basic pH of 7.4, and at that pH, the fluoride cannot dissociate and come unlocked from the calcium.

1 ppm fluoride ion in water causes blood fluoride levels of 0.21 ppm, which in turn produces a fluoride saliva level of around .02 ppm fluoride ion. A blood fluoride level of .21 ppm is enough to inhibits the activity of DNA repair enzymes including glutamine synthetase about 50%. Arsenic: NSF acknowledges that shipments of fluoridation materials have been found to add up to 1.6 ppb arsenic after dilution down to the level where fluoride ion is at 1 ppm. Arsenic has a molecular weight of 75. At the concentration of 1.6 ppb in water, the calculation of the number of atoms of lead in a liter of water is 1.6 x 10-9, which is .0000000016 (note that I moved the decimal point nine places to the left), which is the number of grams of arsenic in a gram of water. Divide that by the atomic number, which is 75. That yields 2.1 x 10-10 moles of arsenic x Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 12.8 x 1012 or 12.8 trillion atoms of arsenic per liter of tap water.

Regarding orthosilicic acid, there is little orthosilicic acid (H4SiO4) in the tanker truck. When the fluorosilicic acid (SiF62−) is diluted 230,000 times to the point where the concentration of fluoride ion has been reduced from 23% down to 1.0 ppm, fluorosilicic acid breaks down, and one of its breakdown products is orthosilicic acid. So-called fluorosilicic acid is not just fluorosilicic acid. It contains or breaks down into (*** check this:) hydrogen fluoride, fluoride ion, orthosilicic acid, and a host of other elements in small concentrations. In water where fluoride ion is diluted to the point where there is 1.0 ppm fluoride ion, there can be up to around 0.6 ppm orthosilicic acid. Orthosilicic acid has an atomic weight of 96. Therefore divide .6 x 10-9 by 96 = which yields .00625 x 10-9, which is 6.25 x 10-12 moles of orthosilicic acid in a liter of water. Multiply 6.25 x 10-12 by Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 37.6 x 1011 or 3.76 x 1012 or 3.763 trillion molecules of orthosilicic acid in a liter of fluoridated water.

Regarding lead, NSF acknowledges that shipments of fluoridation materials have been found to contain up to 1.6 ppb lead (1.6 x 10-9) after dilution down to the level where fluoride ion is at 1 ppm. The atomic weight of lead is 207.2 and a mole of lead therefore weighs 207.2 grams. Divide 1.6 x 10-9 by 207.2 = 7.72 x 10-12 moles of lead in a liter of fluoridated water. Multiply 7.72 x 10-12 by Avadadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 46.47 x 1011 or 4.647 x 1012, which would be 4.647 trillion atoms of lead in a liter of fluoridated water.

Regarding beryllium, NSF acknowledges that shipments of fluoridation materials have been found to add up to .6 ppb beryllium after fluoridation materials have been diluted down to the level where fluoride ion is at 1 ppm. Beryllium has a molecular weight of 9. At the concentration of .6 ppb in water, the calculation of the number of atoms of beryllium in a liter of water is as follows Multiply .6 ppb or .0000000006 or .6 x 10-9 (note that I moved the decimal point nine places to the left). This is the grams of beryllium in a gram of water. Divide that by the atomic number, which is 9. Then .6 x 10-9 divided by 9 = .066 x . 10-9 or 6.6 x 10-11, which the moles of beryllium in a liter of water. Multiply x 6.6 x 10-11 x Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 39.72 x 1012 or 3.972 x 1013, which 39.72 trillion atoms of beryllium per liter of tap water.

Regarding barium, NSF acknowledges that shipments of fluoridation materials have been found to add up to .3 ppb beryllium after fluoridation materials have been diluted down to the level where fluoride ion is at 1 ppm. Barium has a molecular weight of 137. At the concentration of .3 ppb in water, the calculation of the number of atoms of barium in a liter of water is as follows Multiply .3 ppb or .0000000003 or .3 x 10-9 (note that I moved the decimal point nine places to the left). This is the grams of beryllium in a gram of water. Divide that by the atomic number, which is 137: .3 x 10-9 divided by 137 = .0022 x 10-9 or 2.2 x 10-12, which the moles of barium in a liter of water. Multiply 2.2 x 10-12 x Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 13.24 x 1011 or 1.324 x 1012 or 1,324,000,000,000 or 1.325 trillion atoms of boron per liter of tap water.

Regarding chromium, NSF acknowledges that shipments of fluoridation materials have been found to add up to  .2 ppb chromium after fluoridation materials have been diluted down to the level where fluoride ion is at 1 ppm. Chromium has a molecular weight of 52. At the concentration of .2 ppb in water, the calculation of the number of atoms of chromium in a liter of water is as follows: Multiply .2 ppb or .0000000002 or .2 x 10-9 (note that I moved the decimal point nine places to the left), which is grams of chromium in a gram of water. Divide that by the atomic number, which is 52: .2 x 10-9 divided by 52 = .0038 x 10-9 or 3.8 x 10-12, which the moles of chromium in a liter of water. Multiply 3.8 x 10-12 x Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 22.88 x 1011 or 2.288 x 1012 or 2,288,000,000,000 or 2.288 trillion atoms of chromium per liter of tap water.

Regarding cadmium, NSF acknowledges that shipments of fluoridation materials have been found to add up to  .12 ppb cadmium after fluoridation materials have been diluted down to the level where fluoride ion is at 1 ppm. Cadmium has a molecular weight of 112. At the concentration of .12 ppb in water, the calculation of the number of atoms of cadmium in a liter of water is as follows: Multiply .12 ppb or .00000000012 or .12 x 10-9 grams of cadmium in a gram of fluoridated water. Divide that by the atomic number of cadmium, which is 112: .12 x 10-9 divided by 112 = .00107 x 10-9 or 1.07 x 10-12, which is the moles of chromium in a liter of water. Multiply 1.07 x 10-12 x Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 6.44 x 1012 or or 6,440,000,000,000 or 6.44 trillion atoms of cadmium per liter of tap water.

Regarding thallium, NSF acknowledges that shipments of fluoridation materials have been found to add up to .06 ppb thallium after fluoridation materials have been diluted down to the level where fluoride ion is at 1 ppm. Thallium has a molecular weight of 204. At the concentration of .06 ppb in water, the calculation of the number of atoms of thallium in a liter of water is as follows: Multiply .06 ppb or .00000000006 or .06 x 10-9 grams of thallium in a gram of fluoridated water. Divide that by the atomic number of thallium, which is 204: .06 x 10-9 divided by 204 = .00029 x 10-9 or 2.9 x 10-13, which is the moles of thallium in a liter of water. Multiply 2.9 x 10-13 x Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 17.46 x 1010 or or 174,600,000,000 or 174.6 billion atoms of cadmium per liter of tap water.

Many of the isotopes of thallium are radioactive. NSF admits in its letter written in 2000 that the radionuclides in so-called fluorosilicic acid give off as much as .6 millirems of beta rays per year. Presumably these beta rays are coming from the thallium, although according to environmental journalist George Glasser, when the price of uranium was higher, the ore which phosphate comes from has been used as a source of commercial amounts of uranium. So there may be other radionuclides in the fluoridation materials which might contribute to this total, including uranium and polonium, according to Glasser. “In a classic beta decay a neutron [gives off an electron and becomes positive and] turns into a proton, and a beta particle (electron) and an anti-neutrino are ejected from the nucleus”. This amount of radiation approaching you from outside your body would not even penetrate your skin. However, once a thallium atom becomes part of the body, it is inside cells and only Angstrom units away from DNA molecules. There is no safe level of ingested radioactivity.

Regarding mercury, NSF acknowledges that shipments of fluoridation materials have been found to add up to .04 ppb mercury after fluoridation materials have been diluted down to the level where fluoride ion is at 1 ppm. Mercury has a molecular weight of 201. At the concentration of .04 ppb in water, the calculation of the number of atoms of mercury in a liter of water is as follows: Multiply .04 ppb or .00000000004 or .04 x 10-9 grams of mercury in a gram of fluoridated water. Divide that by the atomic number of mercury, which is 201: .04 x 10-9 divided by 201 = .000199 x 10-9 or 1.9 x 10-13, which is the moles of mercury in a liter of water. Multiply 1.9 x 10-13 x Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 11.44 x 1010 or 114,400,000,000 or 114.4 billion atoms of mercury per liter of tap water.

Regarding hydrogen fluoride, Simplot’s Certificate of Analysis shows that around 1.5% of the contents of a tanker truck load of so-called fluorosilicic acid is hydrogen fluoride. NSF acknowledges on its ‘Fact Sheet’ that after dilution of fluoridation materials down to the level where fluoride ion is at 1 ppm, hydrogen fluoride is present at .02 ppm, which is in treated water at pH 7.6. In the stomach at pH 3, hydrogen fluoride concentration is up to around .5 ppm, whereas fluoride ion has dropped from 1.0 ppm to around .5 ppm. Notice how fluoride ion and hydrogen fluoride morph from one to the other depending on the dilution and the pH.

Hydrogen fluoride has a molecular weight of 20. At a concentration of .02 ppb in water coming from the treatment plant at pH 7.6, the calculation of the number of atoms of hydrogen fluoride in a liter of water is as follows: Multiply .02 ppb or .00000000002 or .02 x 10-9 grams of hydrogen fluoride in a gram of fluoridated water. Divide that by the atomic weight of mercury, which is 20: .02 x 10-9 divided by 20 = .001 x 10-9 or 1.0 x 10-12, which is the moles of hydrogen in a liter of water at pH 7.6. Multiply 1.0 x 10-12 x Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 6.02 x 1011 or 602,000,000,000 or 602 billion atoms of hydrogen fluoride per liter of tap water at pH 7.6

However, in the stomach it is a different story, because at pH 3, a lot of fluoride ion morphs into hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen fluoride is present in the stomach at around .5 ppm. So let’s run the numbers again at .5 ppm. Again, hydrogen fluoride has a molecular weight of 20. At a concentration of .5 ppb in water coming from the treatment plant at pH 7.6, the calculation of the number of atoms of hydrogen fluoride in a liter of water is as follows: Multiply .5 ppm or .0000005 or 5.0 x 10-7 grams of hydrogen fluoride in a gram of fluoridated water. Divide that by the atomic weight of hydrogen, which is 20: 5.0 x 10-7 divided by 20 = .25 x 10-7 or 2.5 x 10-8, or .000000025 moles of hydrogen fluoride in a liter of water at pH 3.0. Multiply 2.5 x 10-8 x Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 15.05 x 1015 or 15,050,000,000,000,000 or 15.05 million billion atoms of hydrogen fluoride per liter of tap water at pH 3.0.

Finally, there is thallium, NSF acknowledges that shipments of fluoridation materials have been found to add up to .06 ppb thallium to water after fluoridation materials have been diluted down to the level where fluoride ion is at 1 ppm. Thallium has a molecular weight of 204. At the concentration of .06 ppb in water, the calculation of the number of atoms of thallium in a liter of water is as follows: Start with .06 ppb or .00000000006 or .06 x 10-9grams of thallium in a gram of fluoridated water. Divide that by the atomic number of thallium, which is 204: .06 x 10-9 divided by 204 = .00029 x 10-9 or 2.9 x 10-13, which is the moles of thallium in a liter of water. Multiply 2.9 x 10-13 x Avagadro’s number, 6.02 x 1023 = 17.46 x 1010 or 174,600,000,000. That is 174.6 billion atoms of thallium per liter of tap water fluoridated at 1.0 ppm fluoride ion.

Many of the isotopes of thallium are radioactive. NSF admits in its letter written in 2000 that the radionuclides in so-called fluorosilicic acid give off as much as .6 millirems of beta rays per year. Presumably these beta rays are coming from the thallium, although according to environmental journalist George Glasser, when the price of uranium was higher, the ore which phosphate comes from has been used as a source of commercial amounts of uranium. So there may be other radionuclides in the fluoridation materials which might contribute to this total, including uranium and polonium, according to Glasser. He says:

In a classic beta decay a neutron [gives off an electron and becomes positive and] turns into a proton, and a beta particle (electron) and an anti-neutrino are ejected from the nucleus”.

This amount of radiation approaching you from outside your body would not even penetrate your skin. However, once a thallium atom becomes part of the body, it is inside cells and only Angstrom units away from DNA molecules. There is no safe level of ingested radioactivity.

The only defense which the fluoridationists have when we tell them that their fluoridation materials contain fluorosilicic acid, fluoride ion, hydrogen fluoride, lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, thallium, selenium, and barium is to counter that the amounts are small.

To the contrary, the amounts are not small. The amounts of fluoride ion, hydrogen fluoride, and orthosilicic acid, are large even as a percentage of all the additives. Further, the amount of lead which orthosilicic acid dissolves out of pipes can be enormous, as high as 1,600 ppb. It is amazing that we ignore the fluorosilicic acid connection with lead leaching.

In addition, fluoridationists ignore the possibility that all
these toxic substances are more potent as a 
mixture than they are individually.

We have reproduced this paper here just in case the original is lost.

We are thankful and mindful of the work of the original authors.

and commend it to all doctors and dentists.

We keep our own copy off-line.

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 

End line

Letter to Fraser Mitcham, explaing the origins of sodium
fluorosilicic acid / sodium fluorosilicate.

End lineMSDS-Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Fluorosilicate Powder +

fluoridation-queensland-logo

new-devider-fq

eagle-head-bw-f

 

new-devider-fq

The greatest practical significance of Mg-F– interaction however,
seems to be in processes of bone and tooth mineralization
and in the formation of uroliths.

f-mag_-interaction-sA Machoy-Mokrzynska (Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology,

pomeranian-uni-poland

Pomeranian Medical Academy, Szczecin, Poland)
The Pomeranian Medical University has more than 500 faculty and
almost 200 technical staff. Among the academic staff are
43 professors and 54 habilitated doctors.
Since 1948  8060 physicians and
3314 dentists graduated from the University.
1113 researchers obtained the degree of doctor
and 196 of habilitated doctor. 

Fluoride (J. of the International Society for Fluoride Research),

Vol. 28 No. 4; November, 1995, pp 175-177

It has now been fifteen years since Marier drew attention to the significance of magnesium in biological interaction with fluorides.
(1) The toxic effect of fluoride ion plays a key role in acute Mg deficiency. The amount of F assimilated by living organisms constantly increases, and Mg absorption diminishes as a consequence of progressively advancing industrialization. Marier gives examples of such retention of both elements in plants (e.g. in pine and tomatoes) and in animals, for instance in bone tissue, blood and kidneys, with the last being thought as the most probable place of Mg-F interaction.(1) Now, further facts have been observed, which throw a new light on the effects of Mg-F interaction.

The significance and distribution of Mg in living organisms are widely known and described in textbooks.(2) Fluoride ion clearly interferes with the biological activity of magnesium ion.
(3) Present-day Mg deficiencies in humans are the result of intensive expulsion of this element (e.g. under the influence of extensive drinking of alcoholic beverages) or reduced Mg content in the diet, caused, for example, by inappropriate agricultural practices or effects of ecotoxins.

(4) One of the prime locations of possible F and Mg interactions is the intestines. The increased Fsupply reduces intestinal Mg resorption, owing to high chemical affinity of both elements and production of MgF+ and MgF2.(1) However, there are many facts to be considered, since there is a common mechanism of transportation of both these elements through the intestinal walls. Distinct F-Mg interaction is also observed in other cells and tissues. Mg deficiency in plants may limit synthesis of chlorophyll, on which photosynthesis depends. Therefore, supplementation of Mg protects plants against toxic effects of fluoride compounds.(1) Mg deficiency in animals reduces production of energy, relevant to the Mg-ATP system. Reduction of ATP levels affects in an unfavourable way many metabolic processes connected with the action of ATP (eg, metabolism of carbohydrates, proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and active transport).

The role of Mg and F ions in enzymology is also well known. Magnesium-dependant enzymes compose the biggest group in enzyme systematics. Magnesium is the activator of more than 300 enzymes, while fluorine is known as their inhibitor, although the activity of some enzymes is known to be increased by fluorine.(5) In general, Mg-F interactions most frequently decrease enzymatic activity.(6) The greatest practical significance of Mg-F interaction however, seems to be in processes of bone and tooth mineralization, and in the formation of uroliths.(7,8)

In bone tissue magnesium stimulates the transformation of immature (amorphic) bone into a more crystalic form. Owing to the translocation of Mg into mineral tissue, bone elasticity increases to help prevent fractures. Rats on diet poor in Mg display significantly higher content of F in femurs and molars. This is undoubtedly related to the assimilability of both elements. Since bioavailability of Mg and F depends on their mutual ratio in the diet,(9) a low-magnesium diet distinctly increases F absorption in the intestines.

Taking into account the mineralization of bone tissue, one also cannot ignore the role of calcium. The basic inorganic compound of bones is hydroxyapatite, containing calcium phosphate. The far-reaching antagonism between magnesium and calcium affects not only their different distribution in tissues, but also their mutual dislodging from cells. For example, magnesium favours blocking of calcium channels, disturbs oxidative phosphorylation, intensifies bone decalcification and increases muscle-cell diastole, while calcium intensifies contraction. On the other hand, hypercalcemia enhances Mg loss or magnesiuria.(10)

Mg-F interaction processes relating to enamel and its effect on caries have also been investigated. Fluoride ion affects enamel hardening (11, 12) and prevents its annealing, but this effect diminishes after administration of Mg. Magnesium alone does not visibly affect tooth plaque, erosive enamel damage, or the course of caries, but Mg and F administered jointly influence enamel hardening and reduce caries significantly, as demonstrated in rats.(13) In interactions of F with Mg and Ca, it should be stressed that it is calcium rather than magnesium that intensifies mineralization processes.

Urolith formation is considered to be pathological. Mineral content analysis of uroliths shows that they always contain Mg and F (besides phosphates, calcium and other inorganic and organic components).(8) Formation of uroliths follows crystallization rules. Mg ion reduces the rate of superficial crystal nuclei formation, whereas F ion accelerates the process. The former reduces and the latter accelerates growth of calcium phosphate crystals.
(7) In the formation of uroliths, calcium is the promotor, and magnesium plays the role of the inhibitor.

It also should be pointed out that uroliths always contain more Ca than Mg. Fluoride on the other hand, favours formation of uroliths and accelerates their production.

(8) In summary, it can be stated that in intoxication with fluorine compounds, magnesium plays a protective role by countering and reducing the toxic effects of F.


References:

1 Marier J R. Observations and implications of the (Mg F) interrelations in bio-systems: a review and comments on magnesium intake and fluoride intake in the modern-day world. Proceedings of the Finnish Dental Society 76. 82-92, 93-102, 1980. (Abstracted in Fluoride 14, 142 1981).

2 Durlach J. Le magnesium en pratique clinique. Editions Medicales Internationales. Paris 1991.

3 Guminska M. The effect of magnesium on metabolism in living organisms and medical consequences of its deficiency in man. Folia Medica Cracoviensia 26 1-2, 5-28, 1985.

4 Markiewicz J. Environmental factors decreasing magnesium content in alimentary chain. Folia Medica Cracoviensia 26 1-2, 5-28, 1985.

5 Strochkova L S, Zhavoronkov A A. Fluroide as an activator of enzymatic systems. Fluoride 16, 181-186 1983.

6 Chlubek D, Machoy Z. Significance of the effect of fluorine dose on enzymes activity in vivo and in vitro studies.Bromatologia i Chemia Toksykologiczna 22 3-4, 235-242, 1989.

7 Okazaki M. Mg2+-F interaction during hydroxyapatite formation. Magnesium 6 (6) 296-301, 1987.

8 Machoy P, Bober J. Fluorine-constant component of urinary calculi, Environmental Sciences 2 1 11-15, 1993.

9 Cerklewski F L. Influence of dietary magnesium on fluoride bioavailability in the rat. American Insitute of Nutrition 117 (3) 456-500, 1987.

10 Machoy Z. Biochemical mechanisms of fluorine compounds action. Folia Medica Cracoviensia 28 1-2, 61-81, 1987.

11 Collys K, Slop D, Coomans D. Interaction of magnesium and fluoride in the rehardening and acid resistance of surface-softened bovine enamel in vitro. Magnesium Trace Element 9 (1) 47- 53, 1990.

12 Luoma A R, Luoma H, Raisanen J, Hausen H. Effect of magnesium and fluoride on the fermentative dissolution of enamel by a streptococcal layer as measured by mircrohardness tester and a proton probe microanalysis. Caries Research 17 430-438, 1983.

13 Sorvari R, Koskinen-Kainulainen M, Sorvari T, Luoma H. Effect of a sports drink mixture with and without addition of fluoride and magnesium on plaque formation, dental caries and general health of rats. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research94 483-490, 1986.

FLUORIDE:

published by the International Society for Fluoride Research Editorial Office:

81A Landscape Road, Mt Eden, Auckland 4, NZ

Subscription Rate: $40. U.S. Funds per year (quarterly publication)

BLUE-RED-BLUE strip

 see also 

FLUORIDE AND THE ZINK LINK — Leo Spira

BLUE-RED-BLUE strip

↓  Local information and supplier ↓

More info on Magnesium and Health

bird-bath

fluoridation-queensland-logo

 

new-devider-fq

new-devider-fq

 

 

~  FLUORIDATION AND ALBERT SCHATZ Affidavit  ~

Albert Schatz ff

State Of Wisconsin Circuit Court Fond Du Lac County

SAFE WATER ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiff,vs.CITY OF FOND DU LAC,Defendant. Case No. 92 CV 579

 

AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT SCHATZ, Ph.D.
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

State of Pennsylvania
City of Philadelphia

Albert Schatz, Ph.D., being first duly sworn on oath and with personal knowledge of the information contained herein,

respectfully states to the Court as follows:

BACKGROUND

1. I received my B.Sc. in 1942 in Soil Chemistry, and my Ph.D. in 1946 in Soil Microbiology, each from Rutgers University.

2. I have held numerous academic positions. Since 1980, I have been a Senior Professor at Temple University.

3. At the age of 23, I discovered the antibiotic Streptomycin. This compound was the first effective drug for the treatment of human tuberculosis.

4. I have been awarded honorary degrees and titles by the University of Chile, the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo, the Federal University of Espirito Santo in Brazil, the National University of San Antonio Abad del Cuzco in Peru, and the University of Bogota in Colombia.

5. I have been named an honorary member of the Scientific Society of Chile, the Chilean Society of Pediatrics, The Academy of Oral Dynamics (USA), the Stomatological Society of Greece, and many others.

6. I am also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Health in Great Britain.

7. I have published three books, and more than 500 articles in scientific and professional journals, and in popular magazines and newspapers.

8. On the subject of fluoridation, I have published numerous articles, including:

  1. The Failure of Fluoridation in Chile, Pakistan Dental Review, 1967; 15:83.
  2. Failure of Fluoridation in the United Kingdom. Pakistan Dental Review, 1972; 22:3.
  3. The failure of fluoridation in England. Manchester Union Leader, Jan 27, 1973.
  4. Censorship suppresses information unfavorable to fluoridation. Divulgacion Cultural Odontologica, 1975; 110:32.
  5. Increased death rates in Chile associated with artificial fluoridation of drinking water. Journal of Arts, Sciences and Humanities. 1976; 2:1.

9. From 1962 to 1965 I lived in Chile. During that time I served as a Professor at the University of Chile, and worked in the Faculty of Medicine, the Faculty of Dentistry, the Faculty of Agriculture, and the Faculty of Philosophy and Education. I was also associated with numerous projects in the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Education.

EXPERIENCE CONCERNING THE DANGERS OF FLUORIDATION

  1. Chile began to experiment with artificial fluoridation in 1953. By the 1960s, it became clear to me that fluoridation was causing serious harm, and I undertook a study which showed increased death rates in Chile associated with artificial fluoridation. My dramatic findings were later published. (Exhibit____).
  2. My first finding is perhaps the most disturbing. Those authorized to study and review the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation consistently distorted the data to achieve the desired results.
  3. When the data for the three “test” cities in Chile were examined, Curico, F 1 ppm, San Fernando F 0.0 ppm, and La Serena 0.67 ppm, the only possible conclusion was that fluoridation was causing significant numbers of deaths.
  4. Consider, for example, the deaths resulting from congenital malformations as a percent of the total number of deaths. Curico has 244% more such deaths than San Fernando, and 94% more than La Serena. (Exhibit____, table 1).
  5. Infant mortality rates in Curico were 69% greater than in San Fernando and La Serena. (Id, table 2).
  6. For a fuller understanding of some of the harmful effects caused by fluoridation, read exhibit____. Chile abandoned artificial fluoridation shortly after I sent copies of my report to all dental and medical officers in the Pan American Health Organization.
  7. In Chile, with widespread malnutrition and high infant mortality, it was not necessary to observe a generation of people throughout their entire life-span in order to determine whether artificial fluoridation is or is not harmful. One could see the lethal effect of fluoridation within the first year of life in terms of increased infant mortality due to acute toxicity of fluoride. Some other adverse effects, like congenital malformations, may or may not cause death.
  8. In the US, the harmful effects of artificial fluoridation are not so clearly revealed by large-scale, comparative studies of the total populations of fluoridated and control cities, because Americans as a whole are in a considerably better state of nutrition than Chileans.
  9. Nonetheless, artificial fluoridation of drinking water may well dwarf the thalidomide tragedy, which was dramatic because it produced crippled children who are living testimonials to what that drug has done. Many victims of artificial fluoridation, on the other hand, die quietly during the first year of their lives, or at a later age under conditions where their deaths are attributed to some other cause.

EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDATION

  1. In 1969, the British Committee on Research into Fluoridation reported the fluoridation of water supplies is a highly effective way of reducing caries. My published analysis of the data, with Dr. Joseph Martin, shows that fluoridation does not protect against tooth decay. (Exhibit____).
  2. The data clearly showed that fluoridation only delays the appearance of caries. For example, 10-year-old fluoridated and 8.8-year-old control children had about the same DMFT. A comparison of other corresponding age groups shows a similar delay of approximately 1.2 years in the appearance of caries. (Exhibit ___, figure 2).
  3. Fluoridation merely postpones the appearance of caries. Fluoridated children develop the same amount of tooth decay as their non-fluoridated counter-parts over their lifetime. The only difference is that caries start developing approximately 1.2 years later.
  4. There is no economic benefit for such actions. Since fluoride does not reduce caries, fluoridated and control children will develop the same amount of tooth decay. Both groups will therefore require the same amount of dental treatment. People in fluoridated areas therefore pay for the same amount of dental treatment plus the added cost of fluoridation.

REFUSAL TO CONSIDER ADVERSE EVIDENCE

  1. On the strength of the data I had analyzed in Chile, I wrote L.C. Hendershot, editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association. I asked him if he would be interested in seeing my report of increased death rates, and if he would consider it for publication in JAMA.
  2. When he did not reply to that letter of inquiry, I sent him three copies of the report in January, February, and March of 1965. Dr. Hendershot refused to accept all three communications, which were therefore returned to me, unopened. Copies of the certified envelopes, marked refused, are figure 3, exhibit____.
  3. Such a response is typical of the proponents of fluoridation. The professional sanctions for opposing fluoridation can be severe, and it is best not to even acknowledge evidence of harm or ineffectiveness.

CONCLUSION

  1. Artificial fluoridation has not been as widely accepted as its proponents imply. Many cities in the US have discontinued fluoridation after starting it. Virtually all of Europe has considered and abandoned fluoridation.
  2. Because artificial fluoridation causes deaths among individuals who are for one reason or another more sensitive to fluoride toxicity than the total population taken as a whole, the controversy over whether fluoridation does or does not reduce caries is purely academic. It is criminal to implement a so-called public health measure which kills certain people even if it does reduce tooth decay in some of the survivors. As noted, the evidence is that it merely delays decay.
  3. It is my best judgment, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation is invalid in theory and ineffective in practice as a preventive of dental caries. It is dangerous to the health of consumers.
  4. I make this Affidavit in support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

______________________________________________________________

Press Release, 30 June 1993 | Update, 25 June 1993 | Sherrell transcript, 1992 | 
AFFIDAVITS: Frank Bertrand, B.D.S. | Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D. | Robert J. Carton, Ph.D. | John Colquhoun, D.D.S. | Mark Diesendorf, Ph.D. | Richard G. Foulkes, M.D. | Sheila L. M. Gibson, M.D. | John Remington Graham, Esq. | Gerard F. Judd, Ph.D. | George W. Kell, Esq. | David C. Kennedy, D.D.S | Robert Roy Kintner, Ph.D. | Lennart Krook, D.V.M., Ph.D. | John R. Lee, M.D. | William L. Marcus, Ph.D., D.A.B.T. | Jim Maxey, D.D.S | Hans C. Moolenburgh, M.D. | H. J. Roberts, M.D. | Jan F. Sallstrom, Ph.D | Albert Schatz, Ph.D. | A.K. Susheela, Ph.D. | Philip R. N. Sutton, B.D.Sc. | Deloss E. Winkler, Ph.D. | exhibits list

                                    fq

greater-kestrel-head-f

It is disappointing that Dr. Hodge has not

kept up with the science of fluoridation.

Fluori-leaks-sZelle-Hodge-ff

ADA / Qld. Labour Party Collusion      

The Queensland Health Department, funded

The Australian Dental Association

Queensland Branch, with $220,000 as a CONtribution

to its pro-fluoridation campaign. 

The request for this funding was directed to

the Hon. Stephen Robertson MP.

The Minister for Health at the time [Feb. 2006] 

Hodge-letter-til-f

 

Off-line-Copes...

CRIMINAL CODE 1899 – SECT 87 (Queensland)

Fluoridation – Breach of Version 1.2 – Sept. 2013 Code of Practice

$cience According To

The AMA 

inver-com-close

myths-fallacies-ama

radial-line-red-down-copy

Autism – Fluoride & Aluminium

radial-line-red-p-copy

Safe and Effective

[ Most anti-fluoridationists are dedicated, volunteers,
working in the interests of public health and safety! ]

Nobel

More →  HERE

radial-line-red-down-copy

gov-today-commerce-f

radial-line-red-p-copy

Mercury or fluoride could apply here ↓

othello-f

Queensland Shires Rejecting Fluoridation

we-both-need-f-free-f

fluoridation-queensland-logo


new-devider-fq

gold-ribbon-1413076

FLUORIDE TOXICITY FOR SHEEP – CSIRO BULLETIN No. 121

a-sheep-on-grass-f

csiro-logo

f-sheep-csiro-bul-121

COMMONWEALTH of AUSTRALIA

Melbourne. 1938

    CSIRO was original formed in 1926 as CSIR
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

bulletin-no-121-observations-on-the-toxicity-of-fluorine-for-sheep

 We are sorry that the full text is no longer available.

HOWEVER TRY → HERE

sheep-vit-cSee also ↓

FLUOROSIS OF SHEEP IN QUEENSLAND

The lethal dose of NaF (an artificial fluoride) is 50 times smaller than
that of CaF2 (the naturally-occurring fluoride) – Dr. Hardy Limeback,
Biochemist and Professor of Dentistry, University of Toronto, 
former consultant to the Canadian Dental Association.

fluoridation-queensland-logo

new-devider-fq

3 Marino sheep f

 

J.A.-Yia...

     FLUORIDE THE AGING FACTOR  

by

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis was, until his death in the fall of 2000,

the world’s leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride.

His formal education included a B.S. in biochemistry from the

University of Chicago and a Ph.D in biochemistry from the

University of Rhode Island. After a year of postdoctoral research at

Western Reserve University Medical School, Yiamouyiannis

went on to become biochemical editor at Chemical Abstracts Service,

the world’s largest chemical information center.

It was at Chemical Abstracts Service,

where   Yiamouyiannis  ← watch Part 1

became interested in the   damaging effects of fluoride.  ← watch Part 2

 

fq

eagle-head-bw-f

 

Fluoridation Inquiry Australian Capital Territory

F.-ACT-ss

Standing Committee on Social Policy-Inquiry
Into Water Fluoridation In The ACT – Jan.1991

Full text   f-in-act  

fluoridation-queensland-logo

 

new-devider-fq

dfc23bdf0546c911840fcfaa7b4dd5f4

 

‘FLUORIDATION, 1979’ – by Philip R.N.Sutton

‘The Australian Fluoridation Skeptics’
reproduce this publication with respect and honour
and our belief that this would be in keeping with
the wishes of the late Philip R. N. Sutton

Image of Sutton ff

F.1979Sutton book cov. copy

Scientific Criticisms and Dangers
by
Philip R.N. Sutton

Former Senior Lecturer in Dental Science
University of Melbourne, Australia

Full text 284 pages – may be slow to load ↓

  F. 1979 Sutton  ←

Green stripGreen strip

     Philip Sutton published the first warning about fluoridation deceptive claims made about the first experimental fluoridation plants. His book Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials, published 1959 is only now acknowledged by the fluoridation hierarchy as correct, even though throughout the years since he published his research, the Health Departments of the USA & government employed dentists throughout the world aggressively attacked his printed data

 See also by Philip Sutton 

→ → Fluoridation Omission And Errors  ← ←

    Dr Sutton was the leading Australian dental researcher to question the alleged scientific basis for fluoridation. In 1959, as a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Oral Medicine and Surgery, University of Melbourne, Dr. Sutton published a landmark monograph, “Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials” (Melbourne University Press, Melbourne). This was a greatly expanded version of a paper published in 1958 by Dr Sutton and Sir Arthur Amies, then Dean of the Melbourne University Dental School. The monograph revealed in detail some of the serious deficiencies in the North American fluoridation ‘trials’ at Grand Rapids, Evanston, Brantford and Newburgh. In my view it is a substantial scientific analysis, carefully and rigorously done. It shows that the trials have major short-comings, including limitations of data used, inconsistencies and errors in sampling, inadequacy of control populations, inappropriate ‘weighting’ of results, alterations to original results and misleading presentations and discussions of results.

Soon after publication of the monograph, the pro-fluoridation Australian Dental Association (ADA) sent copies ‘to all of the men who are in charge of the experiment’, asking them for comments. Then three hostile reviews were published in the “Australian Dental Journal (February 1960) and on the “New Zealand Dental Journal” (January 1960). Although the reviews contained serious and inaccurate accusations, it appears that Dr Sutton was not given the opportunity to reply in the journals concerned.

So, Dr Sutton brought out a second edition of his monograph (Melbourne University Press, 1960) which included the hostile reviews in full, together with his responses.

To do this, he first had to overcome the obstacle that the plates
of the first edition had been destroyed, counter
to normal practice and counter to his wishes.

Dr Sutton’s critique of the early fluoridation trials has stood the test of time.
It is unfortunate that these inadequate trials are still cited in reports
by pro-fluoridation health authorities and textbooks,
without any citation of Dr Sutton’s critique.

In 1985, Dr Sutton and I convened a scientific symposium on fluoridation at the annual conference of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science (ANZAAS). This may well have been the first scientific symposium aiming to debate the issue of fluoridation in Australia. We invited two of the main proponents of fluoridation to participate: the ADA and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Both decline, and the ADA wrote to the organisers of the ANZAAS Conference questioning the motivations of the conveners of the symposium. Fortunately, this pressure was resisted and the symposium when ahead. As a result of the attempted suppression, the symposium gained very wide media coverage in Australia.

Although he was ostracised by many of his dental colleagues
for his position on fluoridation,
Dr Sutton stood
firm, while remaining calm and polite to
those who saw themselves
 as his opponents.
He was a gentleman and scholar

of high moral courage.
He will be missed.

[ Philip R N Sutton DDSc (Melbourne) FRACDS
passed away in Melbourne on 12th March 1995. ]

fluoridation-queensland-logo

new-devider-fq

three-parrot-heads-f