We at ‘Fluoridation Queensland’ do NOT support the addition
of any fluorides to: food, water, or air, this includes adding
it to salt, milk, baby formula and toothpaste. We are
not happy about its use in medicines, weapons,
insecticides, fungicides, anaesthetics,
and some industrial processes,
especially those that cause damage
to the earth’s atmosphere.

We have presented only a few papers from around the world.
Over 500 new papers on fluorides are added each year.
We suspect many more exist in the non-English press.

Dr. Burhenne ↓

→ $educed By An Attractive Error ←

Qld. Gov. Policy on Fluoridation – current

A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride

→ www.slweb.org/bibliography.html ←

Fluoride: The Deadly Legacy by Gary Null Ph.D.

FLAGITIOUS LALLATION

Jason M. Armfield
(Member of IADR)

❝ … Statements regarding the scientific controversy surrounding water fluoridation are generally regarded as artefacts of anti-fluoridationist activity, with actual scientific debate over water fluoridation being resolved decades ago. Almost all major dental and health organisations either support water fluoridation or have found no association between it and adverse health effects [20]. Nonetheless, propagating the idea of an ongoing scientific debate gives the illusion of scientific uncertainty and is a favoured tactic of water fluoridation opponents. In 1978, Consumer Reports published a two-part series on fluoridation that concluded:

The simple truth is that there’s no “scientific controversy” over the safety of fluoridation. The practice is safe, economical, and beneficial. The survival of this fake controversy represents, in Consumers Union’s opinion, one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation.” [21] And yet, more than a quarter of a century after these words were printed the manufactured ‘controversy‘
shows no signs of diminishing. – [ Oh what a surprise! ]

K K Cheng, Professor Of Epidemiology:

The review estimated the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) and fluorosis of aesthetic concern at around 48% and 12.5% when the fluoride concentration was 1.0 part per million, 9 although the quality of the studies was low. The evidence was of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms (such as cancer and bone fracture). The amount and quality of the available data on side effects were insufficient to rule out all but the biggest effects

Well said Mr. Armfield,
however, history has shown us that you have not been
keeping up with the recent science from overseas.
We hope our web site will help to keep you updated…

Extract: from letter by Dr. Jason Armfield

Australian Research Centre For Population Oral Health
University Of Adelaide:
ARCPOH Response to USHHS
(United States Health Service)

❝… Hence, fluoride exposures of importance to dental fluorosis occur across the early childhood years. Fluoride exposures of importance to dental caries occur across the whole life-course. Developing policy to influence those exposures needs to take account of this fundamental difference. Actions to reduce fluorosis should be targeted at fluoride exposures that affect children in the early childhood years, while maintaining fluoride exposures across life for the prevention of dental caries… ❞

Our Comments:

Well, what you are saying here,- in a round about way,
or are trying to cover up, is that dental fluorosis only
occurs during tooth formation, so reduce fluoride
from all other sources until after teeth have erupted, and no
NO HARM WILL BE VISIBLE, but do not lower the dose
in drinking water. However the evidence is, that damage from
fluoridation continues to the rest of the body after the teeth
are formed, but will not be recorded on the teeth –.
We do not think your response to USHHS is ethical!
Please see the research papers on this web site, or our links
to them, including animal studies, which support our comments.
Yours truly,
‘Fluoridation Queensland’

→ Problems with topical applications ←

Artificial Water Fluoridation – No Benefit – Definite Harm

National data set collected in the U.S. in 1986-1987 (more than 16,000 children, ages 7-17, ↓

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Clinch_2009_No_Benefit_Definite_Harm.pdf

MORE OF OUR CONCERNS:

Caries / Dental Fluorosis

Because dental fluorosis only occurs during tooth formation, fluoride levels in water and exposure to fluoridated toothpaste needs to be low in children, or there will be evidence of harm.

Skeletal fluorosis can be misdiagnosed as arthritis,
and dental fluorosis would reveal the real problem…

Consumption of fluoridated water is difficult to monitor:

Fluid intake is relative to the “ambient air temperature”, work,
sport and exercise regimes. The availability of ‘clean’
bottled water, and RO filters, which are now commonplace
in many Australian households, and will distort the [your] data.
Because fluoride is medication, the dilemma will always be the dose, — 1ppm is a rate – not a dose,
and is not related to body weight, or many other variables
including nutritional status, kidney function, weather, climate,
latitude, elevation and daily temperature variations at the fluoridation plant.
Medication by thirst, is scientifically irresponsible.
The observation of harm with fluoridation is modified by cross contamination,- some foods and drinks will be crossing borders of reticulated water supplies, some being fluoridated and some not, or at different levels (ppm).
No amount of long-winded circumlocution, technical language or
extensive discussions of the “appropriateness of study design “
can disguise the simple and obvious problems of trying to deliver medication via the public water supply at a defined dose… it defies logic, is contemptuous of science and it is professionally irresponsible to pretend otherwise…

There are only preliminary estimates available regarding how much F. is absorbed through our skin and lungs when we stand naked in our shower or soak in the bath contaminated by fluoridated water – and we also pay for this indignity in our water bill.

Cognitive Vulnerability:

A MODEL OF THE ETIOLOGY OF FEAR

By Jason M. Armfield

“ Fear is a powerful and considerably aversive human emotion.”

… We agree with the above statement. Your paper is interesting and is widely researched but makes no mention of nutrition? We feel this is an major oversight. Animal and human behavior, reproduction, health and mental state are dependent on balanced nutrition and freedom from mind-altering chemicals and heavy metals.

Deficiencies of zinc, (especially for men and boys), some of the B vitamins, and vitamin K2 are well established and documented as essentials for a healthy body and a stable personality.
Excess sugar, aspartame and alcohol can cause mental disturbances indeed any chemical that can interfere with the pineal gland will have psychological impacts. Bad parenting is a significant factor, but the Hopewood experience provided evidence that even this can be over-come with a good diet and environment. Gov.info.

Fluoride in its various forms interferes with many nutrients, enzymes and minerals and the pineal gland, and as such is contraindicated. This last statement however may be at odds with your training and profession, but science is science and it is often in a lifetime that at least one change of belief is required in the bright dawn of a new revelation. Research papers from the 1930s and recent times, especially recent research from countries not influenced by U.S.A, and its commercial interests, confirm and reaffirm that fluoride in any of its forms is a hazard to plants, animals, enzymes, and humans.

Dr. Jason M Armfield:

❝ …. Any action to lower the fluoride levels must be carefully
considered in order not to undermine the protective effect *…. ❞

[* read – Protection of ‘Our Water Fluoridation Policy’ ]

→ An Inconvenient Tooth – Fluoride Documentary ←

A recent scientific report shows that fluoride disturbs the enzymes casein kinase II och alkaline phosfatase, which causes a disordered enamel formation. Thus, what dentists call innocent stains on the teeth is actually a symptom of chronic fluoride poisoning in the infant. Enamel damaged by fluorosis has been shown more susceptible to caries than normal enamel, recently in study of native children in South Africa who never experience any type of dental care. When considering the biological nature of fluorosis, it is not hard to understand that children during the period of dental development should avoid fluoride as much as possible, i.e. they should not have fluoride tablets, fluoridated chewing gum or drink fluoridated water or consume fluoridated salt or fluoridated milk.

Full text → HERE

Your internet article listed below hints at desperation,
and is almost a promotion of our cause. Your awareness
of the dangers of fluoridation and fluoride contamination
suggests that mammon is more influential than true science.
“methinks thou dost protest too much“

‘When public action undermines public health:
a critical examination of anti-fluoridationist literature’.

Fluoridation is NOT controversial. It is medication.

FLUORIDATION SURVEYS IN AUSTRALIA

Published Research Findings – Why Most Are False

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

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. – Socrates

European Journal Of General Dentistry – 2013
Is fluoride still a pivot of preventive dentistry?
Authors: Poonam Mahajan, KL Veersha, Ajay Mahajan

Pages: 20 – 24  Abstract:

Poonam Mahajan, KL Veersha, Ajay Mahajan   European Journal of General Dentistry 2013 2(1):20-24

Fluoride is considered the corner stone of the preventive dentistry. Fluoride has both beneficial and detrimental effects on human health.
In terms of dental health, the prevalence of dental caries is inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in drinking water; while there is a dose-response relationship between the concentration of fluoride in drinking water and the prevalence of dental fluorosis.
Fluoride has a statistically significant association with a wide range of adverse effects like increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, and lowered intelligent quotient, arthritic-like condition, early puberty and possibly, osteosarcoma. The aim of the present review is to discuss the current status of fluorides in dentistry in view of its benefits and adverse effects.  Citation: European Journal of General Dentistry 2013 2(1):20-24 PubDate: Sat,2 Feb 2013  DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.106797 Issue No: Vol. 2, No. 1 (2013)

http://www.ejgd.org/text.asp?2013/2/1/20/106797

‘$ & DENTISTS’ – WATCH

NOBLE PRIZE WINNERS WHO HAVE OPPOSED FLUORIDATION

Ethics of Artificial Water Fluoridation in Australia

Professor Niyi Awofeso

School of Population Health

… Awofeso’s analysis reinforces Shaw’s conclusion by showing
that most of the arguments used to vindicate fluoridation
do not stand up to careful ethical scrutiny…

ARE PROPONENTS OF WATER FLUORIDATION
SUPPRESSING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND DEBATE?

→ International Society for Fluoride Research Inc.

Bite Magazine and website:

A new study at the University of Sydney will try to find out what’s going wrong
with their teeth. The tiny teeth of Australian toddlers are rotting and dental
researchers at the University of Sydney are poised to start a long-term
study to find out why.

Our comment:
It looks like artificial water fluoridation is still not working.
Fluoride does not work for sheep, see below ↓

See more photos like this from ↓

→Queensland Gov. Fluoride Research←

…This apparatus  has been erected
to lie and obfuscate this issue. It cannot
tolerate a single chink in its armour of deceit.
No compromise, no partial admission is possible without
the integrity of the whole edifice of deception being threatened.

❝ It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ❞
— Upton Sinclair —

USA To Lower Fluoride Levels: ATLANTA 7 January 2011 (extracts from reports) In a remarkable turnabout, federal health officials say many Americans are getting too much fluoride, and it’s causing splotches on children’s teeth and perhaps other, more serious problems.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced plans Friday (7 Jan) to lower the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in nearly 50 years, based on a fresh review of the science. The announcement is likely to renew the battle over fluoridation, even though the addition of fluoride to drinking water is considered one of the greatest public health successes of the 20th century. One reason behind the change: About 2 out of 5 adolescents have tooth streaking or spottiness because of too much fluoride, a government study found recently. In extreme cases, teeth can be pitted by the mineral — though many cases are so mild only dentists notice it. The problem is generally considered cosmetic and not a reason for serious concern.

The splotchy tooth condition, fluorosis, is unexpectedly common in youngsters ages 12 through 15 and appears to have grown more common since the 1980s, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But there are also growing worries about more serious dangers from fluoride.
The Environmental Protection Agency released two new reviews of research on fluoride Friday.
One of the studies found that prolonged, high intake of fluoride can increase the risk of brittle bones, fractures and crippling bone abnormalities. Critics of fluoridated water seized on the proposed change [on] Friday to renew their attacks on it — a battle that dates back to at least the Cold War 1950s, when it was denounced by some as a step toward Communism. Many activists nowadays don’t think fluoride is essential, and they have praised the government’s new steps.

Extract from:

FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER
A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF EPA’S STANDARDS

Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
Division on Earth and Life Studies

Credit to:

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIESTHE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.

Available Online → HERE ←

ENAMEL FLUOROSIS

❝ Fluoride has a great affinity for the developing enamel because tooth apatite crystals have the capacity to bind and integrate fluoride ion into the crystal lattice (Robinson et al. 1996). Excessive intake of fluoride during enamel development can lead to enamel fluorosis, a condition of the dental hard tissues in which the enamel covering of the teeth fails to crystallize properly, leading to defects that range from barely discernable markings to brown stains and surface pitting. This section provides an overview of the clinical and histopathological manifestations of enamel fluorosis, diagnostic issues, indexes used to characterize the condition, and possible mechanisms.

CLINICAL AND HISTOLOGICAL FEATURES

Enamel fluorosis is a mottling of the tooth surface that is attributed to fluoride exposure during tooth formation. The process of enamel maturation consists of an increase in mineralization within the developing tooth and concurrent loss of early-secreted matrix proteins. Exposure to fluoride during maturation causes a dose-related disruption of enamel mineralization resulting in widening gaps in its crystalline structure, excessive retention of enamel proteins, and increased porosity. These effects are thought to be due to fluoride’s effect on the breakdown rates of matrix proteins and on the rate at which the by-products from that degradation are withdrawn from the maturing enamel (Aoba and Fejerskov 2002).

Clinically, mild forms of enamel fluorosis are evidenced by white horizontal striations on the tooth surface or opaque patches, usually located on the incisal edges of anterior teeth or cusp tips of posterior teeth. Opaque areas are visible in tangential reflected light but not in normal light. These lesions appear histopathologically as hypomineralization of the subsurface covered by a well-mineralized outer enamel surface (Thylstrup and Fejerskov 1978). In mild fluorosis, the enamel is usually smooth to the point of an explorer, but not in moderate and severe cases of the condition (Newbrun 1986). In moderate to severe forms of fluorosis, porosity increases and lesions extend toward the inner enamel. After the tooth erupts, its porous areas may flake off, leaving enamel defects where debris and bacteria can be trapped. The opaque areas can become stained yellow to brown, with more severe structural damage possible, primarily in the form of pitting of the tooth surface.

Enamel in the transitional or early maturation stage of development is the most susceptible to fluorosis (Den Besten and Thariani 1992). For most children, the first 6 to 8 years of life appear to be the critical period of risk. In the Ikeno district of Japan, where a water supply containing fluoride at 7.8 mg/L was inadvertently used for 12 years, no enamel fluorosis was seen in any child who was age 7 years or older at the start of this period or younger than 11 months old at the end of it (Ishii and Suckling 1991). For anterior teeth, which are of the most aesthetic concern, the risk period appears to be the first 3 years of life (Evans and Stamm 1991; Ishii and Suckling 1991; Levy et al. 2002a). Although it is possible for enamel fluorosis to occur when teeth are exposed during enamel maturation alone, it is unclear whether it will occur if fluoride exposure takes place only at the stage of enamel-matrix secretion. Fejerskov et al. (1994) noted that fluoride uptake into mature enamel is possible only as a result of concomitant enamel dissolution, such as caries development. Because the severity of fluorosis is related to the duration, timing, and dose of fluoride intake, cumulative exposure during the entire maturation stage, not merely during critical periods of certain types of tooth development, is probably the most important exposure measure to consider when assessing the risk of fluorosis (Den Besten 1999).

MECHANISMS

Dental enamel is formed by matrix-mediated biomineralization. Crystallites of hydroxyapatite (Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2) form a complex protein matrix that serves as a nucleation site (Newbrun 1986). The matrix consists primarily of amelogenin, proteins synthesized by secretory ameloblasts that have a functional role in establishing and maintaining the spacing between enamel crystallites. Full mineralization of enamel occurs when amelogenin fragments are removed from the extracellular space. The improper mineralization that occurs with enamel fluorosis is thought to be due to inhibition of the matrix proteinases responsible for removing amelogenin fragments. The delay in removal impairs crystal growth and makes the enamel more porous (Bronckers et al. 2002). DenBesten et al. (2002) showed that rats exposed to fluoride in drinking water at 50 or 100 mg/L had lower total proteinase activity per unit of protein than control rats. Fluoride apparently interferes with protease activities by decreasing free Ca2+ concentrations in the mineralizing milieu (Aoba and Fejerskov 2002).

Matsuo et al. (1998) investigated the mechanism of enamel fluorosis in rats administered sodium fluoride (NaF) at 20 mg/kg by subcutaneous injections for 4 days or at 240 mg/L in drinking water for 4 weeks. They found that fluoride alters intracellular transport in the secretory ameloblasts and suggested that G proteins play a role in the transport disturbance. They found different immunoblotting-and-pertussis-toxin-sensitive G proteins on the rough endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi membranes of the germ cells of rats’ incisor teeth.

HEALTH ISSUES AND CLINICAL TREATMENT

Whether to consider enamel fluorosis, particularly the moderate to severe forms, an adverse cosmetic effect or an adverse health effect has been the subject of debate for decades. Some early literature suggests that the clinical course of caries could be compromised by untreated severe enamel fluorosis. Smith and Smith (1940, pp.1050-1051) observed,

“There is ample evidence that mottled teeth, though they be somewhat more resistant to the onset of decay, are structurally weak, and that unfortunately when decay does set in, the result is often disastrous.”

Caries once started evidently spreads rapidly. Steps taken to repair the cavities in many cases were unsuccessful, the tooth breaking away when attempts were made to anchor the fillings, so that extraction was the only course.” Gruebbel (1952, p.153) expressed a similar viewpoint: “Severe mottling is as destructive to teeth as is dental caries. Therefore, when the concentration is excessive, defluorination or a new water supply should be recommended. The need for removing excessive amounts of fluorides calls attention to the peculiar situation in public health practice in which a chemical substance is added to water in some localities to prevent a disease and the same chemical substance is removed in other localities to prevent another disease.” Dean advised that when the average child in a community has mild fluorosis (0.6 on his scale, described in the next section), “… it begins to constitute a public health problem warranting increasing consideration” (Dean 1942, p. 29).

There appears to be general acceptance in today’s dental literature that enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect of fluoride intake that, in its severest forms, can produce adverse effects on dental health, such as tooth function and caries experience. For example:

“The most severe forms of fluorosis manifest as heavily stained, pitted, and friable enamel that can result in loss of dental function” (Burt and Eklund 1999).
“In more severely fluorosed teeth, the enamel is pitted and discolored and is prone to fracture and wear”

(ATSDR 2003, p. 19).
“The degree of porosity (hypermineralization) of such teeth results in a diminished physical strength of the enamel, and parts of the superficial enamel may break away … In the most severe forms of dental fluorosis, the extent and degree of porosity within the enamel are so severe that most of the outermost enamel will be chipped off immediately following eruption” (Fejerskov et al. 1990, p. 694).
“With increasing severity, the subsurface enamel all along the tooth becomes increasingly porous … the more severe forms are subject to extensive mechanical breakdown of the surface” (Aoba and Fejerskov 2002, p. 159).
“With more severe forms of fluorosis, caries risk increases because of pitting and loss of the outer enamel” (Levy 2003, p. 286).
“ … the most severe forms of dental fluorosis might be more than a cosmetic defect if enough fluorotic enamel is fractured and lost to cause pain, adversely affect food choices, compromise chewing efficiency, and require complex dental treatment” (NRC 1993, p. 48).

Severe enamel fluorosis is treated to prevent further enamel loss and to address the cosmetic appearance of teeth. Treatments include bleaching, microabrasion, and the application of veneers or crowns. Bleaching and microabrasion are typically used with the mild to moderate forms of enamel fluorosis. Bleaching is the least invasive procedure, but does not eliminate the dark stains associated with severe enamel fluorosis. Microabrasion involves the controlled abrasion of enamel to remove superficial stains… ❞

OUR NOTE: The full text is available on line, → HERE ←

However it does not address the matter of the nutrition, and
the variations in results e.g. vitamin C, magnesium, intake etc.

~ Don’t Let Your Diet Be Dictated By Corporate Agendas ~

❝ …fluoride reduces the level of thyroid hormone during tooth development, by activation 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… ❞

Extract from:

by Bruce Spittle.

The complexities of halogen chemistry are legion and it is that very complexity that is employed by the less scrupulous fluorine advocates to stifle protest from their adversaries with pseudo- scientific, convoluted terminology, which very often they themselves do not understand.

Very much a matter of ‘the blind leading the blind’.

Fluorine is an element. Atomic number 9. Atomic weight 18.9984. Symbol F. Fluorine is a halogen. There are five halogens known to contemporary science. In alphabetical order these are:

Astatine, Bromine, Chlorine, FLUORINE and Iodine.

Fluorine is one of the most poisonous substances known to the science of toxicology. The word ‘halogen’ is derived from the Greek, hals meaning salt and genes meaning born. The word refers to the propensity of the element to combine with Sodium.

Examples are: Sodium Bromide, Sodium Chloride, Sodium Fluoride and so forth.

This ‘mixture’ of a halogen and one or more other substances is called a ‘halide’, the letter “IDE” being affixed to the first letters of the particular halogen title. Thus Bromine compounded with something else becomes a Bromide. A Chlorine compound likewise becomes a Chloride and a Fluorine compound becomes a Fluoride.

The other ingredient(s) of the halide are included in the title to completely identify the halide chemically. So Sodium mixed with Chlorine becomes Sodium Chloride. Potassium mixed with Bromine becomes Potassium Bromide and Calcium mixed with Fluorine becomes Calcium Fluoride and so on for literally thousands of simple and complex combinations.

For all practical purposes the element FLUORINE cannot exist as a single entity. It must always associate with another substance or substances to exist.

That is to say it is only found as a fluoride.

In this need for existence, Fluorine, more so than the other halogen elements, will combine avidly with almost any other substance or substances, taking its deadly potential along with it to impart a lethal hazard to what was formerly a most innocent and benign material. The resultant degree of toxicity is not in debate here.

A well recognized example of this ‘chemical corruption’ is in the medicinal drug “Fluorouracil” whereby the vital and totally inoffensive human metabolite “uracil” is converted into a deadly ‘cytotoxic’ (meaning – cell destructive) killer compound.

So then simple (duplex) Fluorine based compounds can combine or be combined with one or more other virtually harmless substances to create a chemical killer of considerable complexity and extreme danger. A ‘triplex’ Fluoride is Sodium Fluoroacetate, marketed under the cover name of Compound 1080.

Another is Fluoroacetamide (Compound 1081).

The designed deadliness of both these FLUORIDE products is legend and promoted under the 1080 and 1081 labels but the close chemical relationship with the Sodium Fluoride in your water supply is vehemently denied. Much less admitted.

Other examples of multiple fluorides are “SARIN”

(Isopropyl methyl-phospho FLUORIDATE) and

“SOMAN” (Pinacolyl methylphos-phonoFLUORIDATE).

Both these ‘fluorides’ are nerve gasses, one drop of either of which,

absorbed through the skin, will kill an adult human, in seconds.

In the Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia, under the heading

Sodium Fluoride is the sub-heading “and other Fluorine Compounds”

which include both 1080 and 1081.

Other data and relevant physiologic aspects of Fluorides have been set out in
“The Dickinson Statement”. ( See also 2013 Expanded Edition)
In closing this paper it should be pointed out that Fluorides are toxic to animals in a number
of chemical and bio-chemical ways.

CORROSIVE, ANTI-METABOLIC, ALLERGENIC, GENETIC, CARCINOGENIC, SYSTEMIC, ENZYME INHIBITING and CUMULATIVE are among the popular description of the toxic activity of fluorides.

As an “acute” poison, a comparatively large dose may be needed to cause extinction but as a “chronic” toxin, neither the microscopic amounts needed nor the period of exposure (to cause death) have ever been evaluated. However, as an awesome indication, time lapse photography of the activity of living mammalian cells under the influence of
ONE PART OF SODIUM FLUORIDE TO 60 MILLION PARTS OF WATER
demonstrates almost immediate extinction of the cells.
Fluoridated tap water contains an “average” of –
TWO PARTS OF SODIUM FLUORIDE TO ONE MILLION PARTS OF WATER.

Suffice it now to say that in the final analysis all FLUORIDES are killers and who-so-ever administers, or causes to be administered any Fluoride on any pretext, by accident or by design to any person of any age is, by simple definition a KILLER.

Ian E. Stephens, 8 June 1988. [ For more info by same author See → HERE ]

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

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.

Do you enjoy tales of intrigue, conspiracy and corruption? Then ‘The Fluoride Deception’ by Christopher Bryson won’t disappoint. It’s a very well written, meticulously researched expose´ of the history of fluoridation, which Dr Robert Carton (formerly of the US Environmental Protection Agency) has described as “the greatest case of scientific fraud of this (20th) century, if not of all time”. It’s a history of “greed, collusion, personal aggrandizement, corporate and government cover-up,” littered with human tragedy and the tattered careers of scientists who dared to try to expose the truth.

‘Esteemed Voices‘ have, for 50 years, warned the American public that water
fluoridation has dangerous long-term consequences to health:

“I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.” Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

❝ Contrary to what is widely assumed, the toxicity of

fluoride is not always related to concentration.

Under certain conditions fluoride toxicity actually

increases as the concentration decreases.

This is what is known as a paradoxical effect. ❞

→ Albert Schatz, Ph.D., M.C.R.S., Professor at the Univ.

of Chile and co-discoverer of streptomycin. ←

Letters sent “NO thanks” ↓

Pro-fluidationists are blinded by a diabolical ideology, which
does not allow them to draw rational conclusions.
This ideology is hostile the rights of individuals to choose
or reject their personal medical needs.

Iodine is a halogen. The halogens are a series of non-metal elemants:
Fluorine, F
Chlorine, Cl
Bromine, Br
Iodine, I
Astatine, At

The problem is that fluoride is a “bully.” Any time an atom of fluoride
and an atom of any other halogen are in the same vicinity, the
fluoride will displace the other halogen and take its place.
– Dr. Terry Tennant, MD, MD(H), PSc.,D

Editor’s comment:

This is universal, probably throughout time and most likely throughout
the cosmos. We realise that some dentists will see this as yet another
threat to their constant claims of fluoridation’s safety, but
to claim otherwise is to fly in the face of true science.

This one is interactive – Take a look ↑ ↑ ↑

” No physician in his right senses would prescribe for someone he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: “Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some people say that it can reduce tooth decay in children.” –
Dr. Peter Mansfield, Director Templegarth Trust, Birmingham, UK.

SALT FLUORIDATION is as much “forced medication” as water fluoridation.
“Universal” salt fluoridation – where all salt destined for human consumption is fluoridated – is worse than any water fluoridation measure, as no one can escape the measure. Salt has a quality worse than water: an individual’s preferred level of salt may be raised or lowered by progressively raising or lowering the actual level over a period of time. In other words, the amount of “salt sprinkled on” today might not be enough a month from now when just a little bit more will be added.

↓ Dental Fluorosis ↓

→ Fluoridation 101 – Some History ←

“ Fluoride-deficiency does not cause tooth decay.
Rotten diets cause rotten teeth and no
amount of fluoride changes that.“

Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation

BobHope3 Stooges

April 7, 2016/by yarycold

Post-Mortem Examination on Jason Burton-Fluoride Death.

BABIES & FLUORIDE, DENTISTS & FLUORIDE

(Form E)

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

“The Registration of Births, deaths and Marriages Acts, 1962 to 1967”

(Section 31)

POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION

(Medical Certificate of the Cause of Death)

To the Registrar for the District of BRISBANE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on 16th May, 1973, by order of W. R. PULLAR Esq., Coroner, I made a Post Mortem Examination of the body of a male aged 2 years, named JASON BURTON who is stated to have died at Mater Childrens Hospital and, in my opinion, the date of death was 15th May, 1973, and the cause of death was Disease or condition directly leading to death :… Fluoride poisoning Dated… 16.5. 1973 ……………………………………….N. G. Johnston (Government Medical Officer) Post-Mortem Examination Report CORONERS ACT 1958-1972 Section 18 POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION REPORT

Name:_______BURTON, Jason________ Address:_____16 Hardwick Street_________________Wynnum West__________P.M. Authorised by W. R. Pullar, Coroner

_____23538_____________________

D.O.B.: 20.2.71___Age: 2____Sex: M____ Time and Date of Death: 4.50 P.M. 15.5.73 Time and Date of P.M.: 10.00 A.M.16.5.73 Place of P.M.: Institute of Forensic Pathology

Police Officers attending P.M.___________ Constable Kennedy, Woolloongabba__________. 1. EXAMINATION STATURE_86 cm__WEIGHT_13.6 kg_BUILD__Medium__NUTRITION__Good _______RIGOR MORTIS___Present_____HYPOSTASIS___Present______

The scalp, skull and membranes appear normal. The brain shows extensive autolysis, consistent with death having occurred some time previously. There is no other significant abnormality of the brain	Weight of Organs(Grams)1175 g
The larynx, pharynx and trachea appear normal. The pleural cavities are clear. Both lungs show moderate congestion and oedema.	L. 130 gR. 138 g
The pericardial cavity is clear. The heart and the great vessels appear anatomically normal	74 g
The liver is congested but otherwise normal. The gall bladder and biliary tracts are normal	826 g
Spleen:	40 g
Both kidneys appear normal. The adrenals and thymus gland appear normal for age.	L. 41 gR. 49 g

COMMENT:No pathological change which could have caused death could be found in any organ at the post mortem examination. However, the autolysis of the brain tissues was so marked that any evidence of a disease such as encephalitis would be impossible to find.In my opinion, therefore, the most probable cause of death was fluoride ingestion because of:-1. The history of fluoride overdose.2. The supporting evidence of a positive blood fluoride level.3. The absence of any other disease process.

2. OPINION AND COMMENT as to Cause of Death ___Fluoride Poisoning__________To____________________________________Signature________(Signed)____________

Hospital Report (“Discharge Summary”) MATER MISERICORDIAE PUBLIC HOSPITALS — SOUTH BRISBANE DISCHARGE SUMMARY 21st June 1973 NAME……..BURTON…….Jason..Paul………………………….AGE…..2…….. ADDRESS………16 Hardwick S t.,………………………………………………….. ………………………Wynnum West……………………………………………………… ADMITTED……10.5.73……………………………………Died…15.5.73………. REFERRING DOCTOR………..Hansen…………………………………………… FINAL DIAGNOSIS…………….Flouride Ingestion…………………………….. ————————————————————————— SUMMARY OF HISTORY, CLINICAL FINDINGS, INVESTIGATIONS, TREATMENT AND PROGRESS This child was admitted to hospital via casualty in a moribund condition. The child was said to have swallowed an unknown quantity of flouride tablets (2 mg). but more than likely he would not have swallowed more than 50 tablets. This was said to have happened approximately 6 hours prior to admission. The child did have access to several other drugs. These drugs included Polarmine, Elexamine, Robinul and Dormel. However, it was unlikely that he may have swallowed any of these other tablets. On EXAMINATION: Blood pressure 50 systolic and there was only fair peripheral perfusion. The pupils were dilated, unequal and irregular.There was generalized muscular hypotonia. There were no focal neurological signs. The pulse was 100 per minute, regular R.T.A.and there was normal sinus rythym on E.C.G. Immediate treatment was instuited with the administration of I.V. SPPS. This bought his blood pressure back to 100/systolic. As the child had had an respiratory arrest five minutes after arrival in the casualty dept, he was taken to theatre and a naso-tracheal tube was inserted. The patient was then placed on the Bird´s respirator with intermittent positive pressure respiration. Very intensive observations were instuited. Because his presentation was consistent to a flouride intoxication he was treated accordingly. He was given doses of 10% calcium gluconate I.V. Blood was taken for analysis of the most common poisons, and a sample of blood was also sent to a state government analysist for estimation of serum flouride.Over the next few days this patient made no improvement whatsoever. E.E.G. was performed on 14.5.73. The trace was completely flat. It was thought the prognosis was absolutely hopeless. The respirator was turned off 15.5.73 and life was pronounced extinct. The level of serum flouride, although it was elevated was not regarded as being in the toxic range. However, the sample of blood had been taken approximately 10 hours after ingestion. S. Fluoride level <100 µg/100 ml (Toxicity levels 200-300 µg)

Death Certificate & Letters

Pretending, ignoring, misquoting, or lying are a major disservice to science,
and on the mater of fluoridation are crimes against humanity.

The FDA Issued Warning Letter to Pharmaceutical Company on Fluoride…

September 8, 2014/by yarycold

THE ARCHITECT OF FLUORIDATION IN AUSTRALIA

DENTISTS & FLUORIDE, HISTORY

“Professor Martin’s claim that, although there are nearly two thousand known places in the U.S.A. where water is naturally fluoridated, and that “some have 12 or 13 parts per million—with no adverse effects and with a markedly high standard of dental health,” is simply propaganda without any scientific proof…

The Architect of Fluoridation in Australia

Professor Noel Martin was the champion of fluoride tablets here in Australia. Before a Royal Commission in Tasmania Martin claimed that tablets taken to the amount of 1.5 mg of fluoride per day in the last six months of pregnancy would improve the teeth of their children remarkably.

Some of Professor Martin’s positions from which he influenced the propagation of fluoridation in Australia were: Dean of Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney; member of the Dental Board, NSW; member, Australian Dental Advisory Council; Deputy Chairperson, Australian Dental Examining Committee; member of the NSW Health Commission’s Professional Services Advisory Committee: member of NHMRC’s Dental Health Committee; editor, Dental Journal Australia; dental consultant, World Health Organization; and member of WHO’s Expert Committee on Dental Health.

“The damage done by this man is still perpetuated by the above listed,

and much quoted organisations…

→ LIST OF STUDIES ←

EXTRACT FROM:

↓ original ↓

→ T H E N E W T I M E S ←

Registered at the G.P.O., Melbourne,

for transmission by Post as a Newspaper

“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”

Vol. 25, No. 16 MELBOURNE, FRIDAY 14th August 1959

[Notice the date]

The New “Scientists”

One of the most terrifying features of our “Brave New World” is the manner in which so- called scientists are prepared to use blatantly false propaganda to assist Governmental bodies to extend their powers over the individual. A classic case has been brought to our attention in which a prominent Australian advocate of fluoridation, Professor Noel Martin of the Sydney University, answers questions for a West Australian paper.

The Weekend Mail, a Perth newspaper, of June 6, 1959, introduces Professor Martin “as a recognized authority on the control of dental caries by means of fluoridation of water” and invites him to answer a number of questions. In answer to the question, “Will all people on the system get the same dose strength?” Professor Martin said: “It has been conclusively established by the New York School of Engineering that, despite claims to the contrary, there is practically no variation in the distribution of fluoride in water supplies. This is a favorable argument among the ‘antis’ but it has no basis in fact.”

The truth is that the New York School of Engineering has never published any data whatever supporting Professor Martin’s claims. Professor Martin obviously is merely parroting a news release by Dr. Hilleboe, the New York State Health Officer, an active advocate of fluoridation who has been thwarted by the opposition of the water engineers of New York City, who have published data showing that it is impossible to overcome variations in the amount of fluorine in the water at each individual tap. Some of the strongest opposition to fluoridation has come from water engineers. Examination of the files of the Journal of the American Water Works Association reveals the basis of the opposition. In the August 1953, issue of the Journal a census revealed the mounting evidence of the corrosive damage to water equipment. And there were many complaints that “the chemical flow is too free to permit accurate control.”

Investigations in a number of American centres, some of them large, some of them small, have proved beyond all argument that there are tremendous variations in the dosage people would be obtaining from different taps. Graphs compiled by independent investigators have confirmed the water engineers’ views. Sampling tests in Hastings, New Zealand, and in Yass, N.S.W., have also demonstrated considerable variability.

In answer to a question concerning the famous American Medical-Dental Ad Hoc Committee opposing fluoridation, Professor Martin made the remarkable reply that “When these claims were being investigated by the World Health Organization, only two men appeared for these 1500 eminent people—and both were well-known cranks. There is just no documented proof of their claims of toxic elements in one part per million of fluoridated water, or of their other claims. I notice that they use as references for their claims many of the world’s fore- most scientists who are urging fluoridation.”

PAGE 4

Professor Martin’s reply is “remarkable” because the claims of the Ad Hoc Committee have never even been investigated by the World Health Organization, still less refuted. No representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee have ever appeared before the World Health Organization. In fact, the eighteen members of the World Health Organization Executive Board conducted no hearings at all on fluoridation, but a committee of six declared supporters of fluoridation presented a report, which was then authorized for publication.

Commenting on Professor Martin’s complaint that opponents of fluoridation have used as references the work of known supporters of fluoridation, Dr. F. B. Exner, co- author with Dr. G. L. Waldbott of the book The American Fluoridation Experiment., writes in a letter: “As for using the writings of proponents in support of my claims, I do so consistently and deliberately. If I quote Dr. Clive McKay against Dean, the hearer can still choose which ‘authority’ to believe. But when Dean (a fluoridationist) contradicts himself, or misquotes his own data, or publishes data which condemns fluoridation, the proponents cannot very well challenge the source of my material.”

Professor Martin’s claim that, although there are nearly two thousand known places in the U.S.A. where water is naturally fluoridated, and that “some have 12 or 13 parts per million—with no adverse effects and with a markedly high standard of dental health,” is simply propaganda without any scientific proof.
Out of the total number of 1903 centres listed by the American Public Health Service as having natural fluoride in the water, only 282 of these, with a total population of 808,760, have fluoride within the range advocated by the fluoridators as the ideal for preventing tooth decay. There are only four communities listed with more than 8 pmm. of fluoride, with a total population of less than 1500.

These places all have badly fluorised teeth and data concerning teeth has been published for only one centre, Bruneau. And this was the result of an investigation in 1929. There has been no investigation at any time of the general health of the people in these communities. There has been only one study of general health in a high fluoride centre that of Bartlett as compared with Cameron, a low-fluoride centre. This study showed that the death rate in Bartlett was, if the people over 65 in both centres were ignored, six times as high as the corresponding rate in Cameron. Opponents of fluoridation like Dr. Exner do not claim that the difference in death rate was due to fluoride, but to say, “that a study in which a six to one difference is casually dismissed as ‘not significant’ with no investigation or reason, is not a scientific study at all, but merely window-dressing for a propaganda campaign.”

“ Professor Martin, so far from speaking as a scientist, emerges as

a propagandist prepared to distort or ignore truth in

order to advance a totalitarian policy”.

December 27, 2013/by yarycold

Fluoridation Inquiry Australian Capital Territory – 1991

DENTISTS & FLUORIDE, PROFESSIONALS AGAINST FLUORIDATION, TEETH AND FLUORIDATION

Fluoridation Inquiry Australian Capital Territory

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

Full text → f-in-act ←

January 22, 2013/by yarycold

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

DENTISTS & FLUORIDE

‘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

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 ←

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

→ → 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. ]

January 11, 2013/by yarycold

MERCURY-FREE DENTISTRY

DENTISTS & FLUORIDE, MERCURY- FREE DENTISTRY

The New York University College of Dentistry recently
announced it will no longer allow amalgam use in its clinics.

Come on ADA – it is time to get with the science!

Last update – 2nd June 2021

Dental Fillings Containing Mercury Now Banned in European Union

Original→ HERE ←

The Government of the United Kingdom on Friday 23 March 2018
deposited its instrument of ratification, becoming the 91 Party to the
Minamata Convention on Mercury that entered into force in August 2017.
The ratification followed that of Dominican Republic bringing to seven the
number of ratification in 2018. The ratification brings to 91 countries
that have ratified the Convention out of the 128 that signed it.

Full text → HERE

[ Translated from German ]

Specialising in the removal, separation & containment of dental amalgam.
Equipment ↓
Mercury Separation

The Hazardous Waste Regulations which came into force in
2005 in England and Wales and it classified all
dental amalgam as ‘hazardous waste’

Mercury – Mercola – Autism – 2020

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can harm the brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver.
It is used throughout health care in a variety of products including thermometers, sphygmomanometers, DENTAL AMALGAM, laboratory chemicals and preservatives such as thimerosal,✺ cleaning agents, and various electronic devices such as fluorescent lamps and computer equipment. The cumulative usage, spills, breakages and disposal of these products makes the health care sector a significant contributor of mercury pollution in the environment. Fortunately, it is relatively easy to phase out the use of mercury because of the many affordable, accurate and safer alternatives that exist for nearly all uses of mercury in health care.

Editor’s comment:
The United Nations Mercury Treaty is under
threat from the vaccine and dental lobbies.

HERE

Charlie Brown discusses breakthroughs in establishing mercury-free
dentistry worldwide, and the progress made at The 4th World Health
Organization Mercury Treaty meeting in South America. ↓

→ Download Interview Transcript ←

CONSUMERS FOR DENTAL CHOICE

Shakes up the Debate on Dental Mercury

Story at-a-glance:

Amalgam is an archaic, dangerous dental practice left over from the US Civil War Era and is driven entirely by profits, without regard for human health
A landmark economics report reveals that after environmental costs are taken into account, amalgam is significantly more expensive than the non-mercury alternatives. In fact, the real cost of an amalgam filling is up to $87 more than a composite filling after the environmental costs of each material is considered
Another recent report by the European Commission recommends phasing out dental amalgam to reduce mercury pollution, which threatens the health of the environment, wildlife, and humans
Among the advances toward mercury-free dentistry, the New York University College of Dentistry recently announced it will no longer allow amalgam use in its clinics, nor will NYU require students to perform competency examinations for amalgam

Charlie Brown discusses the latest breakthroughs in establishing mercury-free dentistry worldwide, and the progress made at the 4th World Health Organization Mercury Treaty meeting in South America.

Download Interview Transcript

A little slow to start- but very in-depth-Recommended.

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Shade about Mercury

Still Carrying Around This Potent Neurotoxin Next to Your Brain?

CONSUMERS FOR DENTAL CHOICE

By Charlie Brown

“I do not approve the practice of any who use mercury or quicksilver as an ingredient for stopping teeth, and would not privately recommend any one to go to such.”– Eleazar Parmly, M.D. Dr. Eleazar Parmly’s warning about the dangers of amalgam fillings was not issued in 2012…nor even in 1912… He spoke these words way back in 1845.

Over 150 years later, health professionals still voice those same concerns about amalgam –
a product that is 50 percent mercury by weight. Over 150 years later, some dentists (albeit an ever-dwindling number) still claim that mercury is safe in people’s mouths.

Over 150 years later, even children are still subjected to the unnecessary exposure to mercury fillings.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH…

The time for debate is over. Countless studies, reports, and articles now conclusively prove that dental mercury is dangerous in the environment.

And Consumers for Dental Choice is working with our colleagues from the dental, medical, and environmental sectors to make sure everyone knows it.

How Dental Mercury Harms Your Health

Even if You Don’t have Amalgam —

If you subscribe to Dr. Mercola’s newsletter, by now you know that mercury is never safe –
it is a neurotoxin, a reproductive toxin, and absolutely unneeded in 21st century dentistry. When you’ve been given a choice, you choose mercury-free fillings for your teeth and for your children’s teeth. So are you safe from dental mercury?

Unfortunately, no. Dental mercury is so toxic in the environment that it affects our whole planet…our nations…our communities… and individuals.

HERE’S HOW:

Amalgam fillings are one of the largest consumer uses of mercury in the world.

Between 313 and 411 tons of dental mercury are consumed each year.

In fact, the demand for dental mercury is higher than the demand for almost all other mercury products – more than lighting (120-150 tons), electrical devices (170-210 tons), and measuring devices like thermometers (300-350 tons).

As other mercury products are being phased out, amalgam is fast becoming the largest source of mercury pollution from products.

Some dental mercury is dumped directly from the dental office into the environment.

But most dental mercury walks out of the clinic in people’s teeth. From there, dental mercury enters the environment by numerous unsound pathways.

FOR EXAMPLE, DENTAL MERCURY IS POLLUTING:

AIR – from cremations, dental clinic emissions, sludge incineration, and respiration; and

LAND – via landfills, burials, and fertilizer.

WATER – via dental clinic releases that go down the drain and human waste;

Once in the environment, dental mercury can convert to its even more toxic form: methylmercury ♦♦

.
Ever wonder where all that mercury in fish and seafood comes from?

Mercury fillings are one source of mercury contaminating the fish and seafood that we eat.
The environmental health effects of dental mercury are well known: brain damage and neurological problems, especially for children and the unborn babies of pregnant women.

♦♦ Methylmercury – “CH₃Hg⁺, organic form of mercury and the form of mercury that is most easily bioaccumulated in organisms; a neurotoxin.” –
It accumulated within organisms faster than it’s eliminated) and biomagnifies (increases in concentration as it travels up the food chain).”

How Consumers for Dental Choice is Fighting for
Your Right to a World Free of Dental Mercury

Two years ago as the mercury treaty negotiations loomed, ‘Consumers for Dental Choice’ started highlighting the environmental harms caused by amalgam. This powerful approach is paying off at the mercury treaty sessions — and turning the tide in nations around the world.

AMONG OUR RECENT STEPS FORWARD

Citing the upcoming mercury treaty specifically, as well as the environmental concerns we too have been voicing, the New York University College of Dentistry announced a new “amalgam policy” to its students: NYU will no longer recommend dental amalgam as the primary posterior tooth restorative… nor will NYU require students to perform competency examinations for amalgam…nor will NYU allow amalgam use in its clinics unless students obtain faculty permission for a specific case. These measures take NYU closer to the ultimate goal: to become “amalgam-free.”
Across the Atlantic, we had equally exciting news. The European Union had hired a consultant to advise it on what to do about amalgam. Our World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry teamed with European Environmental Bureau, Zero Mercury Working Group, and Non Au Mercure Dentaire to submit information and to testify. The consultant now recommends a total phase-out of amalgam in the 27 nations of the E.U.¹ — for the same environmental reasons our team has been explaining. Much work remains to be done here, but we are already mobilizing our forces for that battle.
While our opponent was trying to turn the 4th mercury treaty session (held in Uruguay) into a never-ending debate on health, we succeeded in keeping amalgam in the draft treaty by emphasizing amalgam’s known environmental harms and by offering practical solutions. As a result of this environmental strategy, our support from government officials and influential organizations from around the world continues to grow.

AMALGAM: ONE OF THE COSTLIEST DENTAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE

‘Consumers for Dental Choice’ is fighting so that every child can grow up in a dental mercury-free world. To do this, we are working with top experts to highlight the dangers –and high cost – of mercury fillings.

For example, we commissioned Brussels-based Concorde East/West, an international consulting firm that provides research to government agencies, to study the cost of dental mercury compared to the costs of mercury-free fillings. The landmark economics report The Real Cost of Dental Mercury² (2012) reveals that after environmental costs are taken into account, amalgam is significantly more expensive than the non-mercury alternatives.

In fact, the real cost of an amalgam filling is up to $87 more than a composite filling after the environmental costs of each material is considered. Co-released by Consumers for Dental Choice with the Mercury Policy Project and the European Environmental Bureau, the report goes on to explain that both the environment and society are adversely impacted over “the whole life cycle of dental amalgam – mercury production, preparation of filling materials, removal of old fillings and placement of new ones, environmental and health impacts from mercury recycling, discharges to wastewater, solid waste disposal, emissions from crematoria and releases from cemeteries.”

The solution: “phasing out amalgam as a dental restorative material and switching to mercury free alternatives.” The pro-mercury dental associations have long spread the myth that mercury fillings are cheaper than the many mercury-free options such as composite.

As stated by Charlie in the featured interview:

“The reason the pro-mercury dentists use amalgam is the profits.

They make more per filling, per chair, per day…

They do this because they don’t pay for the environmental damage.

It’s the rest of us who have to pay for the huge environmental damage

caused by the irresponsible pro-mercury dentists.”

Now, we are prepared to counter them with hard numbers.

So who pays the high costs associated with dental mercury pollution?

Taxpayers, who pay for the clean-up of dental mercury
Governments, who pay the administrative costs of dental mercury pollution clean-up
Fishermen, who lose income when dental mercury contaminates seafood
Funeral home owners, who pay for abatement equipment to address dental mercury from crematoria
Landlords, who are left with mercury in dental clinic pipes
Farmers, who cannot use [sewerage] sludge contaminated by dental mercury as fertilizer
Environmentally-responsible dentists, who are at a competitive disadvantage because they do not use mercury
Manufacturers of alternatives, who are at a disadvantage against competitors selling polluting mercury products
Job seekers, who lose opportunities for work making, developing, and distributing the mercury-free alternatives to amalgam
Wildlife, which is contaminated by dental mercury pollution
Tourism workers, who lose revenue when the natural environment is harmed by dental mercury pollution
Pregnant and nursing women, whose unborn and newborn babies are exposed to dental mercury pollution
Children and parents, who pay for neurological damage resulting from dental mercury pollution

European Commission Recommends Phasing Out Amalgams to ‘Save The Environment’

As mentioned earlier, a recent report created by the BIO Intelligence Service (BIOS)³ for the European Commission recommends phasing out dental amalgam and mercury in button cell batteries by 2018 in order to protect the environment from continued devastating harm. According to the authors, dental amalgam is “a significant contributor to overall EU environmental emissions of mercury from human activities.” The situation is identical in the US.

ACCORDING TO THE REPORT

“The current levels of mercury pollution in the EU are such that all the EU population is exposed to mercury above the natural background level and certain population groups such as high-level fish consumers, women of childbearing age and children are subject to high risk levels, principally due to their high exposure and/or high vulnerability to mercury in the form of methylmercury, which is ingested through the diet.

This presents a risk of negative impacts on health, in particular affecting the nervous system and diminishing intellectual capacity.

There are also environmental risks, for example the disturbance of microbiological activity in soils and harm to wildlife populations. The effects of mercury releases on the integrity of the ecosystem are substantial. Various species, especially eagles, loons, kingfishers, ospreys, ibises, river otters, mink and others that rely on fish for a large part of their diet, have been observed to suffer adverse health and/or behavioral effects.

Observed disorders such as effects on the muscles and nervous system, reduced or altered mating habits, ability to reproduce, raise offspring, catch food and avoid predators have been demonstrated to affect individual animal viability and overall population stability.

According to calculations based on the critical load concept, more than 70 percent of the European ecosystem area is estimated to be at risk today due to mercury, with critical loads of mercury exceeded in large parts of western, central and southern Europe.”

HOW YOU CAN HELP FIGHT DENTAL MERCURY

Right now, you can help progress against dental mercury in two ways:

1.) Write a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asking them to take action against harmful mercury pollution, and

2.) Make a donation to Consumers for Dental Choice, to help them fight for your right to mercury-free dentistry

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has done more to protect us from mercury than all other EPA administrators put together. She has written strong rules addressing mercury in air pollution. When you write, please thank her for her diligent work against mercury, and urge her to turn her attention now to dental mercury, as it is a major source of mercury in the environment.

Please remember that the EPA does not regulate the safety of health products, so do not discuss how amalgam in the mouth is damaging. The EPA’s role is to keep toxins out of the environment, so focus your correspondence on the environmental impact of dental mercury. This is where she has the authority to act.

Actual letters in the US mail have more impact that emails, so we encourage you to write and mail a letter! Please send it to:

Lisa Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460

If you send an email, send it to Administrator Jackson at: Jackson.LisaP@epa.gov. To get noticed, emails need a good subject line; we recommend something like “Take action against dental mercury.”

Consumers for Dental Choice and its allies have made amazing progress against this primitive, polluting mercury product, but the battle is not won yet – dental mercury is still being dumped in nations all around the world… and in your own community. Will you please consider a donation to Consumers for Dental Choice, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to advocating mercury-free dentistry?

Donations are tax-exempt and can be made online at www.toxicteeth.org.
Checks can be mailed to:
Consumers for Dental Choice 316 F St., N.E., Suite 210 Washington DC 20002

Mercury exposure in young adulthood & incidence of diabetes later in life
Our results are consistent with findings from laboratory studies
and provide longitudinal human data suggesting that people
with high mercury exposure in young adulthood may
have elevated risk of diabetes later in life.

Also from PubMed:

And ⇓
Join Consumers for Dental Choice’s newsletter list
on ToxicTeeth.org or write to Charlie at Charlie@ToxicTeeth.org.

( The European Parliament’s Environment Committee voted overwhelmingly
to phase out all amalgam use by 31 December 2022. )

✺ ❝ …Vaccine manufacturers, in order to store larger amounts of vaccine at a lower cost, offer “multi-dose units” while adding preservatives such as thimerosal ♦ to prevent contamination. That way doctors can open and close a vaccine container, inviting germs into the once-sterile solution, while assuring the public that those contaminants are quickly killed by the preservative. It saves money, while posing an undue risk to your health. But like many toxic preservatives it kills more than just bacteria and fungi; it can lead to extensive neurological damage in your children, and has even been implicated in autism… ❞

[Especially when the vitamin C levels are low.]

* Contains Mercury

♦ Thiomersal (also know as thimerosal in the United States) is a bacteriostatic preservative used in vaccines and other biologic products since the 1930s for several specific reasons: as a broad bacteriostatic agent; as a preservative; and to inactivate specific moieties. Its concentration in most vaccines results in delivery of about 25 µg of thiomerosal in each dose administered. Importantly, thiomerosal is only 50% ethylmercury by weight. Many regulators, including the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require the addition of a preservative to multi-dose vaccine vials. Multi-dose vials have several advantages. They are cheaper than single dose formulations, and because more doses can be stored in a smaller space, they allow for decreased storage costs across the cold chain substantial for large immunization programs.
Infants in 120 countries rely on multi-dose vaccines containing Thiomerosal to protect them against life-threatening diseases… Full text → HERE
Editor’s comment:

Coca-Cola seems to be able to deliver millions of individual glass vials [sorry] bottles, around the globe at a profit! – In 2013, Coke products could be found in over 200 countries worldwide, with consumers downing more than 1.8 billion company beverage servings each day… This makes the Thiomersal augment look somewhat pathetic.

THE TWIN TOXIC DANGERS OF MERCURY AND FLUORIDE

❝ … I have always liked all my dentists, trusting their competence more than doctors, but when I began to understand the twin dangers of fluoride and dental mercury amalgam I began to see that the entire profession has been duped, and that goes for most graduates of medical school. We first-world people like to think that our universities and medical schools are centers of higher learning and intelligence, but the fact is that they are intense conditioning machines that forcefully mind shape the brains of their vulnerable students who start out with good intentions… ❞

The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students.
It is engaged in making students safe for ideas.
— Clark Kerr —

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Still Carrying Around This Potent Neurotoxin Next to Your Brain?

→ FACTS ABOUT MERCURY & DENTAL AMALGAM – Bernard Windham ←

“…toxic metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, etc.
have been documented as neurotoxic, immunotoxic,
reproductive/developmental toxins that according to
U.S. Government agencies cause adverse health
effects and learning disabilities to millions
in the U.S. each year…”

Mercury Canada

Mercury USA

IAOMT-ccc

VERY SHORT VIDEO ⇒ HERE

→ International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology ←

Thank you for supporting Mercury-Free Dentistry!

New mercury standards –EPA [USA]

Court Upholds EPA’s Mercury Emissions Standards for Power Plants

http://www.care2.com/causes/court-upholds-epas-mercury-emissions-standards-for-power-plants.html#ixzz2zDeeAXdG

In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the first ever national standards to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal and oil-fired power plants. Since the implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the EPA has been tasked with issuing regulations to regulate damaging pollutants released into the air. In 1990, there were three major industries that emitted two-thirds of mercury and other toxic emissions: medical waste incinerators, municipal waste combustors, and power plants.

Mercury is extremely toxic and linked to neurological and developmental problems, and even death. When it is emitted into the air, it gets trapped into precipitation and returns into the water supply. Once it ends up in lakes and streams, it turns into a more toxic organic form that permeates the food chain by being absorbed in the tissue and muscles of fish — and all that eat them. Pregnant women and children are most susceptible to the dangers of mercury, which can lead to nervous system damage, respiratory illnesses and birth defects.

Having been subject to regulations for a number of years, medical waste incinerators and municipal waste combustors had reduced their mercury emissions by 98 percent and 96 percent respectively by 2005. At the time of the new regulations in 2011, power plants were the source of 50 percent of air-borne mercury emissions, 75 percent of acid gases and nearly 60 percent of toxic metals. Many of these plants are located near major water supplies.

A coalition of state and industry representatives sued the EPA, ♠ claiming that they did not have the authority to issue the regulations and that they failed to consider the costs of implementing the new standards. The economies of the states that fought the rules were heavily dependent on the coal and energy industry. The coalition said being forced to comply with the regulations would disrupt the power supply as many of the older plants would have to shut down and there would be a risk of losing more than a half-million jobs.

On Tuesday, an appeals court upheld the regulations.

The court rejected the industry’s argument that the EPA didn’t have authority, saying that Congress had relegated the authority to the EPA to determine which types of things would be deemed a hazard to public health and act accordingly. Furthermore, they were convinced that the EPA had acted appropriately based on the ample evidence of the health risks of mercury. As for the costs, the court said the EPA had acted properly by making the decision based on health risks and not compliance costs and that the agency had shown that the benefits outweighed the costs.

The standards will prevent about “90 percent of the mercury in coal burned in power plants being emitted to the air; reduce 88 percent of acid gas emissions from power plants; and reduce 41 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants.” The nation’s more than 600 coal and oil-fire power plants will have until April 2015 to comply, and the law allows for states to grant an additional year for technology installation. Thus far the coal industry has invested $130 billion, and anticipates spending an additional $100 billion over the next decade on “clean coal technology.” An industry coalition has said that many power plants have already been retired due to the costs and expects additional ones to go offline by the deadline, which they say risks disruption to the energy supply of the nation.

The EPA called the ruling a “a victory for public health and the environment” and notes that in EPA’s 40 year history, the Clean Air Act has not impacted power companies’ ability to keep the lights on in communities across the United States.

And they can do so without polluting the air and water.

♠ Mercury does not affect everyone equally

Children are highly susceptible to harm from mercury because their bodies are developing at such a rapid rate. The most recent estimates by the EPA indicate that one in six U.S. women of child-bearing age has mercury levels in her blood high enough to put her baby at risk.

1 ) That means as many as 630,000 infants are born in the U.S. every year with unsafe mercury levels, double what the EPA previously estimated.

2 ) These children face the risk of damage to their nervous system, which can result in delayed onset of walking and talking, cerebral palsy and mental retardation…

MEASURABLY Misleading

Good new policy – July 2014 → HERE

Amalgam damages teeth: Amalgam requires the removal of more healthy tooth tissue, weakens tooth structure, and can crack teeth as it expands and contracts – leading to higher dental bills later.
Amalgam exposes people to mercury: Dental amalgam releases mercury, a neurotoxin. Children, the unborn, the hypersensitive, and dental personnel are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of mercury.
Amalgam pollutes our environment: Dental amalgam constitutes the largest amount of mercury in use in the United States today, and most of this mercury ends up polluting our air, soil, and water. Mercury pollution indisputably can cause health problems, especially for children and the unborn.”
Declared Safe for Centuries, Yet It Slowly Ravages Your Brain

~ ODD INFO ON MERCURY ~

When mercury forms an amalgam with aluminum, the oxide layer that protects aluminum from oxidizing is disrupted. This causes aluminum to corrode. Mercury is a profound, systemic and long-term poison for humans, but also for other organisms. Putting mercury into the environment is a very serious issue. About half the mercury that enters the environment every year comes from volcanic eruptions and other geological processes. The other half is released by mankind. Tooth fillings and smashed bulbs only account for a fraction of the 2,000 tonnes of mercury released by humans into the environment each year. About a quarter is a by-product of power generation.
Coal-fired power stations pump mercury into the atmosphere.

[ Coal burning chimneys need to be fitted with ‘SCRUBBERS’ ]

A MUCH FUN – MUST VIEW

! MAKE YOUR OWN FLU SHOT !

↑ A short fun U-tube ↑

COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION ON MERCURY

…Fatigue, anxiety, depression, odd paresthesias, weight loss, memory loss,
and difficulty concentrating, these are the symptoms of low-grade
chronic mercury exposure described by the investigators…

“Mad as a Hatter”

Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland- 1865.

August 19, 2012/by yarycold

HISTORY OF FLUORIDE IN CAVITY PREVENTION – Dr. Russell Blaylock, Neurosurgeon

DENTISTS & FLUORIDE, FAILURE OF FLUORIDATION

“Opponents of the fluoridation project were quickly labeled by the
masterminds of Alcoa’s PR group as loonies and right-wing
extremists who saw fluoridation as a communist plot.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, Neurosurgeon

Officials who loudly promote fluoridation of public water claim as their motivation the prevention of dental cavities. They frequently cite studies comparing tooth decay rates in fluoridated areas to unfluoridated areas, which purport to show dramatic reductions in tooth decay in children-as much as a 60 percent difference. If this were true, and fluoride were indeed safe, it would be a truly miraculous substance, but this still would not justify putting it in the water supply because we are being medicated and have not even been given a choice in the matter, as you will see. As it stands, there is in fact no credible evidence that fluoride added to the water supply reduces cavity rates at all, and several studies have convincingly demonstrated that the incidence of cavities is actually higher in fluoridated areas.

Shortly after the turn of the century it was noticed that children in certain areas of the country had a high incidence of damaged teeth. Further investigation disclosed that this mottling of their tooth enamel, now known as “dental fluorosis,” was caused by elevated contents of naturally occurring fluoride in certain water systems. This finding motivated the American Dental Society and the U.S. Public Health Department to call for the removal of fluoride in the water from these areas. H. Trendley Dean of the U.S. Public Heath Department in 1930 conducted the original work on this problem.

At this juncture, Dr. Gerald Cox took up the banner and suggested that using a smaller dose of fluoride could not only prevent dental fluorosis, but could even prevent cavities. He suggested adding 1 ppm of fluoride to the public drinking water. He made this proclamation without any studies, human or otherwise, to suggest that it would be effective or safe. What makes this so interesting is that Dr. Cox was on the staff of the Mellon Institute, and the Mellon family owned the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). One of the major waste products produced in the aluminum industry is fluoride. Because of its intense corrosive ability and extreme toxicity, disposal of fluoride had, up until that time, been a very expensive and controversial proposition. So what could the aluminum industry do with all of this toxic fluoride? After all, safe disposal cost the company millions of dollars every year.

Ironically, the answer was to come from government. Fortunately for Alcoa, Andrew Mellon, its founder, was also the Treasury Secretary. Interestingly, the U.S. Public Health Service at that time was under the direct control of the Treasury Secretary. Dr. Dean, who eventually came to support adding 1 ppm fluoride to public water supplies as a safe and effective way to reduce dental caries, became known as “Mr. Fluoridation,” and was chosen by the USPHS to head up the fluoridation studies. As Dr. John Yiamouyiannis noted in his excellent book, Fluoride. The Aging Factor, the American Medical Association (AMA), on September 18, 1943, (as fluoridation was first being proposed) cautioned that fluoride was a powerful protoplasmic poison, and because of its widespread presence in nature, toxic accumulation could be a major problem if water was fluoridated. On October 1, 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association also noted that: “the potential for harm outweighed those for good.” It would behoove the Association’s present membership to remember that in this same article the ADA recognized that as little as 1.2-3.0 ppm of fluoride in drinking water was associated with “developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteoporosis, as well as goiter.”

Despite these cautionary warnings, Dr. Cox convinced Dr. J.J. Frisch, a Wisconsin dentist, to actively promote fluoridation of the water supply. According to historians of the era, Frisch led the charge with the frenzy of a religious zealot and turned it into a political crusade. These developments were, of course, just what Alcoa’s owners wanted. In 1944, according to Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce held on May 25-27, 1954. Alcoa hired a powerful attorney, Oscar Ewing, and paid him an annual salary of $750,000, even though Alcoa wasn’t facing any major litigation. A few months after being hired, he left the company to accept a job as Federal Security Administrator, a position that put him in charge of the USPHS and under the direct control of, – you guessed it, Treasury Secretary Mellon. It should also be noted that he made a great deal of fanfare about leaving such a well-paid job to serve his country. Not surprisingly, Ewing launched a vigorous nationwide campaign to promote fluoridation of public water supplies.

The fluoridation effort was no small project, and certainly not one that Ewing intended to lose. He hired the best public relations master money could buy: Edward L. Bernays, labeled by The Washington Post as “the original spin doctor.” In addition to his other credentials, Bernays was also the nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays knew the best route to take was to get the endorsement of the dental and medical professionals, since the public depended on their wisdom in these matters, and generally trusted them. By using all of the powers at their command Mellon’s fluoridation team convinced the city council of Grand Rapids, Michigan, to allow its water supply to be fluoridated, with the city of Muskegon serving as an unfluoridated control in the experiment. The project was to begin on January 25, 1945, and would be the first U.S. city to add fluoride to its drinking water.

Two things need to be understood at this point. First, the recommendation was accepted just three months after the dire warnings expressed by both the AMA and the ADA. Second, even at that time there was significant evidence that fluoride was toxic to cells in small concentrations, yet these devious men proceeded despite the fact that no human studies had been published on the safety of adding fluoride to Grand Rapids’ water supply. The people of Grand Rapids were to be unwilling test subjects.

Opponents of the fluoridation project were quickly labeled by the masterminds of Alcoa’s PR group as loonies and right-wing extremists who saw fluoridation as a communist plot. I remember these charges very well in the ’50s, having grown up during that period. Suddenly making a complete reversal of their previous stance, the USPHS and the ADA began to endorse widespread fluoridation, even before a single study of the Michigan experiment had been completed that could show fluoridation was safe, much less that it reduced cavities. But there was a compelling reason they didn’t want to wait on the results of a study, namely because initial results were showing that tooth decay rates in unfluoridated Muskegon had decreased as much as fluoridated Grand Rapids. In fact, tooth decay rates were falling in all industrialized nations well before fluoridation. Why? Because of better hygiene and nutrition.

The fluoridationists’ shenanigans were recognized as early as 1952 by Dr. A.L. Miller, a U.S. representative from Nebraska who was also Chairman of the Special Committee on Chemicals in Foods. He noted how strange it was that high officials of the USPHS would do a complete about face on the acceptability of fluoridation and within only three months of advocating extreme caution. Dr. Miller also noted that he could find no original studies by the AMA or the ADA, or any other evidence for fluoridation’s usefulness. All those associations did was refer to each other for confirmation. Representative Miller also noted the convenient connection between Oscar Ewing in his position as Federal Security Administrator, and his representation of Alcoa, which was anxious to get rid of its toxic fluoride waste.

In his book on this subject, Dr. Yiamouyiannis also points out that dissenting dentists were either censured or lost their ADA membership. Dental scientists themselves were controlled by the power of USPHS grant money: those who criticized fluoridation simply saw their grant monies dry up, a very effective tactic still used in many other areas of politicized science. The list of people involved in the fluoridation conspiracy reads like a rogues’ gallery. For example, there is John Small, the USPHS’ fluoridation expert since the 1960s. His sole job is to stem any criticism of fluoridation from any quarter, and he does his job very well. One of his major tasks is to harass, intimidate and virtually destroy anyone who dares to publicly speak or write about the dangers of fluoridation. As an’ example of his viciousness, I will share the story of Dr. Yiamouyiannis, who was once the biochemical editor of the Chemical Abstracts Service, the world’s largest chemical information center. When John Small learned that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was writing critical reviews of fluoridation, he contacted the problem doctor’s immediate superior and expressed his displeasure. In ensuing conversations with this superior, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was told that $1.1 million in federal funding was in jeopardy if he did not cease and desist his criticisms of fluoridation. The good doctor was warned several more times and finally unwilling to suppress the truth about fluoridation dangers-he was forced to resign. So much for the independence of science.

” Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century. “

Robert Carlton, Ph.D., former EPA scientist, 1992

“Regarding Fluoridation, the EPA should act immediately to protect the public.
Not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures,
arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects. “

William Marcus, Ph.D., Senior EPA toxicologist, 1992

Unfortunately, this world is inhabited by some people who seek a profit at any cost and have no concern for public welfare and safety. The fluoride story powerfully demonstrates that we are indeed correct to be suspicious of megacorporations. We have seen how these institutions have done everything in their power to avoid civic responsibility and to manipulate the government, scientific institutions, and the medical and dental professions, all in the name of empty profit.

Most of us have been led to believe by a powerful propaganda network that fluoridation of drinking water, regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste and regular fluoride treatments are not only a good way to prevent cavities, but that the practice of fluoridation itself is very safe. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Those who promote this viewpoint have an ulterior motive and, it is not your health.

July 10, 2012/by yarycold

Health Recovery Info –

DENTISTS & FLUORIDE, FLUORIDE & HEALTH

CHLORINE DIOXIDE GAS DOES

NOT DEPLETE THE

OZONE LAYER AS CHLORINE GAS DOES.

⇒ New Link ⇐

↑ ↑ ↑

~ THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ~

↑ Click on His Image for ‘The Book’ ↑

Chlorine dioxide – ClO2 +

→ MANAGEMENT OF BIOFILM ←

Chlorine dioxide a better disinfection solution

.

Chlorine Dioxide does not produce THMs as chlorine does, and doesn’t give rise to the formation of chloroform and bromochloromethane as chlorine does.

.
Chlorine Dioxide does not react with ammonia, nitrogenous compounds or precursors to form chloroform as chlorine does…”

.

Chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant has the advantage that it directly reacts with the cell wall of micro-organisms. This reaction is not dependent on reaction time or concentration. In contrast to non-oxidizing disinfectants, chlorine dioxide kills micro-organisms even when they are inactive.

Therefore the chlorine dioxide concentration needed to effectively kill micro-organisms is lower than non-oxidising disinfectant concentrations. Micro-organisms cannot built up any resistance against chlorine dioxide.

See more below ⇓

- Frequently asked questions

EXTRACT FROM ABOVE:

Discussion

Mechanism of inactivation of CIO2, on viruses

The mechanism of killing bacteria by disinfectant, in some respects, suits virus also. However, due to the virus possessing its special structure, the disinfectants, i.e. CIO2 and liquid chlorine, do not express completely identical inactivation effect on virus and bacteria.
A virus is a kind of micro, super parasite. Generally, its resistance to disinfectants is stronger than the bacteria (Meng Zao, 1986). Now generally speaking, chlorine does not only react with the protein of capsomeres to destroy semi-permeability of membrane of protein and making it disappear, but also reacts with internal RNA and the RNA is first deteriorated and then removed. Thus, chlorine can kill the viruses and the killed viruses are decomposed. Chlorine dioxide can absorb and penetrate into the protein of capsomeres and react with internal RNA. Thus, CIO2 damages the capacity of genetic group as the model of RNA to be synthesized. Therefore, the surface of the virus absorbs high concentrations of CIO2 molecules. This strengthens the disinfection effect of chlorine dioxide considerably and results in viruses to be inactivated eventually. Different inactivation effects of using these two disinfectants. As can be seen in our experimental results, for liquid chlorine, under conditions of 7.0mg/L dose and contacting for 30 and 60 min, there were no inactivation effects on Policvirus-1, Coxsackie virus-B3, ECHO-11, Adenoviros-7, Herpes simplex virus-1 and Mumps virus. As CIO2, under conditions of 1.0mg/L dose and contacting for 30min may attain the inactivation effect on all six kinds of virus mentioned above. This shows that CIO2 has more obvious inactivation effect on viruses than liquid chlorine.

Notice the date – 1994 !

Full text → HERE

↓ Watch ↓

⇒ New Link ⇐

More recent

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines
[The TGA and Chris Steger please note]
Chlorine dioxide has been approved by NHMRC
for use in disinfecting drinking water since 2005…

The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (the ADWG) published by
the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC)
in 2004 are not mandatory standards but provide a basis
for determining drinking water quality ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

→ Natural Water Solutions-Chlorine Dioxide Approvals ←

→ Chlorine dioxide a better disinfection solution ←

Microorganisms cannot build resistance to chlorine dioxide.

His book #2 → HERE

Slow to load-208 pages

158 » FILES

May 15, 2010/by yarycold

THE TOWNSVILLE REPORT

DENTISTS & FLUORIDE, HISTORY

‘The Townsville Report’ was used as part of
‘The Evidence’ to justify the fluoridation of
Queensland’s public water supply.

Factors Often Overlooked In Fluoridation Research

We are told by the Queensland Government that no adverse
effects have been seen in Townsville from fluoridation,
however Queensland Health has never provided
any health studies to justify this claim.

The original ↓

TOWNSVILLE_AFTER_10YRS

( Fluoridated on 2nd August 1965 )

‘THE EFFECT ON CARIES EXPERIENCE OF LIFETIME RESIDENTS’

A Survey by W. Vidoroni, G.S. Sternberg and G.N. Davies
Division of Dental Services, Department of Health,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and Dental School,
University of Queensland, Turbot St, Brisbane, Australia.

Our criticisms:

Extract:

❝ …Another feature of Townsville is the mobility of the population.
This is reflected by the fact that although 900 children were examined
only 317 or 35 per cent could be classified as lifetime residents.
Data on the remaining non-lifetime residents will be reported in a separate paper. ❞

So Where Is It ?

This additional data was promised in the report,
but despite numerous telephone requests to one
of the authors of this report at the time –
W. Videroni, none was ever provided.

More criticisms:

Extract:

❝ …In addition to assessing the dental caries experience

of the children data were collected on the following:

fluorosis, idiopathic enamel opacities, enamel hypoplasia, tetracycline staining, traumatic injuries to teeth, oral mucosal disease, pathology of bone, dentofacial anomalies, periodontal status (soft deposits, calculus, intense gingivitis), need for periodontal treatment, prosthetic status, denture requirements, conditions needing immediate attention and fillings and extractions required for individual teeth. These data will be reported in a subsequent publication. ❞.

So Where Is It ?

This additional data was promised in the report, but despite
numerous telephone requests to one of the authors of this report
at the time – W. Videroni – none was ever provided.

More Comments:

• Lost in this long list fluoridation negative outcomes,
is one of major concern, Dental Fluorosis:

• Dental fluorosis is not reversible and in more severe cases,
causes disfigurement, pitting, staining and positional defects.

• Dental fluorosis is also associated with skeletal fluorosis.

• Dental fluorosis is now the most common dental problem in Australia.

Qld. Health – Demographics

As can been seen from the newspaper cutting below,
Fluoridation of Townsville’s water supply
has not had the expected results:

CHILDREN will no longer receive free dental care at school. The Queensland Government has stopped offering treatment in its school dental vans because there is not enough staff to man them. A letter sent out through schools this week says the vans would only examine students and provide a report to parents on the state of their teeth. They will then have to seek treatment at private dental practices or take their chances with long public dental waiting lists. “Due to expected demand for treatment you may have to wait for a while for an appointment for non-urgent treatment,” the letter said. Queensland Parents and Citizens Association Northern Region president Mick Cutler said parents wanted to see the dental van visits saved. “We would be disappointed but we also understand the reality of change,” Mr Cutler said. “We’d hope they have the capacity to recruit more staff. “When Queensland children have the highest rate of tooth decay in Australia of course we would like to see the dental vans continue. “We also need to continue the education of our children on better eating habits that don’t contribute to (poor dental health).” In the past all Queensland children from four years old to year 10 at school have been eligible for public sector oral health services. The non-emergency dental treatment is provided at schools through dental clinics and dental vans on a rotational basis. Parents sign a consent form allowing the dentists to check for cavities and put in fillings, if necessary. In February 2006 the Townsville Bulletin reported annual free dental check-ups for students across the twin cities would be stretched out to every two years. At the time a health spokeswoman blamed the wait on the twin cities’ population surge. Leading dental researcher Dr Kerrod Hallett said he had been shocked by the sorry state of Townsville tots’ teeth on his last visit to the city. Dr Hallett is trialling a new mouth guard, designed to stop tooth decay, at Vincent State School. The paediatric dentist hopes the trial will stop young children from suffering the pain of tooth aches and rotting teeth. “I examined 16 children on the first day,” he said. “Out of those one had a healthy mouth. “I was quite shocked myself.” Caption: BRUSHED . . . children such as Annabella Schmid, 4, will no longer receive treatment through school dental vans.

Illus: Photo Library Heading: Health General State Government Health Local Section: NEWS

TOWNSVILLE_AFTER_10YRS

— UPDATE NOVEMBER 2010 —
Townsville has been fluoridated for 40 + years
by the Townsville Council.

… Earlier this year [2012] we asked Townsville Council if they knew of any general health studies that had been done in Townsville for water fluoridation the then Mayor and Director’s representative replied:

❝ Townsville Council ….. not aware of any specific studies (fluoridation health studies) not commissioned any – not aware of any …. contact Qld. Health to see if they have done any …❞

We are told by the Queensland Government that no adverse effects have been seen in Townsville from fluoridation, but Queensland Health has never provided any health studies to justify this claim – the reason why – they have never looked at anything but teeth. Fluoride, when ingested travels throughout the body in the blood plasma, but supposedly it only beneficially affects teeth? If you don’t look – you don’t find — Just keep on parroting fluoridation is safe!

Credit: ↓

Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc.

Full 91 page original text→ HERE ←

Full 91 page original text→ HERE

→ RandWater-SouthAfrica ←

“In September 2000 the Department of Health
legislated regulations in respect of fluoridation of
potable water in South Africa. Fluoridating potable water is
considered by some as being unconstitutional in that the
use of fluoridated water is forced on consumers
who have no choice in the matter…”

May 4, 2009/by yarycold

We have presented only a few papers from around the world. Over 500 new papers on fluorides are added each year. We suspect many more exist in the non-English press.

Dr. Burhenne ↓

→ Ask The Dentist ←

We reserve the right to publish any of our outgoing correspondence and incoming responses, or non-responses, on our web sites as part of our policy of the- ❝ Citizen’s Right-To-Know ❞

The information on this website IS intended to help diagnose or treat disease. It is provided for educational and informational purposes only. Please consult an inappropriate professional if you have any more concerns? ~ ‘A Wince of Dentists’ ~

·——«‹♦›»——·

Decline Of Caries After The Cessation Of Fluoridation ↓

However as evidenced by this and numerous other web sites, dentists, cities, and nations are abandoning fluoridation and mercury fillings. ‘Fluoridation Queensland’ will not rest until, in keeping with other nations, mercury and fluorides are no longer used by Australian dentists.

·—————————–«‹♦›»—————————–·

·———————-«‹♦›»———————-·

The Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act (1963) Why Not? – Timing, Circumstance, A Review Of A Review by Dr Harry Akers ↓

·————–«‹♦›»————–·

See also ↓

→ BABIES & FLUORIDE ←

·———«‹♦›»———·

This work has been ignored and was out of print. ↓ but is now available see full text below ↓

→ FLUORIDATION, 1979 ←

Scientific Criticisms and Fluoride Dangers – by Philip R.N.Sutton D.D.Sc. (Melb.), L.D.S., F.R.A.C.D.S. Formerly Senior Lecturer in Dental Science, Senior Research Fellow

Fluoride The Aging Factor

→ FULL TEXT HERE ←

THE ABSURDITIES OF WATER FLUORIDATION: Scientists, dentists and professionals (even cooks) have been persecuted, censored, or harassed when they oppose the ‘Cult of Water Fluoridation’.

‘Second Look’ ↓ ↓ ↓

→ http://www.slweb.org/ftrc.html ←

RUDOLF ZIEGELBECKER – Graz Austria:

As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities …….waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

→ International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology ←

❝ The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who can’t read or write – but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. ❞

( May be he had a bad dentist! )

His work is important for reasons beyond its specific scientific findings. His work was motivated by the assumption that ingested fluoride was beneficial!

Dentists Are Doing Very Well, Thank You – Despite Fluoridation.

Since fluoridation doesn’t reduce tooth decay, whose best interests are served by protecting fluoride’s image? The Global Toothpaste Market is expected to reach $12.6 billion by 2015, according Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

[ A good reason to drink plenty of water! ]

Original full text → HERE

– FLUORIDATION – THE PROFITABLE LIE –

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SAYS:

❝ Dentists Are Big Political Players and do all they can to preserve their monopoly.” — Huge donations secure their political agendas:

They boasted the largest single health-care PAC in 2008, gave nearly $13 million to state and local politicians in 2010, raising the question: What do dentists want? Alicia Mundy has details on ‘The News Hub’.

Dental Crisis in America: – After over 72 years of water fluoridation foisted upon Americans by the American Dental Association and its constituents groups, a Dental Crisis exists in America.

For some Americans, dental care means a sturdy chair, a fluoride swish, and a free toothbrush. But for one in three Americans, it’s a nightmare, including astronomical bills, crippling credit card debt, panicked visits to an emergency room, and life-threatening disease. . . .

Flagitious Lallation

Dr Jackie Robinson, Associate Director, Continuing Education in Dentistry, University of Sydney

[ Follow the money! ]

….→ Fluoridation on trial – 21 May 2018 Largely unseen, a lawsuit that aims to outlaw public water fluoridation is moving forward in the federal District Court of Northern California

Delayed Tooth Eruption

This delay, at least partly, could be due to the teeth of children in fluoridated areas erupting (breaking through the gums) at a slightly older age, and therefore being exposed to decay-producing factors for a shorter period:

Fluoride causes a delay in tooth eruption of roughly a year.

See also – Toothpaste. – UK info – New

Physical chemical effects of zinc on in vitro enamel…

COMPETENCY CHECK: Airline pilots are required to undertake regular proficiency checks to ensure they continue to be competent and aware of new regulations. It would seem that the dental and medical professions are lax on this: – They still promote fluoridation.

.

[ She is very unhappy about our web sites! ]

… A study of dentist and dental assistants in the Netherlands found 50% higher rates of spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and congenital defects than for the control group, with unusually high occurrence of spina bifida.

Full original text → HERE

·——«‹◊›»——-

Excerpts from: Roholm K. (1937).

The complete book with photos ↓ ↓ ↓

Fluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. London: H.K. Lewis Ltd.

“The teeth may be delayed in eruption and have abnormalities in size, shape and position, and resistance of such teeth is low.” p. 272

“The pathological enamel is brittle and readily chips off. The incisors wear down abnormally, which sometimes leads to defective occlusion and, as a secondary phenomenon, abnormal growth of opposing teeth. The incisors often exhibit lateral deviations; growth is retarded.” p. 272

The above research is

STILL VALID AFTER 78 YEARS Come on ADA, it must be time to catch up!

EXTRACT FROM THE AUSTRALIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION’S WEB SITE DISCLAIMER:

❝ … The ADA Inc. shall not be responsible for information

provided herein under any theory of liability or indemnity.

Liability of ADA Inc., if any, for damages (including, without

limitation, liability arising out of contract, negligence,

strict liability, tort or patent or copyright infringement)

shall not exceed the fees paid by the user for the

particular information or service provided … ❞

( Sounds very mumblecrust – but it fills us all with confidence ! )

LARGE FILE → HERE ←

ADA / Qld. Labour Party Collusion :

The Queensland Health Department, funded The Australian Dental Association Queensland Branch, $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.

→ $educed By An Attractive Error ←

We have presented only a few papers from around the world.
Over 500 new papers on fluorides are added each year.
We suspect many more exist in the non-English press.

We reserve the right to publish any of our outgoing correspondence
and incoming responses, or non-responses, on our
web sites as part of our policy of the-
❝ Citizen’s Right-To-Know ❞

The information on this website IS intended to help diagnose or treat disease.
It is provided for educational and informational purposes only.
Please consult an inappropriate professional
if you have any more concerns?
~ ‘A Wince of Dentists’ ~

However as evidenced by this and numerous other web sites,
dentists, cities, and nations are abandoning fluoridation and mercury
fillings. ‘Fluoridation Queensland’ will not rest until, in keeping with other
nations, mercury and fluorides are no longer used by Australian dentists.

The Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act (1963)
Why Not? – Timing, Circumstance,
A Review Of A Review
by Dr Harry Akers ↓

This work has been ignored and was out of print.
↓ but is now available see full text below ↓

Scientific Criticisms and Fluoride Dangers – by Philip R.N.Sutton D.D.Sc.
(Melb.), L.D.S., F.R.A.C.D.S. Formerly Senior Lecturer in Dental Science,
Senior Research Fellow

THE ABSURDITIES OF WATER FLUORIDATION:
Scientists, dentists and professionals (even cooks) have been
persecuted, censored, or harassed when they oppose
the ‘Cult of Water Fluoridation’.

As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the
American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities
…….waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

❝ The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who can’t read or write –
but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. ❞

His work is important for reasons beyond its specific scientific findings.
His work was motivated by the assumption that ingested fluoride was beneficial!

Since fluoridation doesn’t reduce tooth decay, whose best interests are served
by protecting fluoride’s image?
The Global Toothpaste Market is expected to reach $12.6 billion by 2015,
according Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

❝ Dentists Are Big Political Players and do all they can to preserve their monopoly.”
— Huge donations secure their political agendas:

They boasted the largest single health-care PAC in 2008, gave nearly $13 million to state and local politicians in 2010, raising the question: What do dentists want? Alicia Mundy has details on
‘The News Hub’.

Dental Crisis in America: –
After over 72 years of water fluoridation foisted upon Americans by the American Dental Association and its constituents groups, a Dental Crisis exists in America.

For some Americans, dental care means a sturdy chair, a fluoride swish, and a free toothbrush.
But for one in three Americans, it’s a nightmare, including astronomical bills, crippling credit card debt, panicked visits to an emergency room, and life-threatening disease. . . .

Dr Jackie Robinson,
Associate Director, Continuing Education in Dentistry,
University of Sydney

….→ Fluoridation on trial – 21 May 2018
Largely unseen, a lawsuit that aims to outlaw public water
fluoridation is moving forward in the federal District Court of Northern California

This delay, at least partly, could be due to the teeth of children in fluoridated areas
erupting (breaking through the gums) at a slightly older age, and
therefore being exposed to decay-producing
factors for a shorter period:

COMPETENCY CHECK: Airline pilots are required to undertake regular proficiency
checks to ensure they continue to be competent and aware of new regulations.
It would seem that the dental and medical professions are lax on this:
– They still promote fluoridation.

… A study of dentist and dental assistants in the Netherlands
found 50% higher rates of spontaneous abortions, stillbirths,
and congenital defects than for the control group,
with unusually high occurrence of spina bifida.

STILL VALID AFTER 78 YEARS
Come on ADA, it must be time to catch up!

EXTRACT FROM THE AUSTRALIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION’S
WEB SITE DISCLAIMER:

The Queensland Health Department, funded
The Australian Dental Association Queensland Branch,
$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.