Death by Fluoride

A wee bit of fluoride makes teeth and dentists happy, we’re told. Dr. Happy Tooth’s smiley face turns into a frown when his favorite decay magic bullet is busted as a killer. Anything in large doses kills, bristles Drs. Drill, Fill & Bill, even Dihydrogen Monoxide, they often tease. Ha, ha, get it – water – H2O. Stop picking on fluoride, they say, you make us look bad, often invoking the movie “Dr. Strangelove.”

Few people know that fluoride maims and kills. Dentists wouldn’t want you worrying your little head off, and possibly scaring you away from twice-yearly insurance-paid-whether-you-need-it-or-not treatments and those horrible toxic doses (26,000 ppm) of fluoride varnish they paint on babies' teeth. Fluoride’s toxicity is downplayed-–or worse, never mentioned. That way everyone stays happy including organized dentistry’s biggest benefactors--toothpaste makers, and the media and legislators supported by the same benefactors.

The following are stories organized dentistry and fluoride profiteers fail to mention:

a) A two-year-old Australian boy died after swallowing too many fluoride tablets(4).

b) A three-year-old Austrian boy died from swallowing too many fluoride tablets (5).

c) Three-year-old American boy died from ingesting, instead of expectorating, his dentist’s fluoride treatment (6).

d) Three dialysis patients died from fluoride poisoning at the University of Chicago Hospital when equipment meant to filter out fluoride from the water supply malfunctioned (7).

e) Fluoride killed an Alaskan man and poisoned 296 others after too much fluoride accidentally flowed into the public water supply (8).

f) Fluoride killed a 65-year-old kidney dialysis patient who became ill during a blood cleaning process after water supply workers left a fluoride valve for too long to allow toxic fluoride levels to flow into the public water supply (9) in Annapolis, Maryland.

g) A 51-year-old committed suicide by fluoridated toothpaste, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (1). They won’t release the who, what, where, when and why to us.

h) 47 children were accidentally killed by a cook who mistakenly made their egg breakfast sodium fluoride powder instead of powdered milk (14)

i) A Kentuckian died after accidentally given liquid fluoride to wash down a pill at an Annapolis drugstore

These are cases where fluoride sickened and/or disabled people:

A) A 52-year-old women with a two-gallon, double-strength daily instant tea habit developed bone and joint pain and other abnormalities indicative of chronic fluoride toxicity or skeletal fluorosis. After breaking the tea habit her pain and discomfort alleviated. Tea is naturally high in fluoride and few doctors are trained to diagnose fluoride’s adverse effects (2).

B) Daily high-dose fluoride home therapy caused gastric distress, difficulty in swallowing, leg muscle and knee joint soreness, and general malaise in a patient, according to the Journal of the American Dental Association (3).

C) A 57-year-old Englishman’s misdiagnosed Paget’s disease (weakened bones) with osteoarthritis was finally correctly diagnosed as skeletal fluorosis caused by his long-term heavy tea-drinking habit. (x)

D) A 36-year-old Chinese woman’s ten-years of joint pain disappeared when she stopped drinking tea. (x)

E) French doctors identified 5 patients who developed bone softening (osteomalacia) from drinking tea. (x)


Each year there are thousands of reports to Poison Control centers in the United States related to excessive ingestion of fluoride dental products (toothpaste, mouth rinses, and supplements).
Animals aren’t immune. Elk drinking naturally high fluoridated water in Yellowstone Park die a decade sooner than they should (3a). 

Kangaroos are poisoned by fluoride, too. Fluoride makes lesions grow on their bones, which renders them lame.

Documented cases of animals poisoned by fluoride include horses, chinchillas and alligators.

Cattle have been killed from industrial fluoride emissions

Many Americans fail to notice their fluoridated toothpaste carries this message: “WARNING: Keep out of the reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.”

Dentists often downplay this warning protecting fluoride more than your children. But a leading toxicologist and fluoridation promoter, Gary Whitford, PhD, protected his own children from their toxic fluoride tubes by putting them out of their reach. See:  http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2014/08/keep-fluoride-toothpaste-out-of.html  Did your dentist ever tell you that?


Fluoride caused many industrial, occupational and environmental sicknesses and deaths also (10).

Natural fluoride cripples and maims too many people in the world who live on high naturally-fluoridated water supplies such as in Nalgonda, India (11).

Symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, according to Chemical & Engineering News (13):

In the early clinical stage of skeletal fluorosis, symptoms include pains in the bones and joints; sensations of burning, pricking, and tingling in the limbs; muscle weakness; chronic fatigue; and gastrointestinal disorders and reduced appetite. During this phase, changes in the pelvis and spinal column can be detected on x-rays. The bone has both a more prominent and more blurred structure.

In the second clinical stage, pains in the bones become constant and some of the ligaments begin to calcify. Osteoporosis may occur in the long bones, and early symptoms of osteosclerosis (a condition in which the bones become more dense and have abnormal crystalline structure) are present. Bony spurs may also appear on the limb bones, especially around the knee, the elbow, and on the surface of tibia and ulna.

In advanced skeletal fluorosis, called crippling skeletal fluorosis, the extremities become weak and moving the joints is difficult. The vertebrae partially fuse together, crippling the patient.

Dr. A. K. Susheela, a leading fluoride expert, explains in a video why US physicians overlook fluoride as a possible cause of diseases commonly caused by fluoride. http://tinyurl.com/Susheela

References:
(1) American Association of Poison Control Centers, 2002 Annual Report, (Page 367)
http://www.aapcc.org/archive/Annual%20Reports/02report/Annual%20Report%202002.pdf
(2) J Bone Miner Res. 2008 “Skeletal Fluorosis from Instant Tea,” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18179362
(3) Controlling the fluoride dosage in a patient with compromised salivary function.
Journal of the American Dental Association. January 2005 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15693498 by Fred Eichmiller et al ( Eichmiller presented pro-fluoride information at Alderman Bohl’s fluoridation hearing as an employee of Delta Dental who made over $400,000 a year in 2010 )

(3a) “Too Much Fluoride Takes a Toll on Elk,” BY BECKY BOHRER, The Associated Press, February 13, 2004 http://forests.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=29346&keybold=water%20AND%20%20fluoride
(4) http://www.fluoride-history.de/burton.htm
(5) http://www.fluoride-history.de/huala.htm
(6) http://www.fluoride-history.de/kennerly.htm
(7) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/chicago-1993.html
(8) “Acute fluoride poisoning from a public water system,”.
New England Journal of Medicine, January 1994 http://tinyurl.com/3l8bdt
(9) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/annapolis.html
(10) http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pollution.htm
(11) Indian villagers crippled by fluoride, by Omer Farooq, BBC correspondent in Hyderabad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2926049.stm
(13) CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWSAugust 1, 1988
Fluoridation of Water Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years
Bette Hileman, http://www.fluoridealert.org/s-fluorosis.htm
(14) TIME Magazine, "Death by Fluoride" November 1942
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,766637,00.html
(x ) Case Reports by Cao and Yi in the Journal of Fluorine Chemistry (February 2008) “Tea and fluorosis:”

Beware Foreign Fluoride

Sodium fluoride is added to many US water supplies, including Sacramento, California, in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay in Americans who cook with and drink tap water. Fluoride is not added to purify the water.

"Crystalline sodium fluoride is no longer produced in the USA and now is only available from import manufacturers in China, Japan, and Belgium. It should be noted that Center for Disease Control (CDC) made strong recommendations that only US product be used due to quality control and efficient operation of the saturator system," according to the Director, Department of Utilities, Sacramento, California.

"The Japan and China manufactured supplies have been found to be of a lower quality, causing costly equipment problems and failures. Shipments of sodium fluoride often have damaged bags that are leaking product through punctures or failed seals as well," he reports.

"The movement of suppliers away from domestically produced sodium fluoride is adversely affecting the fluoridation feed equipment of our 28 wells, primarily due to clogged fluoride injector pumps. Much of the loss of ground water well production is due to fluoride related issues," he continues.

"Fluoridation is a very costly and labor intensive process and requires constant monitoring of fluoride concentrations to ensure proper dosages. The chemical is very corrosive, so all equipment that is used in the fluoridation process has a very short life expectancy and needs to be replaced frequently.; The crystalline sodium fluoride that is used at the 28 well sites not only causes the need for frequent equipment replacement, but also causes frequent and complex system failures.  Such system failures mean that, while wells are out of service and until the problem has been identified and resolved, the wells are not being used to deliver potable water to rate payers. Well shut downs also affect our ability to meet water pressure requirements which are mandated in Title 22," he continues.

Amesbury, Massachusetts, ended fluoridation when its Chinese fluoride clogged up the system with an unknown substance.

China has a history of contaminating food items for profit.  Why would we be buying China's fertilizer waste, sodium fluoride, and expect it to be safe? 


The official Chinese news agency Xinhua reported  that Chinese authorities  discovered 15,000 cases of substandard food so far this year while shutting down 5,700 unlicensed food businesses.

The CDC says 3 types of  Fluoride Additives can be used for water fluoridation in the US:

• Fluorosilicic acid: a water-based solution used by most water fluoridation programs in the United States. Fluorosilicic acid is also referred to as hydrofluorosilicate, FSA, or HFS.
• Sodium fluorosilicate: a dry additive, dissolved into a solution before being added to water.
• Sodium fluoride: a dry additive, typically used in small water systems, dissolved into a solution before being added to water.

NSF International has the job of certifying fluoridation chemicals as safe and found 43 samples with detectable levels of arsenic



 

Dispensing With Fluoride, By Andrew W. Saul

As a child, there was nothing I liked about going to the dental dispensary, with the possible exception of the large tropical fish aquarium in the waiting room. This was a distraction to what was coming: three hours in a vast hall containing a double line of black dental chairs and a matching double line of white-clad dental students. And that, as a six-year-old, is where I first met fluoride on a regular basis. After a free cleaning and checkup (the reason my cost-conscious parents had me go there, and the reason it literally took three hours to complete), fluoride was applied to my teeth with a swab. I remember both the smell (acrid) and the taste (astringent). I actually looked forward to the fluoride treatment, simply because it was the last thing they did to me before I was allowed to leave. Did it work? Probably not. In addition to my regular topical fluoride treatments, I lived in a city with fluoridated water and was raised on fluoridated toothpaste. And I had a mouthful of amalgam by high-school graduation.

Controversy? What Controversy?

In the late 1970s, as a young parent, I became aware of the National Fluoridation News, published in the still largely unknown town of Gravette, Arkansas (pop 2,200). For a very small donation, I received a boxful of back issues by return mail. In addition to this generosity, what surprised me about the NFNews was the high caliber of its content. Most of the non-editorial articles were well referenced and the work of well qualified scientists. This was something of a poser, for as a college biology major, I had been thoroughly schooled in the two Noble Truths of Fluoridation: 1) that fluoride in drinking water would reduce tooth decay by 60-65% and 2) that anyone who disagreed with this view was a fool. Yes, I had seen the movie Dr. Strangelove, and yes, I knew how to read an ADA endorsement on a toothpaste label.

Not long after this, my penchant for reading toothpaste labels paid off. There it was, printed right on the back of the tube:

"Children should only use a 'pea-sized' portion of fluoride toothpaste when they brush."

I had two toddlers, and this caught my interest. Looking into it, I learned that small children swallow a considerable quantity of toothpaste when they brush, perhaps most of it.

Anyone who has watched television at all could not have failed to see toothpaste ads. They always showed the brush loaded, with decorative overhang tips flared out on each end. When "AIM" brand toothpaste first came out, I distinctly remember toothpaste being displayed in two or even three layers on the brush. The number of children that used the product so generously, and swallowed half of it, will likely remain unknown. As for me, I immediately switched my family to toothpaste with no fluoride in it. As for toothpaste labels, they rather quickly were re-written. They now read:

"If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."

But all children swallow more than is used for brushing. The only question is, how much? The US Centers for Disease Control states:

"Fluoride toothpaste contributes to the risk for enamel fluorosis because the swallowing reflex of children aged less than 6 years is not always well controlled, particularly among children aged less than 3 years. Children are also known to swallow toothpaste deliberately when they like its taste. A child-sized toothbrush covered with a full strip of toothpaste holds approximately 0.75-1.0 g of toothpaste, and each gram of fluoride toothpaste, as formulated in the United States, contains approximately 1.0 mg of fluoride. Children aged less than 6 years swallow a mean of 0.3 g of toothpaste per brushing and can inadvertently swallow as much as 0.8 g." [1, emphasis added]

For children age 6 and under, that is an average swallow of a third of the toothpaste they use, and a possibility of inadvertently swallowing 80% or more. There is about a milligram of fluoride in a single "serving" of toothpaste. I am calling it a "serving" because fluoride in toothpaste is regulated as if it were a food, not a drug. How is this true? Adding even less than one milligram of fluoride to a single serving of children's vitamins instantly makes them a prescription drug. It is truly odd that fluoride toothpaste remains an over-the-counter product.

Into the Schools

When my children were in grade school, the local dental college (the people who brought us the dispensary I went to as a young boy) interested our school district in a research project. Our town's public water was under local control and unfluoridated, unlike the city nearby. So the idea was to administer fluoride rinses to schoolchildren, during the school day, and then count caries. We were asked to sign a permission letter, which emphasized likely benefits and glossed over any hazards. Remembering what youngsters did with sweet toothpaste, I made a guess that they'd swallow a saccharin-laced rinse about as well. We chose to not sign. But I did check the box to receive results of the study. It ultimately came in the form of a letter, saying that the results were disappointingly inconclusive: no evidence that fluoride rinses helped our unfluoridated-water-drinking community. I am unaware that the study was published.

That is not especially surprising. Shutting out access to balanced scientific discussion of fluoridation is alive and well. . . and taxpayer supported. Negative fluoride studies and reviews are hardly abundant on PubMed/Medline. One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to observe that the US National Library of Medicine refuses to index the journal Fluoride. [2] Censorship is conspicuously aberrant behavior for any public library.

No Discussion

About 15 years ago, our town's public water supply was annexed by the nearby metropolis. Aside from a rate increase, the only other, barely detectable change to our bill was a one-time typed legend at the bottom of it that fluoride has now been added to the water. There had been no vote, and there had not even been any discussion. Communities coast-to-coast know that this is not at all uncommon. Four glasses of fluoridated tap water contain about as much fluoride as a prescription dose does. Not only is fluoridated water nonprescription, it is even more certain to be swallowed than toothpaste. Being over 6 years of age means better control over swallowing reflexes, thus limiting ingestion of fluoride from toothpaste. There is no such accommodation for drinking water.

Evidence-based medicine requires evidence before medicating. Fluoridation of water is not evidence-based. It has not been tested in well-controlled studies. Fluoridation of public water is a default medication, since you have to deliberately avoid it if you do not want to take it. A person's daily intake of fluoride simply from drinking an average quantity of fluoridated tap water, fluoridated bottled water, and beverages produced or prepared with fluoridated water can easily exceed the threshold for what your druggist would rightly demand a prescription for. Fluoride in toothpaste and mouth rinses also is medication. It may be intended as topical, but the reality is different. No matter how it may be applied in their mouths, young children are going to swallow it. Indeed, most of the public and the dental profession already have.

References:

1. Fluoride Recommendations Work Group. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. CDC Recommendations and Reports 2001;50(RR14):1-42. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

2. http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n05.shtml If you want access to what the US taxpayer-funded National Library of Medicine refuses to index, you may read over 40 years' of articles from the journal Fluoride, free of charge, at http://www.fluorideresearch.org/ Scroll down to "Archives and Indexes,1968-2011."

Comment by Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD: Support for these views and conclusions is found in a recent review in Critical Public Health (2011:1-19) titled "Slaying sacred cows: is it time to pull the plug on water fluoridation?" by Stephen Peckham of the Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. In his article, Peckham concludes that evidence for the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation is seriously defective and not in agreement with findings of a growing body of current and previously overlooked research. For an abstract of this report, scroll down at: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/444/files/FJ2011_v44_n4_p260-261_sfs.pdf

This revised article originally appeared in Fluoride 2011, 44(4)188-190. It is reprinted with kind permission of the International Society for Fluoride Research Inc. www.fluorideresearch.org or www.fluorideresearch.com. Editorial Office: 727 Brighton Road, Ocean View, Dunedin 9035, New Zealand.

Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine and contact person. Email: omns@orthomolecular.org Readers may write in with their comments and questions for consideration for publication and as topic suggestions. However, OMNS is unable to respond to individual emails.

Yet, Another Embarrassing Fluoridation Birthday

Sixty-eight years ago, on January 25, sodium fluoride was slowly poured into Grand Rapids, Michigan’s public water supply to prove that fluoridation reduces children’s tooth decay. Five years into the experiment, things weren’t going as expected. Cavities declined equally in the non-fluoridated control city of Muskegon, too. So to blur the truth or prove their expectation, Muskegon was fluoridated also.

So what’s happening today?

Grand Rapids children are showing high rates of tooth decay and dental fluorosis. According to the Grand Rapids Press, one pediatric dentist said in 2007 “…we see children under the age of 2 with active decay…Rather than just a few cavities, we're seeing a lot of cavities. It's not unusual to see a child with 8 to 10 cavities."

America’s children are fluoride-overdosed with almost half of all adolescents  afflicted with dental fluorosis, white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth.  Tooth decay has increased in toddlers, untreated tooth decay is epidemic, more dental schools are opening and more dental professionals have been created.  Emergency rooms are flooded with patients in dental pain because 80% of dentists refuse to treat Medicaid patients and half of all Americans don’t have dental insurance.  Those that have insurance can’t afford the out-of-pocket expenses.  And Americans have died from the consequences of untreated tooth decay.

The US Department of Health and Human  Services and  the Centers for Disease Control and many other dental,  health and government agencies now recommend that infant formula NOT be mixed with fluoridated water to avoid dental fluorosis.  References:  http://www.FormulaFluoride.Webs.com.

The prestigious US National Research Council produced a fluoride report which reveals that fluoride, even at the low doses added to water supplies can be detrimental to the thyroid gland, kidney patients, people who drink high volumes of water and babies.  But it’s being ignored

. In 1990, the New York State Department of Health (DoH) published a study, “Fluoride: Benefits and Risks of Exposure,” alerting officials that fluoride can be harmful to  kidney 
patients, diabetics and those with fluoride hypersensitivity even at “optimal” levels.  But the advice went unheeded, research left undone and today’s claims of safety ring hollow. 


Kaminsky et. al report: "The available data suggest that some 
individuals may experience hypersensitivity to fluoride-containing 
agents” and " …individuals with renal insufficiency who consume large 
quantities of fluoridated water are at an increased risk of developing 
skeletal fluorosis.”  Research in these two areas were advised but 
never conducted. 

Further, dental fluorosis was reported in diabetics who consume large 
volumes of water containing 0.5 to 1.0 mg fluoride/liter, the latter 
equal to NYS’s fluoridated water supplies. 

Malfunctioning kidneys may not adequately filter fluoride from the 
blood allowing toxic fluoride levels to build up in and damage bones. 
Symptoms of skeletal fluorosis include bone pain, tenderness and 
fractures, according to the EPA. 

The American Dental Association admits in its Fluoridation Facts 
booklet "decreased fluoride removal may occur among persons with 
severely impaired kidney function who may not be on kidney dialysis." 

The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) withdrew its fluoridation 
endorsement in 2007, with advice that “individuals with CKD [Chronic 
Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride 
exposure.”

The landmark 2006 National Research Council fluoride report stated, 
“Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in 
renal [kidney] function...Several investigators have shown that 
patients with impaired renal function, or on hemodialysis, tend to 
accumulate fluoride much more quickly than normal." 

Bone changes in advanced kidney patients are similar to bone changes 
found in individuals with skeletal fluorosis, according to the 
Fluoride Action Network. This raises the possibility that some 
individuals with kidney disease are suffering from undiagnosed 
skeletal fluorosis. 

Seven New York City Council Members are sponsoring legislation to stop 
fluoridation in New York City NYC residents can lighten their 
toxic fluoride exposure by contacting Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Speaker 
Christine Quinn and their own Council Member to make sure they vote to 
stop the addition of fluoride chemicals into NYC’s water supply

Many more citizens and legislators are not buying into the false fluoridation information and ending this outdated,ineffective, health-robbing, money-wasting concept.  Many communities have stopped fluoridation and many more are considering despite the false information presented by the dental lobby.

We urge you to join them and demand that water fluoridation stop where you live. Educate your neighbors and then your legislators.  Informed people do not want fluoride in their water.

for more info http://www.FluorideAction.Net

http://www.Fluoridation.Webs.com

http://tinyurl.com/NewsReleases

.

Is Fluoride Unsafe? Only When Swallowed.

“What really determines whether fluoride is safe, is the amount that is swallowed,” says Amid I. Ismail, BDS, MPH, MBA, DrPH, and Dean, Temple University, School of Dentistry in Dear Doctor Magazine. (1)

 

Dr. Ismail says, “Fluoride occurs naturally in soil, fresh and seawater varying dramatically in levels from as low as 0.01 to 8ppm or more....In actuality the “optimal” (most desirable or satisfactory) level is virtually impossible to calculate because of variations in fluoride levels in all sorts of foods and beverages. 

 

'For example, people living in temperate climates drink less than those in tropical climates. However, it cannot even be assumed that because a person lives in a community with non-fluoridated water, they are receiving low levels of fluoride. Fluoride ingestion can also result from drinking substantial amounts of soft drinks or juices. Most bottled waters contain less than 0.3 ppm; however, some contain close to or more than 1 ppm.”

 

"Breast milk and cow's milk are very low in fluoride,” says Ismail. Manufacturers voluntarily lowered fluoride levels in infant formula. But when concentrated infant formula is mixed with fluoridated water, infant formula fluoride levels are higher, says Dr. Ismail. Federal agencies, health departments and organized dentistry advise using non-fluoridated water to make infant formula to avoid damaging babies' teeth. References: http://www.FormulaFluoride.webs.com.

“Also, soy-based formulas are consistently higher in fluoride content than milk-based products. Other foods that have high fluoride content are teas, dry infant cereals and processed chicken, fish and seafood products,” says Ismail.

“It should also be emphasized that “topical” fluorides such as toothpaste can also have a systemic effect if inadvertently swallowed by young children,” cautions Dr. Ismail. Fluoride also gets absorbed into the bloodstream even when not swallowed.

"Tooth mottling should be monitored in communities to assess fluoride intake and recommendations made accordingly,” writes Ismail. 

However, few communities follow Dr. Ismail's advice and fluoridate the water without considering residents’ total fluoride intake from other sources. In fact, a Connersville, Indiana, study indicated children already ingested too much fluoride; but dentists lobbied successfully for fluoridation anyway. To our knowledge, no dental fluorosis studies have ever been published on this population.

Dr. Ismail questions whether mild fluorosis is acceptable any more with esthetics becoming more important in this day and age. He says, “decisions concerning this tradeoff could warrant reconsideration. Fluorosis varies in appearance from small white striations to stained pitting and severe brown mottling of enamel,” he writes.

“The main documented risk factors for fluorosis (in no particular order) are fluoride in water, infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, supplements and dentifrices,” he writes.

Dr. Ismail reports that “Commissioned by the EPA, a 2006 National Research Council (NRC) study has sparked the latest controversy. In addition to unsightly enamel fluorosis at 4 ppm and above, it claims: a possible increased risk of bone fracture in certain conditions; skeletal fluorosis; and potential to cause bone cancer...”

“Fluoride is incorporated into bone...after a point though it can make bone more brittle and at higher levels can cause “skeletal” fluorosis, which has a greater potential for painful joints and even fractures,” reports Ismail.

“The over use of fluoride during the first six to eight years of life represents the important period of tooth development when enamel fluorosis can occur. It is critical for parents to monitor fluoride sources to reduce the occurrence of white spots from fluorosis,” he writes.

The Centers for Disease Control reports that over 41% of adolescents now suffer with dental fluorosis – 3% of it is moderate or severe. At the same time tooth decay rates are increasing in toddlers and untreated tooth decay has become epidemic.

In Kentucky, despite a 1977 fluoridation state-wide mandate, preschoolers cavity rates went from 28% in 1987 to 47% in 2001, according to the July/August 2003 journal, Pediatric Dentistry,

According to an 11/27/2011 news article, “In recent years, Northern Kentucky health officials have encountered more children with cavities in a state known for some of the worst teeth in the nation. Kentucky has the second highest rate of toothlessness in the U.S. The national average is 20.5 percent, while 38 percent of Kentuckians have lost their teeth.”(2) 

 

The article quotes Linda Poynter, the Northern Kentucky Health Department's oral health program manager. "I've seen too many 5-year-olds with rampant decay who are going to have a body full of abscesses, if (their dental problems) aren't taken care of," Poynter said.

 

The article continues, “In recent years, pupils in the Northern Kentucky schools that the local health department visits are experiencing more tooth decay. The percentage of students with tooth decay was 45 percent in 2009. That rose to 47 percent in 2010, and so far this school year, 49 percent of the children screened have tooth decay.”

It’s not just Kentucky, tooth decay went up after fluoridation began in San Antonio, Texas, also.

Last week, KENS 5 – TV reported “After 9 years and $3 million of adding fluoride, research shows tooth decay hasn’t dropped among the poorest of Bexar County’s children. It has only increased—up 13% in 2010, the latest date that data was available.
One out of two children in the Head Start program who were checked for cavities had some decay last year.”

Actually tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities, states and countries. See: http://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com

Fluoride Supplements Just as Useless

Dr. Ismail reported "There is weak and inconsistent evidence that the use of fluoride supplements prevents dental caries [cavities] in primary teeth," according to a systematic review of fluoride supplement research published in the November 2008 Journal of the American Dental Association. Dr. Ismail is also an organizer of the American Dental Association Clinical Recommendation Panels on Fluoride Supplement.


“This review confirmed that, in non-fluoridated communities, the use of fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing dental fluorosis, write researchers Ismail & Bandekar and first published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, February 1999 and to the ADA's website July 2007 but then taken down.

References:

1) Dear Doctor Magazine, “Fluoride & Fluoridation in Dentistry”

2) “

N.Ky. kids' teeth at risk,” NKY.com

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20111127/NEWS0103/111270308/-N-Ky-kids-teeth-risk?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

 

3)

“Added to our drinking water: A chemical 'more toxic than lead'? “ by Joe Conger

http://www.kens5.com/news/local/More-toxic-than-lead--134366538.html

 

Evidence that fluoridation fails to reduce tooth decay in New York State and fails to level out decay between haves and have nots

 

 

Fluoride From a Rock????

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Also known as hydrofluorosilcic acid. 

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

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

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

Fluoridation Chemicals Endanger Workers

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

   Gary Pittman gave up his life for his job. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Gary's Work:   

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

Dentists Protect Fluoride Instead of Babies

For Babies, Fluoride is Nothing to Smile About

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

1)  Dental leaders in Dover tout economical benefits of fluoride

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

2) 

Government Perspectives on Healthcare

    HHS:  Proposed Guidelines on Fluoride in Drinking Water

    A Commentary By Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH

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

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

Austin Texas Dentist Condemns Fluoridation

This is an excerpt from an ABC Radio News story:

Dr. Griffin Cole, a dentist in Austin, Texas, said he has seen several cases of mild to severe fluorosis in his practice.

While he applauded the feds' proposal [to lower water fluoride levels], he'd like to see the recommendations go even lower.

"I still don't think it's enough, honestly," he said. "I don't think there should be fluoride in the water at all.

"I think it's a nice move in the right direction," he said.

Cole said he began his dentistry career in the early 1990s, working for a dentist who was openminded about fluoride use and believed that his patients were getting too much.

Cole said he had never once prescribed fluoride supplements to his patients.

He cited studies from the past decade that have linked excess fluoride to not only fluorosis but to higher instances of bone cancer in the test subjects. He also said osteoporosis was an additional concern, since ingested fluoride is known to sit in a person's bones.

"Ingesting fluoride in any form does nothing for your teeth," he said. In cases of "rampant" tooth decay, applying a topical fluoride can improve dental health, but only minimally.

Fluoride, Cole said, molds to the tooth's enamel. So while it will aid in preventing decay, it can also make teeth brittle.

"When you see a case of somebody coming in with bad fluorosis, to restore those teeth you either have to crown them completely or at least do a veneer," he said. "So it's a very costly thing to fix."

Depending on the dentist and the region of the country, restoration could cost between $900 and $1,600 a tooth.

http://www.670kboi.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=116&itemid=29618599

Confronting the Myths of Water Fluoridation Promoters

The following are excerpts adapted from the recently-released book, The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett, PhD; James Beck, PhD; and H. S. Micklem, DPhil (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2010) from an excerpt published in its entirety on the truth-out website

Proponents of fluoridation have made a number of claims that have been effective with an ill-informed public. Let’s take a look at them.

Claim 1: Fluoride is “natural.” We are just topping up what is there anyway.

There is nothing “natural” about the fluoridating chemicals. They are obtained largely from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The chemicals used in most fluoridation programs are either hexafluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt, and those silicon fluorides do not occur in nature. What is more, under international law they cannot be dumped into the sea.

Claim 2: Fluoridation is no different than adding iron, folic acid, or vitamin D to bread and other foodstuffs.

There is a world of difference:

1. Iron, folic acid, and vitamin D are known essential nutrients. Fluoride is not.
2. All of those substances have large margins of safety between their toxic levels and their beneficial levels. Fluoride does not.

3. People who do not want those supplements can seek out foods without them. It is much more difficult to avoid tap water.

Claim 3: The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is so small it couldn’t possibly hurt you.

Promoters use analogies such as 1 ppm is equivalent to one cent in $10,000 or one inch in sixteen miles to make it appear that we are dealing with insignificant quantities of fluoride. Such analogies are nonsensical without reference to the toxicity of the chemical in question. For example, 1 ppm is about a million times higher than the safe concentration to swallow of dioxin, and 100 times higher than the safe drinking water standard for arsenic; it is also up to 250 times higher than the level of fluoride in mother’s milk.

Claim 4: You would have to drink a whole bathtub of water to get a toxic dose of fluoride.

Here again, proponents are confusing a toxic dose with a lethal dose—that is, a dose causing illness or harmful effect as opposed to a dose causing death. Opponents of fluoridation are not suggesting that people are going to be killed outright from drinking fluoridated water, but we are suggesting that it may cause immediate health problems in those who are very sensitive and, with long-term exposure, persistent health problems in others.

Claim 5: Fluoridated water is only delivered to the tap. No one is forced to drink it.

Unfortunately, that is not a simple option, especially for families of low income who cannot afford bottled water or expensive fluoride filtration systems. Even those who can afford alternatives cannot easily protect themselves from the water they get outside the home. Fluoridated tap water is used in many processed foods and beverages (soda, beer, coffee, etc.). 

Claim 6: Fluoridation is needed to protect children in low-income families.

This is a powerful and emotional argument. However, it ignores the fact that poor nutrition is most prevalent in families of low income, and the people most vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects are those with a poor diet. Thus, while children from low-income families are a special target for this program, they are precisely the ones most likely to be harmed. Moreover, some of the many distressing newspaper accounts of children suffering from tooth decay in low-income areas located in cities that have been fluoridated for over thirty years. In fact numerous state oral health reports indicate the continued disparity in tooth decay between low-income and high-income families, even in states with a high percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water.

Claim 7: Fluoridation has been going on for over sixty years; if it caused any harm, we would know about it by now.

Such statements would start to be meaningful only if fluoridated countries had conducted comprehensive health studies of their fluoridated populations. Most have not. Only a few health studies have been performed in the United States, most many years ago; very few health studies have been performed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the UK; and none has been performed in Colombia, Ireland, Israel, or Singapore (all coun tries with more than 50 percent of the population drinking fluoridated water).

Claim 11: Every major dental and medical authority supports fluoridation.

Here we return to the dubious nature of endorsements not backed up by inde pendent and current reviews of the literature. Many of the major associations on the list frequently cited by the American Dental Association endorsed fluoridation before a single trial had been completed and before the first health study had been published, in 1954.

Claim 12: When fluoridation is stopped, tooth decay rates go up.

There now have been at least four modern studies showing that when fluo ridation was halted in communities in East Germany, Finland, Cuba, and British Columbia (Canada), tooth decay rates did not go up.

Claim 13: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is effective.

On the contrary, the UK’s York Review was able to identify very few studies of even moderate quality, and the results were mixed.

Claim 14: Fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 20–60 percent.

The evidence for fluoridation’s bene fits and found is very weak. Even a 20 percent reduction in tooth decay is a figure rarely found in more recent studies. Moreover, we have to remember that percentages can give a very misleading picture. For example, if an average of two decayed tooth surfaces are found in a non-fluoridated group and one decayed surface in a fluoridated group, that would amount to an impressive 50 percent reduction. But when we consider the total of 128 surfaces on a complete set of teeth, the picture—which amounts to an absolute saving in tooth decay of a mere 0.8 percent—does not look so impressive.

Claim 15: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is safe.

When proponents are asked to produce just one study (a primary study, not a governmental review) that has convinced them that fluoridation is safe, they are seldom able to do so. Apparently, they have taken such assurances from others at face value, without reading the literature for themselves. The fact is, it is almost impossible to prove conclusively that a substance has no ill effects. A careful and properly controlled study may show that, under the conditions and limitations of the investigation, no harm is apparent. A hundred such studies may permit a considerable degree of confidence—but in the case of fluoridation, very few studies have even been attempted. As fluoride accumu lates progressively in the skeleton and probably the pineal gland, studies need to extend over a lifetime. Meanwhile, fluoride at moderate to high doses can cause serious health problems, leav ing little or no margin of safety for people drinking fluoridated water. 

Claim 16: Opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications.

Some opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications (of course); many do. Many highly qualified doctors, dentists, and scientists have opposed fluoridation in the past and do so today. Currently, over 3,000 individuals from medicine, dentistry, science, and other relevant professions are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. Furthermore, many opponents without professional qualifications have educated themselves on the science relevant to fluoridation and are qualified to evaluate many aspects of it.

Claim 17: Opponents of fluoridation get their information from the Internet.

No one denies that plenty of rubbish appears on the Internet. But just because a published study can be found using the Internet does not invalidate it. In fact, scientists now do much of their reading of the scientific literature online. The Fluoride Action Network maintains a Health Effects Database on its Web site, which provides citations, excerpts, abstracts, and in some cases complete pdf files of many published studies. Proponents would do well to read some of these papers, rather than trying to dismiss them because they are available online.

Claim 18: There is no evidence that fluoride at the levels used in fluoridation schemes causes any health problems.

There are three weaknesses to this argument. First, it does not make clear that fluoridating countries have done few basic health studies of populations drinking fluoridated water. Absence of studies does not mean absence of harm. Second, just because a study is conducted at a higher water fluoride level than 1 ppm does not mean that it is not relevant to water fluoridation. Toxicologists are nearly always extrapolating from high-dose animal experi ments to estimate safe doses for humans. In the case of fluoride, we have the luxury of a large number of human studies conducted in countries with moderate to high levels of exposure to naturally occurring fluoride. What is required here is a “margin-of-safety” analysis to see if there is a sufficient safety margin between the doses that cause harm and the doses likely to be experienced in fluoridated communities. In our view, there is not. And third, it is not true that there is no evidence of ill effects from fluoride at present levels of fluoridation.

Claim 21: Skeletal fluorosis is very rare in fluoridated countries.

It is difficult for promoters of fluoridation to deny that high natural levels of fluoride have caused severe bone damage in millions of people in India, China, and several other countries. However, proponents insist that skeletal fluorosis is a rare occurrence in countries with artificial fluoridation like the United States. What they really mean by this is that the crippling phase (stage III) of this condition is rare in the United States; they fail to recognize that the earlier phases (stage I and stage II) are associated with pains in the joints and bones, symptoms identical to the early symptoms of arthritis, a condition that affects many millions of adults in the United States.The 2006 NRC review recommends that stage II skeletal fluorosis be considered an adverse effect: “The committee judges that stage II is also an adverse health effect, as it is associated with chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, slight calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones.” No fluoridating country has undertaken a study to see if there is a relationship between fluoridation and arthritis.

The complete chapter can be found here: 

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