University of Ottawa - CINEMA ACADEMICA - Video Presentation contents, Friday, April 6, 2012
The case against water fluoridation - you will never look at tap water the same way again.
HOW SAFE IS YOUR BABY WITH FLUORIDE IN THE WATER?
In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water2. Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations since 19893. Click here to view the original document.
Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth4. Other tissues may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems5.
Are you familiar with the following evidence about fluoride in our drinking water?
Examining The Artificial Water Fluoridation Situation
Top Fluoride Expert Apologizes For Pushing Poison http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride-expert.htm
Prominent researcher apologizes for pushing fluoride
In a surprising newsmaker interview this past April (1998), Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic change of heart. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste," he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never."
"The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida, smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry."
"Tragically," he continued, "that means we're not just dumping toxic fluoride into our drinking water. We're also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to deadly elements of lead, arsenic and radium, all of them carcinogenic. Because of the cumulative properties of toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are catastrophic."A recent study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback's worst fears. "Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones."
In 1973, British Columbia was considering mandatory fluoridation. They gave the job of researching and reporting the topic to Dr. Richard Foulkes, MD. Foulkes then wrote a 1900 page report and he recommended that legislation be passed to make fluoride mandatory in Canada. Based on that work, Canada began to fluoridate.
Then something happened. Little by little, Foulkes found out that the statistics that his researchers had based their findings on were largely falsified. It took Foulkes several years to uncover the truth - in 1992, he shocked the country by backing down from his original recommendation:
He has written to the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons saying:
Dr. Foulkes also wrote an article for Alive Magazine that was published in January 1998. In it he says:
Foulkes is not some tree-hugger from Santa Cruz. He is one of Canada's top scientific researchers. Many cities in Canada listened and stopped fluoridating. Want to read a first-hand story about lies and greed and disregard for human health and crooked deals between government and industry? Read Dr. Foulkes statement.
Major industrial uses of hydrogen fluoride include the synthesis of fluorocarbons (e.g., Freon and Teflon) and the production of aluminium fluoride and synthetic cryolite for use in aluminium and steel refining. It is also employed in refining uranium for use as a nuclear fuel, in manufacturing various organic chemicals, and in producing stainless steel. Hydrofluoric acid is used extensively in various forms of glass and ceramic etching, and in the manufacture of light bulbs. (Fluorides - UK Government Agency)
Hydrofluoric acid is a water solution of hydrogen fluoride which is prepared by heating calcium fluoride in sulphuric acid, and is extremely corrosive. Hydrofluoric acid attacks glass and dissolves most minerals. Another compound is hydrofluosilicic acid which can combine with sodium and potassium to form salts called fluosilicates or silicofluorides. (Fluorides - UK Government Agency)
This organization has taken a position against fluoridation because of the realisation that most of the fluoride injected in Ottawa's drinking water ends up in the river where it is doing irreparable damage to the river's ecosystem. See their web site at Ottawa RIVERKEEPER and search for fluoridation or fluoride. You will find a number of articles reported on the subject.
They understand the toxicity issue of the fluorine ion released into the Ottawa River after it has gone through the distribution system and that for every 40 ton truck load of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid delivered for artifiial water fluoridation, over 39 tons of it ends up in the River where it would normally have been banned in the first place had it been dumped directly into it as the toxic waste substance that it really is. An incomprehensible dichotomy!
It is now well recognized that ingestion of any form of fluride under any pretense is ineffective and is provably unsafe not only for the teeth but also for the health of all those who ingest it. Although this fact is secondary to Ottawa RIVERKEEPER, it can not escape their attention, since it is well known to them thatit is damaging our River's flora and fauna. If it's doing this to our River, it has to be doing it to us as well.Morin, Graham and Parent Expose Fluorine Toxicity - A Canadian perspective.
In their book, Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error, Dr. Pierre-Jean Morin, PhD, John Remington Graham, LLB and Gilles Parent, n.d., expose the toxicity of fluorine compounds. Aline Côté. ed., Éditions Berger, 2010.
Page 69. "... when foods are cooked in water containing 1 ppm (part per million) of fluoride, their fluoride content is increased three to five times. This demonstrates the multiplier effect of water fluoridation." (D.J. Martin, 1951, "Fluoride content of vegetables cooked in fluoride containing waters," Journal of Dental Research, 30, page 676.)"... fluoride content is increased when fluoridated water is used in the industrial or domestic preparation of foods." (Dyson Rose and John R. Marier, Environmental Fluoride Associate Committee on Scientific Criteria for Envionmentall Quality, National Research Council, Canada, 1977"
These results "complement the work of Hodge and Smith on fluoride intakes from food and water. Their work enables one to predict that an adult exposed to water containing 1 ppm of fluoride will consume on the average between 2 and 5 mg of fluoride from food only" (H.C. Hodge and F.A. Smith, 1965, "Biological effects of inorganic fluorides," Fluorine Chemistry, J.H. Simmons ed., Vol 4, N.Y., Academic Press.)
Page 76. "Although fluorides are widely distributed in nature either as a constituent of rocks and soil or present in plant and animal tissue, they are not ions essential to normal plant growth." (W.H. Macintyre et al., "Fluoride content of plants fertilized with phosphates and slags carrying fluorides." Ind. Eng. Chem., 34: 1469-1479, 1942)Pages 90-91. "… excess of (ingested) fluorides causes dental fluorosis, bone fluorosis, and a series of other deleterious effects. All cells, tissues, and organs of the body eventually contain varying amounts of fluorides and can be affected by this substance. (George L. Waldbott, Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma, Coronado, 1978, page 131.)
Dental fluorosis is the result of a complex series of reactions which are not fully documented to this day. The currently available knowledge on this subject has been well summarized in the report by the committee on fluoride in drinking water of the American National Research Council of the National Academies in 2006. We have chosen to cite their work textually (Committee On Fluoride In Drinking Water … National Research Council … Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standard, 2006, pp 86-87.) – Click HERE for the full text.Page 129. "In 1999, the Ontario government and the Federal government of Canada jointly financed a study of the situation concerning dental decay and dental fluorosis. (D Locker, Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An update of the 1996 Federal-Provicial sub-committee report. Prepared under contract for: Public Health Branch, Ontario Minister of Health, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Cfanada, 1999.)
As to tooth decay, their conclusions state in part that:
And as to dental fluorosis (mottled teeth), their conclusions state in part that:
Page 130. In this report, the author mentions that [artificial] water fluoridation does not decrease dental decay and that when [artificial] water fluoridation is interrupted there is no noticeable change in dental decay. He also mentions that dental fluorosishas reached unacceptable levels in both [artificially] fluoridated cities and non-fuoridated ones.
Fluorosis of ones teeth is a clear indication of fluoride poisoning and thus of systemic damage to other parts of the human anatomy. Even when claimed that the fluorosis is minimal, the plain fact remains that there is fluorosis. It behooves us to cease this barbaric and unjustifiable practice of medicating everyone with a fluoride substance that is known to be an industrial toxic waste containing other harmful substances on the pretense of protecting a tiny fraction of us from doubtful and unproven results of some possible tooth decay: a tiny minority of the population.
Wanting and wishing that artificial water fluoridation would solve our tooth decay problems can not make it happen. Proper, consistent and healthy oral hygiene and nutrition are the only solution to alleviating tooth decay.
The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
In November 2008, they announced their opposition to artificial water fluoridation in the following statement:
“It seems clear that
b) the potential for adverse effects is real, and
c) current evidence points in the direction of caution.
The analysis of Dr. Hardy Limeback, (click here),
Head, Preventive Dentistry,
University of Toronto,
further clarifies the above points of the Physicians for the Environment.
Full statement available for download at Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
He states in an e-mail to Maclean's, reported in the Canadian Encyclopedia at the bottom of paragraph 3: “On the risk side, so many people will end up with ruined teeth, fragile bones, acute sensitivities, thyroid problems and an increased risk for cancer, all in the name of preventive dentistry,” He further states, “I am ashamed for my profession and can no longer take part in the charade.”
In that November 25, 2002 article in MacLean's Magazine, Dr Limeback has pointed out that: ... studies in British Columbia and elsewhere “do not show a significant increase in dental decay among children” in non-fluoridated communities. Yet, he says, there is an “entrenched resistance” by health professionals and municipalities to re-examining the issue. Limeback says he's paid a price since voicing concerns on fluoridation about three years ago (1999). “I have been insulted, attacked verbally, accused of lying to the public and my credibility as a scientist has been brought into question.” (Note: These are standard, practiced tactics by the pro-fluoridation advocates.)
He furtther warns that the cost of ignoring the debate, however, may carry a higher cost - in litigation. “If we discover that 50 years of fluoridation has actually harmed the population, the legal implications are enormous.”
Major sources of exposure to fluoride are water, food and beverages, and dental products. Dental products contain high levels of fluoride and can represent a very important source of exposure (between 1,500 ppm to 5,000 ppm), particularly in young children who are more likely to swallow toothpaste. Drinking water can be a significant source of exposure to fluoride; in 2005, community fluoridated drinking water was provided to about 43% of Canadians. To a lesser extent, fluorides are also found in Canadian soils and the atmosphere.15
2001 Statement by Dr Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD
I am a (Canadian) pharmacologist and my interest in the fluoridation issue goes back to the sixties, seventies, and eighties when the addition of fluoride to the public water supplies was discussed in Sweden. During that period I studied the scientific literature and the arguments for and against water fluoridation thoroughly. My conclusion was clear: Fluoride is a pharmacologically very active compound with an action on a variety of enzymes and tissues in the body already in low concentrations. In concentrations not far above those recommended it has overt toxic actions.
Fluoride ... can prevent caries to some extent ... efficiently when applied locally. Moreover, local treatment, preferentially via toothpaste, is more rational, because the caries-preventive action is exerted directly on the erupted teeth. The previous belief that its action is limited to an early period before the eruption of the teeth, is not correct. The systemic action of fluoride via the blood before tooth eruption can lead to damage of the enamel, and mottled teeth. This side effect, as well as other toxic actions of fluoride, is very much reduced when fluoride is applied via toothpaste.
The addition of fluoride to water supplies violates modern pharmacological principles. Recent research has revealed a sometimes enormous individual variation in the response to drugs. If a pharmacologically active agent is supplied via the drinking water, the individual variation in response, which is considerable even when the dosage is fixed, will be markedly increased by the individual variation in water consumption. In addition, this measure is ethically questionable and unnecessarily expensive. When the fluoridation issue was debated in Sweden several decades ago I took part in the public debate, and we managed to convince the Swedish Parliament that the addition of fluoride to the water supplies should be rendered illegal. Similar decisions have been taken in most European countries. See what they have to say about their reasons for rejecting fluoridation here. There is to my knowledge no evidence to suggest that dental health in Europe is worse than in the United States.
It is my sincere hope that Christopher Bryson’s thorough and comprehensive perusal of scientific literature on the biological actions of fluoride and the ensuing debates through the years will receive the attention it deserves and that its implications will be seriously considered.
(for discoveries concerning signal transduction in the nervous system)
David R. Hill, P.Eng., Calgary Statement
Promoters of water [artificial] fluoridation offer the lure of strong, healthy teeth and reduced dental bills as inducements for communities to fluoridate their water. Fluoride is also promoted for other tooth-related uses. However, even the promoters have scaled down the benefits claimed for water fluoridation and admitted the danger of fluorosis from toothpaste. For every study by promoters over recent years repeating old messages that claim undisputed water fluoridation benefits - particularly reduction of cavities, there are equally reputable studies showing little or no effect on cavity rates. Studies in mainstream peer-reviewed medical journals and government reports now document the fact that serious harms are associated with exposure to small amounts of fluoride - including hip fracture, cancer, and intellectual impairment. There is evidence that both individual and institutional fluoride promoters have stacked the deck, manipulated experimental results, suppressed evidence that spoke against their view, and victimised or smeared those who spoke out against them.
When old ways and knowledge are increasingly found to be based on false premises, incompetence, bias and worse, it is important to re-examine the old claims, and to take account of the growing body of research that show they are at best equivocal and at worst completely opposite to the truth, and based on vested interest.9
Dr. Joseph Mercola's 46 minute interview of Dr. Paul Connett once titled
Warning: This Daily Habit is Damaging Your Bones, Brain, Kidneys, and Thyroid
Is now available on Dr. Mercola's web site in convenient smaller segments:
Trained as a chemist, specializing in environmental chemistry, Dr. Paul Connett is known all over the world as a leader in the movement against artificial water fluoridation for his knowledge, expertise and convincing logic.
On October 4, 2010, Dr. Connett states that the NRC(US) 2006 report, in a comprehensive study of the artificial water fluoridation literature. He directly quotes the report that says:
Furthermore, in an article reproduced on Food & Health on the Chelsea Green website, posted on Tuesday, October 12th, 2010, Dr Mercola states the following:As you may know, the theory behind the introduction of fluoride in your water supply initially seems beneficial: to reduce the incidence of dental caries in children. However, the health dangers of fluoride are so numerous that they far outweigh any potential benefit to your teeth.
Here, Dr, Connett inserts this additional, pertinent comment:
Opponents of artificial fluoridation of drinking water are often derided as crackpots, crazies, know-nothings, and other ungainly epithets, among those authorities that favor the practice, yet, very few supporters of artificial water fluoridation have ever bothered to seriously question it, let alone really and objectively study the hard evidence from newer and older scientific reasearch disproving their position. Truth be known, they do not wish to change their mindset. Having invested enormous personal commitment into their position and having established and consolidated that erroneous position, they do not want to loose face and will hold on to their error in a narcissistic and fanatic manner couched in niceties, innuendos and resorting to side issues (known as bait and switch in technical jargon) unrelated to the arguments against stopping this dangerous practice.
Full Video of THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION by Christopher Bryson
In this video, Christopher Bryson, an award-winning journalist and former producer at the BBC, discusses the findings of his new book The Fluoride Deception. One Reviewer of The Fluoride Deception said: "Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride's harmfulness, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefited from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people. The result is a compelling challenge to the reigning dental orthodoxy, which should provoke renewed scientific scrutiny and public debate."
Is artificial water fluoridation policy dangerous?Study Proves artificial water Fluoridation = Money Wasted
It depends who you ask.
See this article in The Austin Chronicle (Texas) - November 27, 2009. Read it all to be better informed.
Excerpt from that article
Neil Carman, clean air program director of the local Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and a fluoride opponent says that “Most hydrofluorosilicic [a.k.a. hexafluosilicic] acid, … is created as a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production.” … “There's heavy metals, there's lead, cadmium. It's a smorgasbord of a toxic soup that's in this stuff that they're buying.” … “You don't have hydrofluorosilicic acid [in nature],” he says. “You have things like calcium fluoride, magnesium fluoride, potassium fluoride. ... But they're not adding those naturally occurring mineral fluorides. What they're adding is industrial toxic waste.”
Children's cavity rates are similar whether water is fluoridated or not, according to data published in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association by dentist J.V. Kumar of the NY State Health Department
“The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren,”
Kumar & Iida
Journal of the American Dental Association, July 2009
Dr. John Yiamouyiannison on artificial water Fluoridation
In 1990, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis published surprising results in a peer-reviewed journal. He concluded, "No statistically significant differences were found in the decay rates of permanent teeth or the percentages of decay-free children in the F [fluoridated], NF [non-fluoridated], and PF [partially fluoridated] areas." Kumar divided children into four groups based on their community's water fluoride level:
• from 0.3 to 0.7 mg/L where 54.6% had cavities optimal
• from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L where 54.4% had cavities
• Over 1.2 mg/L where 56.4% had cavities
April 1990 (Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 55-67)
“Water Fluoridation & Tooth Decay:
Results from the 1986-1987 National Survey of US Schoolchildren,”
by John A. Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D.
In his Preface to his book, Fluoride: The Aging Factor, Dr. Yiamouyiannis concludes by saying: "I dedicate this book to all who have worked patiently tirelessly, and lovingly to stop fluoride pollution, as well as others who have stood up and revealed the incompetence, quackery, and treachery of federal, state, and local bureaucrats who set policy contrary to the public welfare." (Fluoride: The Aging Factor, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, BSc, Biochemistry, PhD, Biochemistry, 2nd ed., Health Action Press, 1983.)
The book is a scathing indictment of the paucity and inadequacies of scientific studies and research on the effects of artificially fluoridated water consumption on human populations. Nevertheless, based on his knowledge of biochemistry and the available research up to 1986, Dr. Yiamouyiannis gives a brilliant description of the multitude of mechanisms and the biological impact occurring from the first day that you begin ingesting fluoride in any form, be it via artificially fluoridated water (by drinking the water or inhaling its water vapors), fluoridated toothpaste, insecticide laden fruits and vegetables, showering or bathing. In addition Dr. Yiamouyiannis conclusively demonstrates the futility and foolishness of using fluoride compounds in any form and in any consumer products to alleviate tooth decay or any medical condition whatsoever.
In chapter 12, pages 82-83, on “How to avoid Fluoride,” Dr. Yiamouyiannis enumerates how artificially fluoridated water can get into all the food you prepare for consumption, and gives the following advice: “A home distiller provides the most reliable way to remove fluoride from the water in the home. The water from this unit should be used for drinking and the preparation of all foods in the home. While spring water may also be used, care must be taken to be sure the spring water has a concentration of two-tenths parts per million or less. Some spring waters are notoriously high in fluoride.
For those who are concerned that distilled water lacks minerals and that it may deplete the body of its minerals, it should be stressed that water is not a reliable source of minerals. … In order to receive a proper amount and balance of minerals, one must rely on a diet of fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and other natural products. These foods are the result of plants which have pre-selected those minerals which are necessary for the maintenance of life … where the plant has been able to produce the vegetation and (or) fruit that we eat.”
On page 92 of that chapter, he describes an extremely important effect of fluoride in our body. He says: “Probably the most disruptive effect of fluoride is its interference with the use of oxygen and has been shown to depress the synthesis of an energy-producing substance called ATP. Enzymes … are responsible for the proper utilization of oxygen to produce ATP. In 1984, it was shown that fluoride forms hydrogen bonds with an iron-containing enzyme called Cytochrome C Peroxidase. This enzyme is involved in the use of oxygen for "burning" of various food. As little as two-tenths part per million fluoride is calculated to result in a 50% bonding of fluoride to the enzyme. In so binding to the enzyme, fluoride would be expected to interfere with the proper utilization of oxygen.”
He further states (page 93) that: “fluoride induces the unnecessary and destructive production of super-oxide free radicals(O–2), … by disrupting oxygen metabolism.”
In this chapter conclusion, Dr. Yiamouyiannis says: “In summary, fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Not one person has ever been found with a fluoride deficiency. Quite simply put, fluoride is a poison. And even though some essential nutrients such as Vitamin A and copper are poisonous at higher levels, neither Vitamin A nor copper has been used to kill rats, cockroaches, and silverfish. Fluoride is routinely used a rodenticide and insecticide.”
This book is a must read for anyone really interested in getting educated on the impact of fluoride substances on human anatomy. Dr. Yiamouyiannis has been villified and his scientific credibility undermined throughout his life. But he never gave up the fight against what he knew was an immoral and unscientific use of a poisonous substance. His professional credentials paid a heavy price for his opposition to the status-quo of fluoridation. Unfortunately, we lost a great advocate for the termination of artificial water fluoridation when he passed away October 8, 2000, after a valiant fight against cancer! Is this not a suspicious death for a fluoridation opponent?
Dr. John Yiamouyiannison & Effects of Fluoridation
Cancer Control Convention, Pasadena, CA, circa 1991-1992
Just start the video
Dentists Reaffirm Fluoride Warning
According to a November 9, 2006 news release by the American Dental Association, "Infants who are only fed powdered and liquid concentrate formulas mixed with optimally fluoridated water (0.7 to 1.2 ppm) are likely to exceed a fluoride intake level established by the Institute of Medicine designed to reduce the risk of moderate to severe enamel fluorosis." Austin fluoridates at this level.Dentistry Journal Fluoride Statement
Dr. David Kennedy, DDS, a California dentist, has compiled an extensive report with references concerning artificial water fluoridation. In this report, he summarizes: “Increasing the fluoride intake of a patient without regard to established risk factors such as age, kidney function, weight, physical condition, water consumption, total fluoride intake, and mitigating dietary calcium is medical negligence.”
"Virtually all authors (of the Journal) have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 1999, pages 214-215.)
These are the very children that this artificial water fluoridation is supposed to protect from tooth decay. Here we are causing these children to poison themselves with what is proposed to be a safe and effective way to protect their teeth. Yet they are being poisoned by ingestion of fluoride from multiple sources with the only concern being their teeth, while their precious little bodies are being savagely invaded by one of the most deadly, toxic and poisonous elemental substance on earth.
Statement by Dr. Mark Diesendorf, PhD.Part of his full address on "Fluoridation: Breaking the Silence Barrier"
Dr. Diesendorf has often stated that there is “evidence that fluoridation is harmful to human health and that its benefits have been exaggerated.”
In most English-speaking countries, the fluoridation of water supplies is described as having enormous benefits but no risks, and even as being “beyond scientific debate.”
The stated purpose of fluoridation is to reduce the prevalence of tooth decay, called 'dental caries' in the dental, medical and public health literature. Unlike chlorination, which is designed to kill bacteria, thus making water safer to drink, fluoridation is designed to treat people, and so may be considered to be mass medication. This is an important ethical objection to fluoridation. Furthermore, some opponents describe fluoridation as compulsory medication. More accurately, I would say that it is medication which is expensive to avoid, since people who do not wish to be dosed [with fluoride] have to purchase bottled water or equipment to remove fluoride from their drinking water [at considerable cost]. Apart from the ethical issues are the political issues of who controls, funds and profits from fluoridation, and the scientific issues of the determination of the dental benefits, health hazards and environmental impacts of fluoridation.
Apart from the ethical issues are the political issues of who controls, funds and profits from fluoridation, and the scientific issues of the determination of the dental benefits, health hazards and environmental impacts of fluoridation.
Dr. Mark Diesendorf, PhD, Teacher, Researcher and Consultant
Senior Lecturer & Deputy Director, Institute Of Environmental Studies
Former Director, Private Consultancy, Sustainability Centre Pty
Former Professor, Environmental Science, Founding Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney Hidden Truths You Probably Won't Hear on TV
According to the AMA on September 18, 1943, "fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with the capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of fluorine intoxication include drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine" Human Considerations With Fluorides, paragraph 3, note 14.Scientist Charles Perkins speaks out
In this 1954 letter to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: "I say this with all earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine -- any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically." Reported in: Fluoridation, Isabel Jansen, R.N, Tri-State Press, 1990. The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation, Philip R.N. Sutton, Karunda Pty, Ltd, Lorne, Australia, 1996. See also: The Dickenson Statement: A Mind-Boggling Thesis, Ian E. Stephens, 1987. Found on this web site page Fluoride Myth And Scam, last Paragraph, note 40.
UK Hampshire County Council Says no to Artificial Water Fluoridation. Why?
Most significantly the Review Panel has been persuaded not to support the proposal by the lack of robust and reliable scientific evidence produced to support this proposal. It is clear that scientists and health professionals recognise that there are ‘unknowns’ with regard to the need to understand the effect of fluoride on the body (not just teeth). This work has simply not taken place. In the absence of scientific evidence of sufficient quality the Review Panel based its evaluation on the findings of the York Review informed by the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Hampshire County Council, Report of the Water Fluoridation Panel, November 2008.
Statement Of Dr. J. William Hirzy - National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280
Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled
According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of Americas children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E, Eklund, S.A. and Burt, B.A. J. Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 ). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.
Cancer Bioassay Findings
In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 ), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity.
Comment: Please note that in the above, they are talking about sodium fluoride, and not the highly toxic industrial waste of the fertilizer industry called Hexafluorosilicic Acid (or whatever other name may be used for it) used in our drinking water. How much more damaging this acid can be has not been researched for fear of the devastating results that may be discovered, but any intelligent person can see for themselves that the components of that acid, as described above, can not be conducive to your good health.Brain Effects Research
Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (Effect of high fluoride water supply on childrens intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 , Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 ). Another paper (Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 ) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the "optimal" dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 ). And another (Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 ) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 ) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brains pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 ).
" As ingestion of increasing amounts of fluoride during tooth mineralisation results in a gradual hypomineralisation of the final outer enamel [Fejerskov et al., 1974, 1975, 1994], not least the public health-oriented sections of the dental profession downplayed the toxicological properties of fluorides. Thus diagnosis of early stages of dental fluorosis was not questioned (or even ignored). Dean’s  original data interpretation was incorrectly referred to. "O. Fejerskov, Royal Dental College, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark, Changing Paradigms in Concepts on Dental Caries: Consequences for Oral Health Care. Page 3, Paragraph 6. Changing Paradigms In Cariology
Dr. Richard D. Sauerheber, on Fluoride Toxicity
The mechanism by which Fluoride's lethal poisoning of man and animals occurs is presented. "Low" level fluoridation of municipal water exhibits well known alterations in teeth and bone structure and calcification of tendons and ligaments. 'Moderate' doses cause spinal deformities and increased hip fracture tendency and kidney and gall stones. Higher levels cause death and are responsible for its major use as a rodenticide. Solubility calculations indicate that fluoride doses required to decrease calcium below physiological blood levels are comparable to those present in poisoned victims' tissues and to those causing decreased beat rates in isolated heart cells in culture. Acute lethal poisoning and many of the chronic 'low' level effects of fluoride are mediated by calcium binding by the fluoride ion.Dr. Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D., Chemistry,
An array of scientific findings indicate that the decision made by many cities as early as 1956 to add fluoride (a rodenticide) to municipal drinking water, as long as the dose is below a certain level (usually 1 part per million, 1 milligram fluoride per liter or 0.05 mM) to decrease the incidence of something as minor as tooth decay, was irrational. We now know that precipitates of calcium fluoride occur in fluoridated water cities when the acidity is low (a pH above 7) depending on the fluoride level used. This causes scaling of water pipes1 and numerous biological effects in consumers, the extent determined by the acidity and the amount of calcium in the water.Fluoridated municipal water supplies in the United States have been found to contain fluoride levels ranging anywhere from 0.012 mM to a record lethal accidental 7.5 mM8. The biologic effects have been diverse, covering the entire above range. In spite of lethal poisonings from municipal water fluoridation programs, the Public Health Service retains its mandate to fluoridate all U.S. cities as soon as possible and to reach out to other cities throughout the world in an effort to minimize tooth decay while fluoridating the blood of the water consumer as though this were an acceptable alternative to topical fluoride or to addition of fluoride to one's own consumed water.
Precipitation of calcium fluoride into peoples' bones, tendons and ligaments9 occurs depending at typical doses added to municipal water. The condition known medically as fluorosis is associated as expected with spinal rigidity and bone fragility2, the severity depending on the fluoride level present in the blood and for how long.
It is not in keeping with a free society or with proper health care practice to impose these risks associated with fluoridating the blood of people, livestock, and pets, and also all agricultural products, not to mention our lawns and gardens, compared to the less significant problem of perhaps having tooth decay.Fluoride acts as an enzyme inhibitor for all enzymes requiring calcium for function by binding the ion and is used routinely to block sugar metabolism in red blood cells for clinical laboratory analyses of blood specimens. Fluoride also attaches to calcium anywhere this ion is concentrated throughout the body, including teeth, bones, ligaments, skeletal muscle and brain. But the most crucial function requiring calcium that is fluoride-sensitive is the mechanism of contraction in normal beating hearts.10 - References 1, 2, 8 & 9 are in his document.
University of California, San Diego, 1976
On The Toxicity of Fluoridated Water, 2008
More Premature Births In Fluoridated Than Non-Fluoridated Upstate New York Communities
State University of New York (SUNY) researchers - found more premature births in fluoridated than non-fluoridated upstate New York communities, according to a presentation made at the American Public Health Association’s annual meeting on November 9, 2009 in Philadelphia.(12)Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity (of Fluoride)
The SUNY researchers used 1993-2002 data from the NY Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), which collects patient characteristics, diagnoses, treatments, services and charges for every hospital discharge, ambulatory surgery patient and emergency department admission in New York State. They recorded fluoridation residence status (under or over 1 milligram fluoride per Liter of water) and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, neighborhood poverty level, hypertension and diabetes.
“Domestic water fluoridation was associated with an increased risk of PTB [preterm birth]. This relationship was most pronounced among women in the lowest SES [socio-economic-status] groups (>10% poverty) and those of non-white racial origin,” write Rachel Hart, et al. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, SUNY School of Public Health.
Genotoxicity tests indicate the potential for fluoride to cause mutations, affect the structure of chromosomes and other genomic material; affect DNA replication, repair, and the cell cycle; and/or transform cultured cell lines to enable them to cause tumors when implanted into host animals.(1)
Tice et al. (1996) subsequently reviewed relative sensitivities of rodents and humans to genotoxic agents and concluded that humans are more than an order of magnitude more sensitive than rodents to most of the genotoxic agents.(2)
The cell phases at which these effects (cell system aberrations) were observed suggested that the underlying mechanism of the chromosomal aberrations might be interference by fluoride with DNA synthesis and repair. Both NaF (sodium fluoride) and KF (potassium fluoride) induced chromosomal aberrations in a dose-dependent manner between 0.1 and 100 µM (3)
Joseph and Gadhia (2000) compared residents of three villages that had drinking water concentrations of fluoride at 1.6 to 3.5 mg/L with residents of Gujarat, India, where there is fluoride in residential drinking water at 0.7 mg/L. Chromosome aberrations were strongly elevated in residents of all three of the villages.(4)
Toxicology of Fluoride
Fluorosilicic acid is a strong acid that can corrode glass and stoneware. Like its salt, its degree of hydrolysis is essentially 100% in drinking water, and when reacted with steam or water or when heated to decomposition or highly acidified, toxic and corrosive fumes of fluorides (e.g., hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride) are released. It also reacts with metals, producing hydrogen gas.
Fluorosilicic acid is mainly produced as a result of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers where phosphate rock is treated with sulfuric acid. It can also be made by the reaction of sulfuric acid on barium hexafluorosilicate, apatite, or fluorite (fluorspar).
Fluorosilicic acid (30-35%) can readily be recovered in the hydrogen fluoride process from the silicon tetrafluoride-containing plant vent gases, as well as from wet-process phosphoric acid plants. In the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer in Central Florida, fluorides and radionuclides (radium and uranium) are released as toxic pollutants. During the acidulation process, radon gas can be released and carried into the fluorosilicic acid, while polonium can be captured during the scrubbing process and combined with fluoride.(13)
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist in a video interview unabashedly says that "Fluoride is a neurotoxin" and she has done the documented scientific research that proves it. Her employment with the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston was terminated because she dared to publish the truth that they wanted buried for the benefit of their industrial supporters. She was only able to get compensation for terminhation of her employment by resorting to sexual discrimination charges against Forsyth. All these facts are now fully documented.
Diminishing Professional Support for fluoridation
From August 1995 to August 1996, the American Dental Association's list of endorsements diminished by the following eleven national associations and organizations.(17)
• American Heart Association
• National Kidney Foundation
• American Academy of Allergy and Immunology
• American Diabetes Association
• Society of Toxicology
• Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Activation Network
• American Psychiatric Association
• American Chiropractic Association
• American Civil Liberties Union
• National Institute of Law Municipal Officers
Pediatrics, Beverages and Fluoride
Increasing consumption of beverages as a replacement for water have made fluoride content in beverages an important issue. In this study. forty-three ready-to-drink fruit juices were examined for fluoride ion concentration. It was found that 42% of the samples had more than 1 ppm of fluoride. It was also determined that "pure" fruit juices, often grape juices. contained high levels of fluoride. Juice made from grapes separated from the skin did not contain any fluoride. Since it is common practice to use fluoride-containing insecticide in growing grapes. it is believed that contamination of these juices is occurring. Washing of grape skins produced appreciable quantities of fluoride. Given that increasing numbers of people are consuming beverages instead of water, fluoride supplementation should not be based solely upon the concentration of the drinking water, but should also consider the amount of different beverages consumed and their fluoride content.
Few studies have investigated fluoride exposures from juices and juice-flavored drinks manufactured with water. On this study, the authors analyzed 1532 juices and juice drinks for fluoride. Fluoride ion concentrations ranged from 0.02 to 2.80 parts per million, in part because of variations in fluoride concentrations of water used in production.
Children's ingestion of fluoride from juices and juice flavored drinks can be substantial and a factor in the development of fluorosis.(18)
Preponderance of Evidence Against Artificial Water Fluoridation Established in a Court of Law:
The best proof as to which side that current science supports is to prove it in court with expert witnesses. There were three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas.
Testimony in the Texas case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully described the benefits and risks of water fluoridation. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds but his findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action.Here's what Texas Judge Farris said was PROVEN in court:
Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, these findings of fact were specifically sustained and upheld as having been established at trial by a preponderance of the evidence, as appears in Safe Water Foundation v. Houston, 661 S.W. 2d 189 (Tex. App. 1983).(19)
In their book, Fluoridation: Autopsy Of A Scientific Error, Morin, Graham and Parent devote a their whole Chapter 6 to the mutagenic effects of artificially fluoridated water. On page 149 onward, the authors make a convincing argument in favor of a direct link between the increasing incidence of cancer and the increasing artificial fluoridation of water. Based on their analysis of certain data, on page 150, they categorically state that “a concentration of 0.7 ppm or more fluorides in drinking water increases cancer mortality in the human populations exposed to the toxic substance (fluoride).”
This is a confirmation of what Dr. John Yiamouyiannis had already proven in both
1. biochemistry: (page 27, chapter 3, Fluoride The Aging Factor)
Closing commentary on fluoridation
First, a question. Is artificial fluoridation of Ottawa's water safe and effective as claimed by health authorities?
The response has to be an unconditional and fully qualified "NO" to both the claimed safety and the effectiveness.
However, on what basis is this response state?
The answer is both qualitative and quantitative.
Simply read the material in this web site and the websites of other organizations of other promoters for the prevention of artificial fluoridation of drinking water. For instance Waterloo Watch, and the most complete of these websites that is now recognized world wide, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) website.
However, let me briefly explain that with the current scientific evidence shown herein, added to older and ignored scientific evidence prior to the 1950's (AMA, September 18, 1943) that points to the deleterious effects of ingestion of fluorine compounds (fluorides) by all mamals, and that of course includes us, that the Precautionary Principle is not being applied in the case of the possibilty of harm inherent in the ingestion of this industrial toxic waste.
To be sure, elemental fluorine, part of the halogen family of elements, is by far the most chemically reactive element on earth and is without a doubt very noxious to human life, and even more so when combined with various other elements and compounds. Current scientific data backs up this assertion without any doubt whatever!
Furthermore, the actual product used to artificially fluoridate our municipal drinking water is not a pharmaceutical grade of fluoride, but one called hydrofluorosilicic acid, in the industry a.k.a. hexafluorosilicic acid, HFS, hydrosilicofluoric acid, hexafluosilicic acid, hydrogen fluorosilicate, hydrogen hexafluorosilicate, hydrosilicofluoric acid, silicofluoric acid, silicofluoride, silicon hexafluoride dihydride, fluorosilicic acid, FSA, fluosilicic acid, dihydrogen hexafluorosilicate, sand acid. One has to wonder why there are so many names for the same product? Confusion of readers and researchers? Whatever the case may be, it is a toxic compound, a waste product obtained from the wet scrubbing of the chimney stacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Its molecular formula is H2SiF6. Aqueous solutions of H2SiF6 contain the hexafluorosilicate anion, SiF62- and protonated water (ref. Wikipedia). Up to 8 lbs of LEAD and 2 lbs of ARSENIC are in every 40 ton truck load that comes into a city's water treatment plant, in addition to cadmium, selenium, radiocative uranium238, mercury, chromium and phosphorus(11). Is that safe? Consider the cumulative effects of even a tiny fraction of all those toxins.
As to effectiveness, did you know that less than 1% of the fluoride compound (hexafluorosilic acid) used to artificially fluoridate Ottawa's drinking water ends up back into the environment where it was already banned by the EPA and other US Government bodies? How is that possible? Most of our city water ends up flushed down toilets, sink drains, dish and clothes washer output, bathtub drains, washing of house walls, cars and driveways, watering of lawns and gardens, street cleaning, puting out fires, not to mention all of the industrial and commercial uses it is put to. Is it not a waste of our precious tax dollars to artificially fluoridate our water? Think about it!
It is definitely recognized that fluorine compounds of whatever variety (i.e. hexafluorosilicic acid) at levels above 1 ppm (1 milligram per litre) are harmful to health. By its very nature, fluorine is a scavenging element, a predator. It is chemically one of the most reactive chemical elements of all of the chemical elements known to man. It is also more toxic than lead and arsenic which are banned substances throughout the world. The question any sensible, logical person must ask themselves is this: If a lot of fluorine is very harmful to health, would not a little bit be harmful to health as well, but only to a lesser degree? That is like comparing the damage done by a large amount of explosive versus a small amount of explosive. Both are dangerous. The danger is also one of degree. But, would you stand next to either explosion? Now then, apply that logic to artificial water fluoridation.
Furthermore, who are we to artificially fluoridate our water and thus medicate our neighbours downstream, without their knowledge or consent, with all of that fluoride getting into the Ottawa River? Could this become a serious legal entanglement for our City in the future?
What of the environmental damage being done to the fauna and flora of the Ottawa River with over 99% of our fluoride dumped into it? It is an undisputable fact that no amount of sewage processing can remove the fluoride from our waste water!What a bad joke this finally is!!! It's an environmental disaster distributed all over those living downstream from Ottawa using your tax dollars. People living in the east part of Gatineau, who stopped artificial water fluoridation from being imposed on them, and in towns and cities downstream from Ottawa should be particularly concerned that all our fluoride is going into their drinking water supply after going through ours!
The type of fluoride used to fluoridate our water supply is called hydrofluorosilicic acid (a.k.a. hydrofluosilicic acid, fluorosilicic acid, and others) and comes from the toxic waste product scrubbed from the smoke stacks of fertilizer plants (Scrubbing away the problem. The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environmental Overview) and (What's in the Water?). This acid also contains other contaminants such as lead, aluminum, cadmium and arsenic (Unstable Element, Neil Carman, Sierra Club statement in the The Austin Chronicle (Texas) - November 27, 2009). See also Carol Clinch: "For the phosphate industry, a solution containing 23% hydrofluorosilicic acid is extracted. However, this solution is often contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, chromium, cadmium, hydrogen fluoride and barium *(see attached Certificate of Analysis)." Petition to the Auditor General of Canada. See also Vote OUT Fluoride for a similar list of pollutants discovered in this acid, though they are not stated in the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) - not a requirement of an MSDS statement. However, you can see the whole analysis of the contents of this raw, unprocessed acid hereLATEST NEW W.H.O. ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION STUDY and OTHERS
The latest new study by the WHO (United Nations World Health Organization) in 2005 finds practically no difference in the cavity rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated water. See the charts figures 1a, 1b, and 2.
There is new scientific evidence(6) and Fluoride Health Effects Database, which gives credence to much older scientific studies(7), of the increase of incidence of diseases and illnesses concurrent with water fluoridation: it is showing cumulative and harmful effects of long term and short term effects (Dartmouth News) that confirms the same older scientific evidence.
Depending on the level of exposure, a number of adverse health effects may be linked to fluoride ingestion even a very low levels. Some of the dramatic increases in illness may be linked to: hypothyroidism, cataracts, arthritis, fibromyalgia, liver damage(8), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), to name a few. Fluoride consumption may even be a factor in obesity because of its known damage to enzymes.(20)
MJ Coplan and RD Masters, April 2001, state that "The biological consequences of ingesting such a species (fluoride compound) are probably not innocuous, with enzyme inhibition being only one of several possibilities." in their Foreword intended to place the Westendorf research in current context indicating why it is relevant to a wide range of contemporary health and behavioral problems. Westendorf research - Influence of Fluoride and Fluoride Complexes on human biology. Translated from the German research paper.
Consider what Dr. Phylis Mullenix, PhD, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist, Forsyth Research Institute, Boston, MA, has to say with respect to arthritis: “If I was an arthritic care individual, I would be eliminating every possible source of fluoride exposure that I could think of.”
The newest scientific data/studies/research has totally debunked the assumptions of 6 decades ago?
One size or one dose does not fit all, people are getting fluoride from many different sources and people drink very different amounts of water (see the well reasoned Czech Republic Statement on fluoridation, part 5, below). It's also in some processed foods, restaurant meals, etc (Pesticide Data Program - 2003) and the Fluoride and Fluorinated Pesticides page. It's really a question that a given fixed concentration does not give the same dose to everyone since no one drinks the same amount of water, or eats the same amount or type of food, and, fluoride containing pesticides are on the surface or even get inside many fruits and vegetables (Fluoride: The Hidden Poison in the National Organic Standards, by Ellen and Paul Connett. Pesticides and You, Vol. 21, No. 1; published by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides. 2001). See also Fluorine Pesticides for a complete list.
Dr. Phylis Mullenix, PhD, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist, Forsyth Research Institute, Boston, MA, states the following about the dose problem: “There is absolutely no drug on the market that's given in a one dose fits all situation. The name of the game in pharmacology, is to deliver the right dose, to the right person, at the right time, an that's not what fluoridation does. It can't do it.”
Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, chimes in with this assertion: “You can have an athlete, a laborer, who are drinking many, many times the amount of water [than you and me]. You can have someone who's a diabetic, drinking a ton of water, compared to the average.”
Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Risk Assessment Scientist says: “We don't put other things in the water to keep everybody's blood pressure down, or everybody's stroke risk down, and there's no reason we should be trying the one size fits all approach for this either.”OVER 3,000 PROFESSIONALS OPPOSED TO ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION
Over 3,000 professionals have signed a statement to ban fluoride in drinking water: see Signers to Professionals' Statement at Professional Statement Signatories. If you are a professional, please add your name to this Professional Statement at Sign the Statement.STATEMENTS BY COUNTRIES OPPOSED TO ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION
Quotes from some countries that do not fluoridate or have discontinued artificial water fluoridation
1) Germany: "... fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999).German Statement
2) France: "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000).French Statement
3) Belgium: "This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).Belgium Statement
4) Luxembourg: "Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000).Luxembourg Statement
5) Czech Republic: "Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:
FLUORIDATION IN CANADA Click that link for a list of communities that have ended fluoridation, followed by a list of those that are still battling to get it out.
THE CONTAMINANTS MANY OF OUR CANADIAN CITIES PUT INTO OUR TAP WATERThe hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6 - HFSA, or HFS) solution most used for artificial "drinking water" (tap water) fluoridation most often contains, but is not limited to, the following inorganic contaminants:
List: Fluorine, Hydrogen fluoride, Lead, Arsenic, Mercury, Cadmium, Chromium, Phosphorus, Iron, Iodine, Silver, plus Uranium238, Barium, Radon, Cobalt, Radium, Polonium and possibly others because it is derived from the mining processes used to extract the phosphate used in the super phosphate fertilizer industry mostly in Florida. This list is those that we know of because some hard working fluoridation cessation advocates have had the liquid tested using their own limited financial resources.
For a brief description of how this HFSA is collected, click here.
Declan Waugh, an environmental science researcher in Ireland, has put it quite clearly: “fluoridation is one of the worst criminal, scientific fraud, and the worst about it is that it is promoted by the public health agencies that are supposed to protect the health of the population.”THE ECONOMICS OF ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION
The cost: less than 1% of the fluoride dumped into the drinking water is actually consumed by people, the rest is flushed down toilets, bath tubs, sinks, shower drains, clothes and dishwasher washer drains, for watering lawns, washing cars, driveways, putting out fires, and other such uses and for all kinds of commercial and industrial uses. It's a monumental waste not at all cost effective. The other 99% is then allowed to enter into our waterways where the fluoride was previously banned from going because of its toxicity.
Then there is the astronomical cost of repairing dental fluorosis, broken teeth, and the increasing burden of health care cost costs caused by adverse health effects generated directly and indirectly by exposure to fluorides.
The amount of fluoride available for artificially fluoridating our drinking water is decreasing and its cost has been increasing over time. See Fluoridation Chemical Shortages and Rising Costs for details on these data.
TOPICAL VERSUS SYSTEMIC USE OF FLUORIDE
Modern science has disproved each one of them. In fact, each of those assertions were sold to the health profesionals of the day by by fluoridation promoters with a vested interest in getting rid of a waste disposal problem while creating a profit for them.
Consuming a fluoride-free diet does not cause tooth decay. The CDC says fluoride hardens the outer enamel by topical means alone and that swallowing fluoride leads to adverse health effects. The EPA says too much fluoride damages teeth and bones which is why the U.S. EPA regulates fluoride in water as a contaminant.
Fluoride has been relegated to best practice use topical, if at all, and not systemic, that is, it is supposed to be most effective when applied to the surface of the teeth and not effective at all when swallowed, "[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children" (CDC, 1999, MMWR 48: 933-940). A good comparison to adding fluoride to drinking water to prevent possible tooth decay is like adding sun screen to drinking water to prevent possible sunburn. Both are total nonsense and toxic to the human anatomy and most mammals.
Fluoridation was initially invented for two major reasons hidden behind national security and prevention of tooth decay:
GENETIC MUTATION POTENTIAL OF ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION
A number of publications have shown that fluoride-induced chromosomal changes can be visualized microscopically, either in plant cells or in mammalian cells. Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error, Dr. Pierre-Jean Morin, PhD, John Remington Graham, LLB and Gilles Parent, n.d.
One of the first and few government publications which reported the possibility that fluorides may induce cancer in animals is that of Taylor in 1952. - A. Taylor, Statement before a House Select Committe to investigate the use of chemicals in foods and cosmetics, U.S. House of Representatives, 82nd Congress, 1952, p. 1529.At least two later studies (after 1991) carried out in human populations found that the incidence of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) is greater than normal in cities where the water is fluoridated.(21)(22) (Fluoridation, Morin, Graham, Parent, n.d., page 146.
Many researchers reported in the Morin, Graham & Parent book have conclusively demonstrated that such changes damaging to plant and human cells do effectively take place.A.H. Mohammed, H.G. Applegate, J.D. Smith, "Cytologic reactions induced by sodium fluoride in Allium Cepa root-tip chromosomes," Can. J. Gen. & Cytol. 1966, vol. 8, p. 241.
A.H. Mohammed, J.D. Smith, H.G. Applegate, "Cytologic reactions induced by sodium fluoride on tomato chromosomes," Can. J. Gen. & Cytol. 1966, vol. 8, p. 575.
A.H. Mohammed, "Cytogenic reactions induced by sodium fluoride treatment in tomato plants," J. Air Poll. Control Ass., 1968, vol. 18, p. 395.
A.H. Mohammed, "Chromosomal changes in maize induced by sodium hydrogen gas," Can. J. Gen. & Cytol. 1970, vol. 12, p. 164.
S.S. Bale, G.E. Hart, "Cytogenic and genetic effects of fluoride on barley, I. Comparative study of the effects of sodium fluoride and hydrofluoric acid on seedling root tips," Can. J. Gen. & Cytol. 1973, vol. 15, p. 595.
S.S. Bale, G.E. Hart, "Cytogenic and genetic effects of fluoride on barley, II. Effect of treatment of seedling coleoptiles with sodium fluoride," Can. J. Gen. & Cytol. 1973, vol. 15, p. 703.
R.N. Mukherjee, F.H. Sobels, "The effects of sodium fluoride and iodoacetamide on mutation induction by X-irradiation in mature spermatozoa of Drosophila", Mutation Res., 1968, vol. 6, p.217.
S.I. Voroshilin, E.G. Plotka, E.Z. Gatiyatullina, E.A. Gileva, "Cytogenic effect of inorganic fluorine compounds on human and animal cells in vivo and in vitro", Genetiko, 1973, Vol. 9, p. 115.
D. Jachimczak, B. Skotarczak, "The effect of fluorine and lead ions on the chromosomes of human leucocytes in vitro", GeneticaPolonico, 1978, vol. 19:3, p. 353.
Anyone who does not yet understand why adding a toxic waste poison from industrial
to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa
Friday, March 16, 2012
I have kept a close look at the fluoridation rates in Canada since 2008. The present numbers are, Canada 34%, Province of Ontario 66% all lower from the official data last reported in 2005. Most important is that much of the fluoridation in Canada centres 50km around Toronto. If we exclude the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) population, then Canada is only 17% fluoridated.Peter Van Caulart,
VP, COF-COF.ca Amherstburg Ends Fluoridation (ON), Feb 6, 2012
December 19, 2011Moncton, Riverview, Dieppe (NB)
In a concerted effort spearheaded by Olivier Weil and Francois Collins, two residents of the Moncton area, with the help of over 100 other residents, the Cities of Dieppe and Riverview reversed their decision to support fluoridation after reviewing the available scientific evidence for themselves. The City of Moncton, having been also informed by the same reasoned approach, decided to release the population from the forced medication by ending fluoridation without the wasteful expense of a referendum or plebiscite, which they deemed would have yielded the same results.
November 21, 2011Lake Cowichan (BC)
This is the last community on Vancouver Island to have maintained fluoridation until their referendum attached to the municipal elections clearly indicated that a significant portion of residents did not wish to continue being force medicated with a fluoride chemical.
Williams Lake (BC)
This is another case of a referendum held concurrently with a municipal election yielding a decision for health freedom in Canada. Canadians are becoming more and more disaffected with dictatorial health bureaucrats deciding to mass medicate for a unprovable outcome using unregulated and untested chemicals.
October 29, 2011Lakeshore (ON)
October 18 2011Churchill (MB)
Voted out on Tuesday September 6, 2011; ended October 1, 2011,Slave Lake (AB)
July 20, 2011Taber (AB)
Voted out July 4, 2011; ended July 27, 2011Meadow Lake (SK)
June 2011Flin Flon (MB)
June 10, 2011Fairbanks, Alaska
Health-conscious individuals from Fairbanks, Ak., recently achieved a huge health freedom victory when their city council voted almost unanimously to end water fluoridation. The decision followed concerted public outcry and presentation of the facts surrounding the health damage caused by consuming fluoride.
February 10, 2011London Ontario
A group of activists are now also moving and shaking the establishment in London, Ontario and are making big waves to shut down fluoridation there. If you hear any newsworthy reports of their efforts do not hesitate to contact me to get this information posted here.
Read the story and comment to your hearts content at LFPRESS.
February 9, 2011Verchères, Québec
The City Council of Verchères, Québec, unanimously decided to discontinue fluoridation on February 7, 2011. This is a geat victory for Gilles Parent and all those who worked on this campaign. Congratulations to them for obtaining this result and to Verchères City Council for doing the right thing.
February 8, 2011
Calgary city council has voted 10-3 in favour of removing fluoride from the city's drinking water.
Earlier in the day, city council considered and rejected by a vote of 8-5 putting the fluoride issue to a plebiscite during the 2013 municipal election. Council also rejected the idea of referring the matter to an expert panel.
Ald. Jim Stevenson said there's insufficient medical proof that keeping it in the water has any benefit.
Ald. Druh Farrell, who led the anti-fluoride charge, said helping families who can't afford fluoridated toothpaste is a better idea that medicating the entire population
"We as a council have to show some leadership here. We have no right to force this right on all Calgarians. I would really question our right to put it in, but … I don't question at all our right to remove it," he said.
Click here Calgary Herald for the story.
January 27, 2011
City of Calgary, AB.
A Calgary Council Committee voted Wednesday night (January 26, 2011) to end Calgary’s use of fluoride and paved the way for a final decision next month.
December 4, 2010
Town of Lake Cowichan, BC (Vancouver Island)
During his introduction, cCouncillor Tim McGonigle gave the public a presentation on his latest project; eliminating the injection of fluoride into the Town of Lake Cowichan’s drinking water. Having researched fluoridation extensively in advance of a recent interview he had on CBC Radio, and for the public meeting, McGonigle came well informed about the subject, and enthusiastic to share his findings with the public.
“I think, like other WWII institutions, fluoridation has run its course, like leaded gasoline,” McGonigle said, adding that Lake Cowichan is the only community on Vancouver Island that continues to inject fluoride into its drinking water. With adverse medical side-effects and little benefit to ingesting fluoride, McGonigle said that the best option would be to discontinue the town’s fluoridation project.
“The savings would be $10,000... It can go a long way to doing other projects,” he said. Although fluoride is a natural chemical, occurring in just about everything (1.5 mg of fluoride is in a Mc Donald’s Restaurant Big Mac), the fluoride the Town of Lake Cowichan is injecting into the drinking water is a chemical waste as a result of fertilizer production.
“Toothpaste labels encouraged users to spit fluoridated toothpaste out after brushing one’s teeth,” McGongile said, so why are we swallowing drinking water with fluoride in it? At the end of his presentation, McGongile encouraged the public to research fluoridation themselves, and to form an opinion.
McGongile said that the item could very well come to a referendum vote during the next election, as the “medication of the public” shouldn’t be a council decision, he said.
So far, the public seems to support the anti-fluoride sentiment, with five people versus one voting against fluoride on a piece of paper put up on the wall of Centennial Hall during the meeting.
(Monday, November 22, 2010, as reported in the Lake Cowichan Gazette - Monday November 29, 2010)
November 30, 2010
Region of Waterloo ends fluoridation
Region of Waterloo officials turned off the fluoride Monday and started the process of decommissioning the equipment that has been used to fluoridate the city’s water for more than 40 years. The final fluoride tap — located on William Street across from Willis Way — was turned off, according to Nancy Kodousek, director of water services for the region.
“All the systems are now off,” Kodousek said. See the Waterloo Chronicle column report here.
November 15, 2010
Town of Lake Cowichan: artificial water fluoridation on Town Council's agenda
The town Council of this Victoria Island, BC, Canada, will be reviewing the artificial water fluoridation issue on at their November 22 meeting. The Local news paper editor has come out strongly opposed to the measure and numerous organizations have chimed in to support the paper's position. Meanwhile, groups across North America are contacting the Mayor and his Councillors to support termination of this incredible boondoggle.
However, we should expect the highly misinformed and misrepresenting alphabet professinal organizations in Canada to pull out all the stops to prevent the termnination of artificial water fluoridation in Lake Cowichan. They are really smarting from the major victory obtained in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada where all of their resources could not beat the truth. Lake Cowichan is the last bastion of this ill advised practice on the Island.
October 25, 2010
Waterloo rejects artificial water fluoridation
Monday’s fluoride referendum was decided by the tightest margin. The anti-fluoride side won with 50.3 per cent, beating the pro-fluoride side by fewer than 200 votes out of more than 30,000 cast.
The vote against fluoride was tighter than Robert Fleming expected. He helped lead the charge to remove a substance that has been added to Waterloo tap water since 1967, as a public health measure to prevent tooth decay.
“I’m glad that Waterloo will enjoy non-fluoridated water,” he said. “Even though it (the vote) was tight, it’s rewarding.”
Fluoridation promoters continue to falsely argue that the weight of credible science strongly shows that adding fluoride strengthens tooth enamel and limits cavities, with no known risks at recommended levels. They continue to bury their heads in the sands of claims contrary to recent evidence that teeth are weakened by fluorosis and that there is a large subset of people who suffer serious consequences as a result of the ingestion of fluoride substances from artificially fluoridated water and numerous other sources.
Dr. John Yamouyiannis, PhD, Biochemist, had effectively refuted all claims of no risks at recommended levels as far back as 1983 in his book "Fluoride, The Aging Factor" first edition. He confirmed and augmented his findings in two later editions, in 1986 and 1992.
October 15, 2010
The book is now in print.
Amazon.com purchased a whole boat load of this book and stiill had it on sale between $14.86 and $17.67 each here depending on the supplier as of September 7, 2011. In Canada, the same book is also available from Amazon.ca at between $16.29 and $24.16 each, plus $6.49 CDN shipping here depending on the supplier as of September 7, 2011. If you order 2 books at $18.15 from the Amazon.ca stock, you can have them shipped for free.
Starred Review In Booklist!
October 7, 2010
Sept 17 public hearing on the preliminary report by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER, 2010), continued.SCHER certainly puts most of our concerns on the table when they state at the outset of their preliminary report:
September 24, 2010
EU Commission Hearing Exposes Fatal Flaws in Water Fluoridation
At the hearing all committee members agreed with Prof Vyvyan Howard, a leading international researcher in molecular bioscience based in the University of Ulster, that if regulatory approval for fluoridation chemicals was being sought today based on the data presented to the hearing by SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks), the chances of obtaining it were extremely remote.
A key concern ... at the hearing was overexposure to fluoride. In Ireland there is an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children, as confirmed by the North South Survey of Children’s Oral Health in Ireland 2002, two of whose authors were present at the hearing. This survey revealed a seven-fold increase in dental fluorosis in Irish 15-year-olds from 1984 to 2002. Dental fluorosis, which manifests as mottling or pitting of tooth enamel, is a sign of bodily overload of fluoride.
The committee was also alerted to the fundamental contradictions between the advice from another EU scientific committee, monitoring the safety of cosmetics including toothpaste, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). While fluoride toothpastes must carry labels warning children under six-years not to swallow it as it contains sodium monofluorophosphate, EFSA recently approved the same substance as a permitted food additive under the food supplements directive. This was cited as indicative of the serious flaws in most of the advice on fluorides provided to the committee by EFSA.
Two pertinent background statements made by the Commission's committee: "Fluoride is not considered to be essential for human growth and development" and "There is no obvious advantage in favour of water fluoridation compared to topical application which is the most effective method for prevention of tooth decay."
Public Consultation - Review Of Human Exposure To Fluoride And The Fluoridating Agents Of Drinking Water, European Union (EU) Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), September 24, 2010.
September 3, 2010
Fluoride Avoidance Reduced Anemia in Pregnant Women
“Anemic pregnant women living in India, whose urine contained 1 mg/L fluoride or more, were separated into two groups. The experimental group avoided fluoride in water, food and other sources ...
Fluoride avoidance reduced anemia in pregnant women, decreased pre-term births and enhanced babies' birth-weight, concludes leading fluoride expert, AK Susheela and colleagues, in a study published in Current Science (May 2010).
Results reveal that anemia was reduced and pre-term and low-birth-weight babies were considerably fewer in the fluoride-avoidance group.” Medical News Today September 3, 2010, Current Science May 25, 2010, Vol. 98, No. 10, "Study Links Fluoride to Preterm Births and anemia in Pregnancy"
Anemia is a serious complication during pregnancy that can lead to both maternal and infant death, and it appears that fluoride may play a direct role in causing this dangerous condition.Specifically, fluoride may damage the gastrointestinal mucosa, leading to impaired nutrient absorption and related illnesses like anemia. It has also been linked to:
• Reduced blood folic acid activity
• Inhibitions in vitamin B12 production
• Non-absorption of nutrients for hemoglobin synthesis
When the pregnant women avoided fluoride, however, their intestinal lining regenerated, leading to enhanced nutrient absorption and reduced anemia, along with a decreased risk of pre-term birth and improved birth weights for their babies.
Medical News Today, September 3, 2010, Current Science May 25, 2010, Vol. 98, No. 10.
August 25, 2010
Green Party Aims to End Fluoridation Country Wide
The Green party of Canada has resolved to end fluoridation across Canada! It is official party platform. The party plans to introduce and support legislation that will outlaw fluoridation in Canada at the federal level, effectively overriding any and all local mandates that say otherwise.
Picture and caption speak for themslves Where FFO-OLF got started - Participants at the July 2010 FAN Conference
To receive a free email newsletter from our friends at FAN, please CLICK HERE
to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa
Newest battlegroundsGillam & Red Deer, MB
Smiths Falls & Cornwall, ON
Carleton Place, ON
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Ottawa Parents Against Water Fluoridation (ON)
Waterloo Watch (ON)
Vote OUT Fluoride - (Toronto)
Fluoride: Protected Pollutant or Panacea? (Calgary, AB)
STOP Artificial Water Fluoridation (Edmonton, AB)
Fluoruration de Saguenay (QC)
PFPC - Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (Canada)
Fluoride Action Saskatoon (AB)
Fluoride Free Moncton (NB)
Fluoridation-Free Halton (ON)
Fluoride-Free Windsor (ON)
We Deserve Safe Water
Fluoride Free Canada
The Case Against Fluoride
- Dr.'s Connett, Beck & Micklem, 2010.
Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error
- Morin, Graham & Parent, 2010.
The Fluoride Wars
- Freeze & Lehr, 2009.
The Devil's Poison. How Fluoride is Killing You
- Dean Murphy, DDS, 2008.
Fluor: Erreur Médicale Majeure
- Dr. Bernard Montain, 2007.
Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards
- National Research Council, U.S.A., 2006.
Acrobat .pdf download
- Bruce J. Spittle, 2006.
Health and Nutrition Secrets
- Chapter 4, Dr. Russell L Blaylock, M.D., 2006.
The Fluoride Deception
- Christopher Bryson, 2004.
Fluoride Drinking Ourselves to Death?
- Barry A. Groves, 2001.
The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation
- Philip R N Sutton, 1996
Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride
- Bernard Wagner, 1993.
Fluoride: The Aging factor - Dr. John Yiamouyianis, 1993.
Fluoride: The Freedom Fight
- Hans Moolenburgh, 1987.
Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma
- Waldbott, Burgstahler & McKinney, 1978
The fluoride question: Panacea or poison?
- Anne-Lise Gotzsche, 1975.
Fluoridation and Truth Decay
- Caldwell & Zanfagna, 1974.
The Grim Truth About Fluoride
- Robert M. Buck, 1964.
The American Fluoridation Experiment
- Exner, Walbott & Rorty, 1961.
Lillie Foundation (US)
Fluor Erreur Majeure (France)
Fluoride Free Austin (US)
| Some content used with permision: Fluoride Action Network (2010) | http://www.fluoridealert.org/ | 1-802-338-5577 | email@example.com