Group Urges Salina To Stop Adding Fluoride To Water
http://www.ksallink.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=22172&format=html
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
You Gotta Read the"white paper" that "proves" the case for fluoride!!
http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf
At the very beginning they tell the reader that fluoride opponents totally misrepresent the valid research of the National Research Council's (NRC) 2006 study by stating that the study was a focus on those living in the US cities who had "natural" fluoride levels that were double or triple the levels in the managed fluoridated cities. They end it by reminding us that, after all, "As the NRC itself stated, 'it is important to note that the safety and effectiveness of the practice of water fluoridation was outside the scope of this report and is not evaluated.'”
First, they cite NYSCOF with quoting a case in 2009 and another case in 2010 that's supposed to totally discredit them for misrepresentation of some women who died of fluoride overdose but left out that one drank brick tea that automatically has high levels of fluoride in it and brushed her teeth with fluoridated toothpaste every two hours, and the other woman allegedly ate a tube of toothpaste every other day, so both got higher doses of fluoride then what is in the water, and it's not "fair" to compare them to the managed water levels.
Second, they discredit a Canadian website regarding Europe's ban on fluoride, saying it's a spin, and then mentions that the Canadian website "leaves out" that Europe has fluoridated table salt and fluoridated milk.
Third, they claim the fluoride opponents misquote the HHS's Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Howard Koh, when he gave the infant fluoride warning. The two dentist's "white paper" claims that, "This HHS message suggests another option for parents who may be concerned about fluorosis, but it is a far cry from telling parents to avoid fluoridated water."
Fourth, they attack Fluoride Action Network website with using scare stories that are about fluoride effects in India that has huge amounts of it from pollution and natural ground water that's "15 times higher" than what we have in the United States. They attack the NYSCOF website again by quoting a Chinese study with fluoride causing bone fractures, stating that the Chinese use brick tea that has high levels of natural fluoride that's between "3 and 10 times higher" than in the US's fluoridated drinking water.
Fifth, they quote the opponents of fluoride who quote the study done in Cuba, where the cavities went down when fluoride was removed in 1990, but say the opponents neglect to include that fluoridated mouth wash was started in their school system that same year. (Wait, hold on! If Cuba had fluoridated water already when they stopped in 1990, then how did the cavities go down just from using fluoridated mouth rinse at school?? Logically speaking, wouldn't the cavity rate have been down already from their fluoridated water??)
Sixth, they discredit all fluoride opponents who quote any medical authorities by stating, "...several of these quotes are more than 40 years old and, therefore, are not based on the latest research." They give the example of fluoride opponents quoting a former AMA president from 1930's before fluoridation was even in practice as their "proof" of quoting old research.
Seventh, they quote headlines from fluoride opponents who ask if it's "possible" that fluoride could cause such-n-such disease, without any scientific data to back up the scare tactic, such as "Could Fluoride Cause Fibromyalgia?" as one example.
Eighth, one by one, they attack and try to discredit a list of persons who have ever been vocal against fluoride! Quackwatch.com and other "various" resources reveal what's "wrong" with these anti-fluoride people: Mike Adams (he called fluoride "rat poison," and he's also against vaccinations), Dr. Mercola (the FDA has sent him warning letters to stop promoting alternative health care), Dr. Yiamouyiannis, (a chemist who falsely claimed that HIV did not cause AIDS, was close friends with Dr. Paul Connett, and besides, he died at age 58 from rectal cancer because he refused conventional treatment, and "Consumer Reports" criticized the junk science on his fluoridation work, but the Fluoride Action Network website still praises his expertise work), Dr. Stanley Monteith (he's a long time John Birch Society member and believes a "New World Order" conspiracy is out there), Dr. Mehmet Oz (he promotes reverse osmosis filters to remove fluoride and promotes other alternative health care, plus he has alternative health care people on his TV show, like Dr. Mercola), Dr. Paul Connett (he brags about having so many dentists, but he only has 200 dentists out of the nation's 150,000 dentists on his professional statement to end fluoride, his website Fluoirde Action Netowrk is family owned and family operated, plus they quote him as being over heard to say, "In an unguarded moment with an interviewer, Connett recently stated, 'All these liberal commentators around the world immediately jump in and use the fact that the Tea Party is involved to slam us as being crazy conspiracy theorists. We might be wrong, but we’re not looney.'”), Christopher Bryson (not only does his research not meet up to "scientific scrutiny" and is of "poor quality," he also paints this horrible picture against fluoride when he said in a public interview, '“The post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride including the government’s nuclear weapons program.'”), Dr. Hardy Limeback (direct quote from them: "He seems to have changed his support for fluoridation after losing a bid for the presidency of the Canadian Dental Association."), Carol Kopf (member of NYSCOF, housewife with no medical training, and a ghost writer for others in the NYSCOF).
The conclusion statements from the two dentists' "white paper":
At the very beginning they tell the reader that fluoride opponents totally misrepresent the valid research of the National Research Council's (NRC) 2006 study by stating that the study was a focus on those living in the US cities who had "natural" fluoride levels that were double or triple the levels in the managed fluoridated cities. They end it by reminding us that, after all, "As the NRC itself stated, 'it is important to note that the safety and effectiveness of the practice of water fluoridation was outside the scope of this report and is not evaluated.'”
First, they cite NYSCOF with quoting a case in 2009 and another case in 2010 that's supposed to totally discredit them for misrepresentation of some women who died of fluoride overdose but left out that one drank brick tea that automatically has high levels of fluoride in it and brushed her teeth with fluoridated toothpaste every two hours, and the other woman allegedly ate a tube of toothpaste every other day, so both got higher doses of fluoride then what is in the water, and it's not "fair" to compare them to the managed water levels.
Second, they discredit a Canadian website regarding Europe's ban on fluoride, saying it's a spin, and then mentions that the Canadian website "leaves out" that Europe has fluoridated table salt and fluoridated milk.
Third, they claim the fluoride opponents misquote the HHS's Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Howard Koh, when he gave the infant fluoride warning. The two dentist's "white paper" claims that, "This HHS message suggests another option for parents who may be concerned about fluorosis, but it is a far cry from telling parents to avoid fluoridated water."
Fourth, they attack Fluoride Action Network website with using scare stories that are about fluoride effects in India that has huge amounts of it from pollution and natural ground water that's "15 times higher" than what we have in the United States. They attack the NYSCOF website again by quoting a Chinese study with fluoride causing bone fractures, stating that the Chinese use brick tea that has high levels of natural fluoride that's between "3 and 10 times higher" than in the US's fluoridated drinking water.
Fifth, they quote the opponents of fluoride who quote the study done in Cuba, where the cavities went down when fluoride was removed in 1990, but say the opponents neglect to include that fluoridated mouth wash was started in their school system that same year. (Wait, hold on! If Cuba had fluoridated water already when they stopped in 1990, then how did the cavities go down just from using fluoridated mouth rinse at school?? Logically speaking, wouldn't the cavity rate have been down already from their fluoridated water??)
Sixth, they discredit all fluoride opponents who quote any medical authorities by stating, "...several of these quotes are more than 40 years old and, therefore, are not based on the latest research." They give the example of fluoride opponents quoting a former AMA president from 1930's before fluoridation was even in practice as their "proof" of quoting old research.
Seventh, they quote headlines from fluoride opponents who ask if it's "possible" that fluoride could cause such-n-such disease, without any scientific data to back up the scare tactic, such as "Could Fluoride Cause Fibromyalgia?" as one example.
Eighth, one by one, they attack and try to discredit a list of persons who have ever been vocal against fluoride! Quackwatch.com and other "various" resources reveal what's "wrong" with these anti-fluoride people: Mike Adams (he called fluoride "rat poison," and he's also against vaccinations), Dr. Mercola (the FDA has sent him warning letters to stop promoting alternative health care), Dr. Yiamouyiannis, (a chemist who falsely claimed that HIV did not cause AIDS, was close friends with Dr. Paul Connett, and besides, he died at age 58 from rectal cancer because he refused conventional treatment, and "Consumer Reports" criticized the junk science on his fluoridation work, but the Fluoride Action Network website still praises his expertise work), Dr. Stanley Monteith (he's a long time John Birch Society member and believes a "New World Order" conspiracy is out there), Dr. Mehmet Oz (he promotes reverse osmosis filters to remove fluoride and promotes other alternative health care, plus he has alternative health care people on his TV show, like Dr. Mercola), Dr. Paul Connett (he brags about having so many dentists, but he only has 200 dentists out of the nation's 150,000 dentists on his professional statement to end fluoride, his website Fluoirde Action Netowrk is family owned and family operated, plus they quote him as being over heard to say, "In an unguarded moment with an interviewer, Connett recently stated, 'All these liberal commentators around the world immediately jump in and use the fact that the Tea Party is involved to slam us as being crazy conspiracy theorists. We might be wrong, but we’re not looney.'”), Christopher Bryson (not only does his research not meet up to "scientific scrutiny" and is of "poor quality," he also paints this horrible picture against fluoride when he said in a public interview, '“The post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride including the government’s nuclear weapons program.'”), Dr. Hardy Limeback (direct quote from them: "He seems to have changed his support for fluoridation after losing a bid for the presidency of the Canadian Dental Association."), Carol Kopf (member of NYSCOF, housewife with no medical training, and a ghost writer for others in the NYSCOF).
The conclusion statements from the two dentists' "white paper":
"The anti-fluoridationists’ fake scientific controversy has resulted in reduced dental health, needless pain, suffering, and lost productivity, with substantially increased financial burdens on individuals and our health care system. The anti-fluoridation movement employs classic propaganda methods, such as misrepresentation, fear mongering, false analogies and outright lies to further their political goals. As William Jarvis, past executive director of the National Council Against Health Fraud, has said:
"These charges seem to grow out of a mentality of distrust. Anti-fluoridation groups are led by many of the same people who oppose immunization, pasteurization, sex education, mental health programs, and other public health advances. Most are closely connected with sellers of alternatives to medically accepted products and services.
"Fluoridation is safe, effective, efficient, socially equitable, and environmentally sound public health policy for the prevention of the most common disease afflicting children and adults. It is imperative that the optimal fluoridation of community water systems continue throughout the United States and, indeed, the world."
White Paper: The Anti-Fluoridationist Threat to Public Health,
April 2012
Remember, the Florida author in the other article that brought this "white paper" to our attention, Jann Bellamy, who said to take this "white paper" with you to city council meetings if a "water war" starts so that you can "defend your community's health" with it. We can't let this slide so that it becomes acceptable to think this way against open, honest reporting of scientific evidence that's out there, and then be labeled as a "threat." As one of my secretaries puts it, you exterminate bugs and diseases that are a "threat" to public health, and asks if they're intending to do the same with these pesky little anti-fluoridationists. What's your opinion on this latest development against opponents of fluoride? Anybody know somebody who can and will go through the "white paper" point after point and write a legal, hard-core, third-party evidence type of rebuttal (that's legal-speak for evidence that holds up in court, which their "white paper" is more about slander and libel and should be laughed out of any city council meeting if they are reality-based), and that they can have the same weight of authority behind their rebuttal as the two dentists have in their "white paper."
Being Anti-Fluoride is Now a Threat to Public Health??
Anti-fluoridation argument has no teeth
A water war has been raging in Pinellas County. The opening volley was fired by the Pinellas County Commission, which voted to end fluoridation of the public water supply.
As the Tampa Bay Times recently opined, four Pinellas County Commissioners, dubbed the “Fluoride Four,” “blindly accepted misinformation about fluoride and misguided rhetoric about small government from the tea party crowd.”
But six cities in the county, including St. Petersburg, are fighting back for public health by either retaining their own fluoridated water systems or adding fluoride to county-supplied water.
Wading into the fray are two dentists, one from Tallahassee, who last month authored a white paper titled The Anti-Fluoridationist Threat to Public Health. The paper is issued under the auspices of the Institute for Science in Medicine and can be accessed through the Institute’s website. (Disclosure: I am a Fellow of the Institute, a non-profit “think tank” devoted to science-based medicine and public health, and serve on its Board of Directors.)
The authors are John Dodes, DDS, a New York dentist and expert on dental health fraud, and Floridian Michael Easley, DDS, MPH. Among other government, university and private sector positions in dental health, Dr. Easley is a former official in the Florida Department of Health Public Health Dental Program.
Like other reports from organizations such as the American Dental Association, the National Institutes of Health, and the Pew Center on the States, this paper summarizes the overwhelming evidence in favor of community water fluoridation. For example, the paper notes that for every dollar spent, CWF saves an average of $38 to $80 per year in dental treatment costs. And CWF lowers the rate of tooth decay in children by 20 percent to 40 percent over and above the effect of toothpaste and other fluoride sources.
While such facts are important weapons in the fight against ignorance, they are too often met with “facts” from the anti-fluoridation crowd. Without considerable time and effort, it is hard to defend against their misinformation campaign.
And there lies the utility of Dr. Dodes’s and Dr. Easley’s white paper -- it calmly and succinctly deconstructs the arguments of anti-fluoridationists, the same “facts” used by the “Fluoride Four” in depriving Pinellas County residents of what the CDC named one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
For example, a favorite scare tactic of fluoride opponents is to exaggerate a condition called dental fluorosis, a mild cosmetic condition, usually detectable only by a dentist, which has no effect on the health or function of the teeth. Opponents also like to point out that in India, excessive fluoride has caused a disfiguring condition called skeletal fluorosis, a condition virtually non-existent in the U.S.
What they fail to tell you is that the cause of this condition is not CWF, but rather fluoride in the Indian water supply, some of it caused by pollution, which is four to 15 times higher than the level used to fluoridate the public water supply in the U.S.
Another favorite is the claim that most European governments have rejected fluoridation. In fact, as Drs. Dodes and Easley point out, Great Britain, Ireland, Spain and other European countries do fluoridate. Others do not, but rely on alternate sources, such as naturally occurring fluoride (so there is no need to supplement) as well as fluoridated salt and milk.
Other tactics include using outdated quotes from medical authorities, failure to disclose the institution of alternate methods of fluoride delivery where governments have ceased CWF (such as in Cuba), and lifting quotes from public health organizations out of context, thereby making it seem as if the organization opposes fluoridation when actually it does not.
Opponents of fluoridation, like vaccination opponents, are a tiny but very vocal minority with an outsized effect on public health. Their success is dependent upon a campaign of misinformation couched in the language of science. Unearthing their half-truths and misrepresentations requires time and expertise few public officials or average citizens possess. Fortunately, Dr. Dodes and Dr. Easley have done the heavy lifting for us.
If fluoridation opponents start a water war in your community, be prepared to defend your community’s health with a copy of The Anti-Fluoridationist Threat to Public Health.
http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf
A water war has been raging in Pinellas County. The opening volley was fired by the Pinellas County Commission, which voted to end fluoridation of the public water supply.
As the Tampa Bay Times recently opined, four Pinellas County Commissioners, dubbed the “Fluoride Four,” “blindly accepted misinformation about fluoride and misguided rhetoric about small government from the tea party crowd.”
But six cities in the county, including St. Petersburg, are fighting back for public health by either retaining their own fluoridated water systems or adding fluoride to county-supplied water.
Wading into the fray are two dentists, one from Tallahassee, who last month authored a white paper titled The Anti-Fluoridationist Threat to Public Health. The paper is issued under the auspices of the Institute for Science in Medicine and can be accessed through the Institute’s website. (Disclosure: I am a Fellow of the Institute, a non-profit “think tank” devoted to science-based medicine and public health, and serve on its Board of Directors.)
The authors are John Dodes, DDS, a New York dentist and expert on dental health fraud, and Floridian Michael Easley, DDS, MPH. Among other government, university and private sector positions in dental health, Dr. Easley is a former official in the Florida Department of Health Public Health Dental Program.
Like other reports from organizations such as the American Dental Association, the National Institutes of Health, and the Pew Center on the States, this paper summarizes the overwhelming evidence in favor of community water fluoridation. For example, the paper notes that for every dollar spent, CWF saves an average of $38 to $80 per year in dental treatment costs. And CWF lowers the rate of tooth decay in children by 20 percent to 40 percent over and above the effect of toothpaste and other fluoride sources.
While such facts are important weapons in the fight against ignorance, they are too often met with “facts” from the anti-fluoridation crowd. Without considerable time and effort, it is hard to defend against their misinformation campaign.
And there lies the utility of Dr. Dodes’s and Dr. Easley’s white paper -- it calmly and succinctly deconstructs the arguments of anti-fluoridationists, the same “facts” used by the “Fluoride Four” in depriving Pinellas County residents of what the CDC named one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
For example, a favorite scare tactic of fluoride opponents is to exaggerate a condition called dental fluorosis, a mild cosmetic condition, usually detectable only by a dentist, which has no effect on the health or function of the teeth. Opponents also like to point out that in India, excessive fluoride has caused a disfiguring condition called skeletal fluorosis, a condition virtually non-existent in the U.S.
What they fail to tell you is that the cause of this condition is not CWF, but rather fluoride in the Indian water supply, some of it caused by pollution, which is four to 15 times higher than the level used to fluoridate the public water supply in the U.S.
Another favorite is the claim that most European governments have rejected fluoridation. In fact, as Drs. Dodes and Easley point out, Great Britain, Ireland, Spain and other European countries do fluoridate. Others do not, but rely on alternate sources, such as naturally occurring fluoride (so there is no need to supplement) as well as fluoridated salt and milk.
Other tactics include using outdated quotes from medical authorities, failure to disclose the institution of alternate methods of fluoride delivery where governments have ceased CWF (such as in Cuba), and lifting quotes from public health organizations out of context, thereby making it seem as if the organization opposes fluoridation when actually it does not.
Opponents of fluoridation, like vaccination opponents, are a tiny but very vocal minority with an outsized effect on public health. Their success is dependent upon a campaign of misinformation couched in the language of science. Unearthing their half-truths and misrepresentations requires time and expertise few public officials or average citizens possess. Fortunately, Dr. Dodes and Dr. Easley have done the heavy lifting for us.
If fluoridation opponents start a water war in your community, be prepared to defend your community’s health with a copy of The Anti-Fluoridationist Threat to Public Health.
http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf
Monday, May 21, 2012
New Study: Fluoride CAUSES Hardening of the Arteries, which "may" lead to cardiovascular problems
New Report from Dr. Mercola's website: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/21/fluoride-health-hazards.aspx
"In a new study published in the journal Nuclear Medicine Communicationsi (published January 2012), researchers found that fluoride may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk as it causes hardening of your arteries." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616
Dr. Mercola goes on to list the 20 "most commonly mentioned health hazards and diseases associated with fluoride exposure...", then goes on to tell us what is really in our water:
"It's important to understand that the "fluoride" added to your drinking water is NOT the natural mineral, nor a pharmaceutical grade fluoride...
"Sodium fluoride (with other common uses for sodium fluoride include: Rat and cockroach poisons, Anesthetics, Hypnotics and psychiatric drugs), ...was the first of the fluoride waste materials to be used for fluoridation, but now is rarely used. It's the most well known, as this is the compound used as pharmaceutical grade in toxicology studies and other research into the potential health dangers of fluoride.
"The other two, sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid, are the compounds actually used for water fluoridation, with hydrofluorosilicic acid being the most commonly used additive, according to the CDC.xvi Sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid are the waste products from the wet scrubbering systems of the fertilizer industry, and are classified as hazardous wastes. Contamination with various impurities such as arsenic is also common in these products.
"Hydrofluorosilicic acid is one of the most reactive chemicals known to man. Its toxicity is well known in chemical circles. It will eat through metal and plastic pipes, and corrode stainless steel and other materials. It will dissolve rubber tires and melt concretexvii. This is what is added to your water—all in the name of saving children from cavities!"
(SIDEBAR NOTE from me, Ken, in case you missed that very important point that has been confirmed by the CDC: Therefore, since sodium fluoride was used for the original toxicology studies, but is NOT the form of fluoride actually used in the water any more, according to the CDC themselves, then that nullifies all former studies with regards to what is used in today's water supply--in other words, there have been NO studies using the fluoride materials that the CDC states is "most commonly used" in today's tap water.)
Dr. Mercola then goes on to share once again the latest strategy that has been producing results in getting rid of fluoride in the drinking water---which is Shifting the Burden of Proof >>
"According to Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water...a more successful strategy has been to hold those making claims, and the elected officials who rely on them, accountable for delivering proof that the specific fluoridation chemical being used fulfills their health and safety claims, and is in compliance with all regulations, laws, and risk assessments already required for safe drinking water.
"For example, a couple of years ago, a Tennessee town stopped adding the hydrofluosilicic acid fluoride product they had been using, while still keeping its resolution to fluoridate its water supplies intact (meaning they didn't make a decision on whether it might be harmful). They just haven't been able to find a replacement product that is compliant with existing laws, regulations and safe-water requirements, and they will not add any fluoride product that is not in compliance. To learn more, please see this previous article, which discusses these strategies more in-depth."
(Emphasis added to the above are my own)
(Referred to article in that last paragraph is here:)
Dr. Mercola's This Daily Habit Can Damage Your Brain, Disrupt Your Bones, and Stain and Pit Your Teeth, reports on the latest news in April 2012 with New Hampshire ready to pass a mandated requirement of "infant fluoride warning," as well as discussing the strategy of "shifting the burden of proof" in more detail:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/24/fluoride-warnings-on-water-bills.aspx
"In a new study published in the journal Nuclear Medicine Communicationsi (published January 2012), researchers found that fluoride may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk as it causes hardening of your arteries." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616
Dr. Mercola goes on to list the 20 "most commonly mentioned health hazards and diseases associated with fluoride exposure...", then goes on to tell us what is really in our water:
"It's important to understand that the "fluoride" added to your drinking water is NOT the natural mineral, nor a pharmaceutical grade fluoride...
"Sodium fluoride (with other common uses for sodium fluoride include: Rat and cockroach poisons, Anesthetics, Hypnotics and psychiatric drugs), ...was the first of the fluoride waste materials to be used for fluoridation, but now is rarely used. It's the most well known, as this is the compound used as pharmaceutical grade in toxicology studies and other research into the potential health dangers of fluoride.
"The other two, sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid, are the compounds actually used for water fluoridation, with hydrofluorosilicic acid being the most commonly used additive, according to the CDC.xvi Sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid are the waste products from the wet scrubbering systems of the fertilizer industry, and are classified as hazardous wastes. Contamination with various impurities such as arsenic is also common in these products.
"Hydrofluorosilicic acid is one of the most reactive chemicals known to man. Its toxicity is well known in chemical circles. It will eat through metal and plastic pipes, and corrode stainless steel and other materials. It will dissolve rubber tires and melt concretexvii. This is what is added to your water—all in the name of saving children from cavities!"
(SIDEBAR NOTE from me, Ken, in case you missed that very important point that has been confirmed by the CDC: Therefore, since sodium fluoride was used for the original toxicology studies, but is NOT the form of fluoride actually used in the water any more, according to the CDC themselves, then that nullifies all former studies with regards to what is used in today's water supply--in other words, there have been NO studies using the fluoride materials that the CDC states is "most commonly used" in today's tap water.)
Dr. Mercola then goes on to share once again the latest strategy that has been producing results in getting rid of fluoride in the drinking water---which is Shifting the Burden of Proof >>
"According to Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water...a more successful strategy has been to hold those making claims, and the elected officials who rely on them, accountable for delivering proof that the specific fluoridation chemical being used fulfills their health and safety claims, and is in compliance with all regulations, laws, and risk assessments already required for safe drinking water.
"For example, a couple of years ago, a Tennessee town stopped adding the hydrofluosilicic acid fluoride product they had been using, while still keeping its resolution to fluoridate its water supplies intact (meaning they didn't make a decision on whether it might be harmful). They just haven't been able to find a replacement product that is compliant with existing laws, regulations and safe-water requirements, and they will not add any fluoride product that is not in compliance. To learn more, please see this previous article, which discusses these strategies more in-depth."
(Emphasis added to the above are my own)
(Referred to article in that last paragraph is here:)
Dr. Mercola's This Daily Habit Can Damage Your Brain, Disrupt Your Bones, and Stain and Pit Your Teeth, reports on the latest news in April 2012 with New Hampshire ready to pass a mandated requirement of "infant fluoride warning," as well as discussing the strategy of "shifting the burden of proof" in more detail:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/24/fluoride-warnings-on-water-bills.aspx
Saturday, May 19, 2012
6 News Video - Lawrence, Kansas Fights Fluoride
Petition to Lawrence Kansas Water Treatment Division:
Stop putting Sodium Fluoride into our public water
May 13, 2012
6 News - Lawrence :: Residents raise concerns about Lawrence water supply
Richard Simms of Lawrence--population 90,000--has started a petition for the city to stop the water treatment plant from putting poison in the city's drinking water. If he succeeds, Lawrence will join Wichita and Hutchinson Kansas to be fluoride-free. He has 299 signatures from Lawrence residents out of a needed 500 so far. Notice in the above video what the Lawrence Health Department's director says in response to the petition.
He is gathering signatures online here: http://www.change.org/petitions/the-lawrence-kansas-water-treatment-division-to-stop-putting-sodium-fluoride-into-our-public-water
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
What?? CA Dental Assoc. is PAYING a Lobbyist to Promote Fluoride???
Lobbyist Joins Fluoridation Plot
Video - Objecting to Mandatory Fluoride in Ireland
Notice to all Irish public representatives regarding
mandatory fluoridation policy
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Fluoride: The Bizarre History Full Length Documentary!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PZod44hD-U&feature=related
Video Interview with Dentist in Austin, TX
What is Water Fluoridation? Is it Safe? Health Side Effects? Fluoride
Texas Dentist is for "fluoride" but against "water fluoridation" --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfnxZUrGvs8
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Proof of Fluoride in Your Food
Common Food Items Could Contain 180 Times More Fluoride Than Tap Water
Fluoridated tap water and toothpaste are oftentimes considered the main sources of fluoride exposure, but it turns out that common food items could actually be largely contributing to your fluoride intake. According to fluoride expert Jeff Green, who has been actively protesting and studying the effects of fluoride on the body for other 15 years, one common food product contains up to 180 times more fluoride than your fluoridated tap water!
According to Green, the culprit is non-organic food, but not just one kind. If you’re still eating conventionally-farmed food products, you may be unknowingly exposing yourself to extreme levels of fluoride. Green says this is made possible by fluoride going incognito within the food supply in a very concerning way: “Cryolite is actually sodium aluminum fluoride… This sodium aluminum fluoride is especially effective at killing bugs,” Green says. “It’s also very sticky, so when they spray it, it’s more likely to stick on your produce, unless you’re… really working at trying to get it off of it.”
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/common-food-items-could-contain-180-times-more-fluoride-than-tap-water/#ixzz1uhK1wSnn
Fluoridated tap water and toothpaste are oftentimes considered the main sources of fluoride exposure, but it turns out that common food items could actually be largely contributing to your fluoride intake. According to fluoride expert Jeff Green, who has been actively protesting and studying the effects of fluoride on the body for other 15 years, one common food product contains up to 180 times more fluoride than your fluoridated tap water!
Fluoride-Based Pesticide Contaminating Food StaplesWhile Green states that a large number of non-organic produce items can contain shocking levels of this fluoride-based pesticide, iceberg lettuce may be one of the largest offenders. In fact, iceberg lettuce can now be laced with a startling 180 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride – 180 times higher than the ‘recommended’ water fluoridation level. This ‘health’ food could actually be corroding your body with heavy levels of fluoride. But what other seemingly-healthy produce items contain high amounts of fluoride?
- Citrus fruits are actually allowed to contain 95 ppm’s of sodium fluoride.
- Potatoes can have as much as 22 ppm’s on the outside, and 2 ppm inside.
- Raisins are allowed 55 ppm’s.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/common-food-items-could-contain-180-times-more-fluoride-than-tap-water/#ixzz1uhK1wSnn
VIDEO -The Fluoride Deception exposes the truth about water fluoridation and the phosphate mining industry - NaturalNews.tv
Documentary video below, with cartoon and photo explanations about the industrial waste added to our water being passed off as a "natural" mineral from the ground:
The Fluoride Deception exposes the truth about water fluoridation and the phosphate mining industry - NaturalNews.tv
Thursday, May 10, 2012
My Reply to a Canadian "Letter to the Editor"
http://www.orilliapacket.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3557536&#postbox
Letter to the Editor:
My wife and her mother grew up without fluoridation in their water supply. Her mother had all of her teeth extracted at age 16; my wife has had a lifetime of dental problems, root canals, fillings, extractions and partial plates. Our two children, on the other hand, grew up drinking fluoridated water in Richmond Hill. Now in their 30s, neither one has ever had a cavity and they have no idea about the ordeal and expense of poor dental health. Our young granddaughter now lives in Orillia, where I trust she, too, will enjoy the benefits of fluoridated water.
I trust reason will overcome the shrillness. Prevent the children of Orillia from being condemned to a lifetime of dental misery. For their sake, fluoridate Orillia’s water.
Craig Welbourn
Washago
Letter to the Editor:
I have been reading the alarmists’ views of the dangers of fluoridation with concern. Their shrill, unscientific opinions are reminiscent of the Great Cranberry Scare of 1959. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states, “For 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” Read www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.htm.
The alarmists’ arguments are baseless. While it is true toothpaste containing fluoride can be acutely toxic if swallowed in large amounts, the risk of using the amount of fluoride in toothpaste on a toothbrush is low enough that the use of full-strength toothpaste (1350-1500 ppm fluoride) is considered safe for all ages. Compare this to the minuscule 15 ppm of fluoride contained in fluoridated water.My wife and her mother grew up without fluoridation in their water supply. Her mother had all of her teeth extracted at age 16; my wife has had a lifetime of dental problems, root canals, fillings, extractions and partial plates. Our two children, on the other hand, grew up drinking fluoridated water in Richmond Hill. Now in their 30s, neither one has ever had a cavity and they have no idea about the ordeal and expense of poor dental health. Our young granddaughter now lives in Orillia, where I trust she, too, will enjoy the benefits of fluoridated water.
I trust reason will overcome the shrillness. Prevent the children of Orillia from being condemned to a lifetime of dental misery. For their sake, fluoridate Orillia’s water.
Craig Welbourn
Washago
(My response to the above Ontario Canada online Letter to Editor--and the other comment submitted was also on the mark with logical facts!):
EPA’s Maximum “Safety Allowance” for Fluoride: 4.0 ppm (parts per million)—with scientific evidence that 1.0 ppm damages the body. EPA’S 1500 Water Safety Scientists, after 11 years of their own studies, are on record in 1997, & every year since then, as unanimously against fluoridating public water, demanding a Congressional moratorium on all fluoride in food and water in 2005, refusing to have fluoridated drinking water in their own office, and quoting their studies that it’s a causal link to cancer, genetic damage, neurological and brain impairment, bone pathology, and lowering IQ in children. And what about the scientific professionals who used to be for fluoride, but have also done their own scientific research, such as Dr. Hardy Limeback stating, "Since April of 1999, I have publicly decried the addition of fluoride, especially hydrofluosilicic acid, to drinking water..." as well as over 4,000 other scientific professionals who've signed the Professional Statement at Fluoride Action Network?? This is considered as only "shrilling opinions" and "alarmist?" As long as the real, updated scientific research is ignored by repeating the litany of dental/public health paid-for endorsements and refusal to accept real science, this one-sided "debate" will, and must, continue for truthful education's sake.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Fluoride News Bits
CBC News May 9, 2012
$750K in fluoridation savings sits idle in city coffers
Calgary, Canada: One year after removing fluoride, their city council is still awaiting report from their committee, that's awaiting report from the staff, on what to do with the $750,000 annual savings they now have by not fluoridating the city's drinking water.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/05/08/calgary-fluoridation-mosaic-dental-clinics.html
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA: Some blame water fluoridation for March chemical spill
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/escondido-some-blame-water-fluoridation-for-march-chemical-spill/article_7b4be5bf-b337-521b-8722-9c645ca08588.html
Doctors Call for End of Water Fluoridation
April 24, 2012 - Dr. Karen Kan, MD, is latest to sign Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation at the Fluoride Alert Network.org - she tells about her experience of waking up to the truth about fluoride http://imacupuncture.com/2012/04/24/doctors-call-for-end-of-water-fluoridation/
October 2009 -- "The State of New York Water Board, who originally supported the public policy of fluoridation based on endorsements, rejected the use of the hydrofluosilicic acid fluoridation chemical without taking any stance on whether or not it might do harm...
"Rather the rejection was based on the Board's inability to confirm the compliance of the product with already established laws and regulations for safe drinking water.
"Ironically, water fluoridation continued for about a month after the Board made their decision.
"The reason for this was because the hydrofluosilicic acid they still had on hand would have to have been disposed of as hazardous waste. (emphasis added)
"The cost of proper disposal was considered excessive, so they used up their last reserves before discontinuing it.
"It's rather amazing to consider that the hazardous waste facility was more committed to identifying the contents and contaminants of the product before they would accept it for treatment, than water departments are before adding it to our drinking water!"
$750K in fluoridation savings sits idle in city coffers
Calgary, Canada: One year after removing fluoride, their city council is still awaiting report from their committee, that's awaiting report from the staff, on what to do with the $750,000 annual savings they now have by not fluoridating the city's drinking water.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/05/08/calgary-fluoridation-mosaic-dental-clinics.html
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA: Some blame water fluoridation for March chemical spill
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/escondido-some-blame-water-fluoridation-for-march-chemical-spill/article_7b4be5bf-b337-521b-8722-9c645ca08588.html
Doctors Call for End of Water Fluoridation
April 24, 2012 - Dr. Karen Kan, MD, is latest to sign Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation at the Fluoride Alert Network.org - she tells about her experience of waking up to the truth about fluoride http://imacupuncture.com/2012/04/24/doctors-call-for-end-of-water-fluoridation/
October 2009 -- "The State of New York Water Board, who originally supported the public policy of fluoridation based on endorsements, rejected the use of the hydrofluosilicic acid fluoridation chemical without taking any stance on whether or not it might do harm...
"Rather the rejection was based on the Board's inability to confirm the compliance of the product with already established laws and regulations for safe drinking water.
"Ironically, water fluoridation continued for about a month after the Board made their decision.
"The reason for this was because the hydrofluosilicic acid they still had on hand would have to have been disposed of as hazardous waste. (emphasis added)
"The cost of proper disposal was considered excessive, so they used up their last reserves before discontinuing it.
"It's rather amazing to consider that the hazardous waste facility was more committed to identifying the contents and contaminants of the product before they would accept it for treatment, than water departments are before adding it to our drinking water!"
Video - New Zealand Dentist - Own Research Blows Whistle on Fluoride
Published on Apr 28, 2012 by nofluoridenz
Dentist John Jukes from Waipukurau talks about fluoridation in NZ and why it should be stopped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZy-WsHSk58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZy-WsHSk58
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)