Sunday, March 23, 2014
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, Neurosurgeon - gives medical report on fluoride combined with aluminum (both in hydrofluorosilicic acid) affecting the human brain with dementia/Alzheimer's
Fluoride combined with even trace amounts of aluminum in water can cause major brain damage
Wednesday, March 19, 2014 by: Ethan A. Huff,Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044366_fluoride_aluminum_brain_damage.html#ixzz2wS4BP9en
(NaturalNews) Renowned medical doctor and neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock holds nothing back when it comes to telling it like it is, even when "it" goes against the prevailing schools of thought within his profession. And one of his latest Blaylock Wellness Reports is no exception, shining light on the very real dangers associated with fluoride exposure, especially when that fluoride interacts with other toxic chemicals commonly found in municipal water supplies.
In his "Why Fluoride Is Toxic" report, Dr. Blaylock explains how we are all essentially being lied to about the safety of artificial fluoride chemicals in our water. Widespread claims by government health authorities that fluoride is completely safe at current exposure levels are false, Dr. Blaylock explains, as they ignore copious scientific evidence pointing to both brain and nervous system damage in conjunction with fluoride exposure, not to mention an elevated risk of cancer.
One major area of research involves fluoride's apparent role in triggering early-onset brain diseases such as Alzheimer's. When it is not lodging itself in brain tissue and actually causing this and other forms of dementia, fluoride appears to worsen brain disease symptoms in patients who have already been diagnosed with dementia. And it does this by combining with other toxins also found in water such as aluminum.
"One study shows that adding fluoride to water in the presence of even small amounts of aluminum caused severe destruction of brain cells in the part of the brain controlling learning and memory," explains Dr. Blaylock in his new report.
Studies confirm fluoride enhances 'bioavailability' of aluminum
What apparently happens when individuals with aluminum-induced neural degeneration are exposed to fluoride is that the fluoride enhances the toxicity of aluminum. In terms of bioavailability, or the ability of aluminum to cause harm, fluoride greatly increases the overall toxic burden of this pervasive metal, rendering it exceptionally more toxic."[A]luminum-induced neural degeneration in rats is greatly enhanced when the animals were fed low doses of fluoride," reads the news release for a 1998 study published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Brain Research. "The presence of fluoride enhanced the bio-availability of aluminum (Al) causing more aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier and become deposited in the brain. The aluminum level in the brains of the fluoride-treated group was double that of the controls."
These findings have major implications for humans, many of whom are exposed to both fluoride and aluminum through their tap water. The World Health Organization (WHO) explains in a report on aluminum that aluminum salts used as coagulants at many water treatment facilities can lead to increased concentrations of aluminum in finished water, which is worsened by the addition of fluoride chemicals.
"The pathological changes found in the brain tissue of the animals given fluoride and aluminum-fluoride were similar to the alterations found in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia," reads an announcement associated with the publishing of the Brain Research study, which corroborates the findings of an earlier study published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology back in 1995.
Sources for this article include:
http://w3.newsmax.com
http://www.who.int
Another good reason to get hydrofluorosilicic acid banned as a fluoride water treatment source - the proverbial lawsuit that even the dental profession has predicted is starting
March 18, 2014
Below is an important news release on recent developments in the fluorosis legal battle sent out by Dan Stockin, MPH of the Lillie Center in Georgia:
NEWS RELEASE: For Immediate Release
Fluorides Under Fire:
Legal Community Awakens as Federal Fluoride Harm Case Proceeds to Oral Arguments and Fluoride Harm Newspaper Advertising Appears
Legal community interest in the long-smoldering controversy over use of fluorides is growing as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has agreed to hear oral arguments in the fluoride harm case of Nemphos versus Nestle Waters North America, Inc., et al.
The case centers around “dental fluorosis” disfigurement of teeth caused by childhood ingestion of fluorides in water and other products.
The Washington D.C.-based law firm Public Justice has joined other plaintiff firms to help argue the case. Public Justice has more than 3,000 affiliated attorneys.
In another development, advertisements seeking students with dental fluorosis are beginning to appear in newspapers at universities, such as The Hoya newspaper at Georgetown University.
The advertisements show photos of dental fluorosis teeth staining and inform students that those with fluoride teeth harm may be entitled to monetary damages.
“There are a lot of harmed people out there that were not told the facts about fluorides, nor have they seen documentation of what dental leaders knew and admitted amongst themselves about fluorosis,” says attorney Chris Nidel.
“Fluoride providers and promoters are now under the microscope as the Fluoridegate scandal unfolds,” he says. “In their own publications, dentists warned of a day when fluoride litigation would arrive.”
Nidel’s law firm and the firm of Paulson and Nace have been with the case from the beginning. Public Justice is adding its expertise to argue that defendants in the case cannot use federal laws to preempt state legal actions on fluoride harm.
The plaintiff in the Nemphos case is a mother who purchased fluoride-containing products for her daughter, believing she was helping her child avoid cavities. The mother claims she was not warned about the possibility of costly-to-repair disfiguring fluorosis that later manifested in her daughter’s teeth.
Major dental organizations continue to promote use of fluorides, claiming the fluorosis stains are mostly barely visible and fit in a designation of “mild” or “very mild.”
“The so-called ‘mild’ fluorosis of the Nemphos girl is certainly not barely visible,” says Daniel Stockin, a career public health professional opposed to water fluoridation who now speaks regularly with law firms about fluoride issues.
“The fluorosis classification system used by dentists hides the severity of it,” Stockin says. “The system specifically tells dentists to ignore an individual’s worst fluoride-stained tooth in classifying a person’s fluorosis severity, and the system does not take into account the total number of teeth affected. Twelve teeth or two teeth with stains, both are allowed to be called ‘very mild’ or ‘mild’ fluorosis. This revelation will be deeply disturbing to citizens and elected leaders who were misled about fluorosis.”
An article in the Journal of Dental Research acknowledged increasing amounts of fluorosis, calling it undesirable and saying it “places dental professionals at an increased risk of litigation.”
Another article in the journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology echoed the warning about lawsuits, specifically addressing fluoride supplements: “It is only a matter of time until a case is brought that gets public attention. The risk is that noticeable fluorosis will be perceived by the public as a toxic consequence of fluoride ingestion – which, arguably, it is – and there will be a reaction against all uses of fluoride…”
On its website, Public Justice describes the advertising of fluoride-containing products offered by defendants in the Nemphos case: “Advertising like Nestle’s and Dannon’s, which induce consumers to purchase a product by touting an ingredient’s benefits without warning of that same ingredient’s known hazards, is generally prohibited by state tort and consumer protection laws. Those laws allow wronged consumers to sue for injuries the product caused.”
“Fluorides are a concern for both young children and college students and others,” Stockin says. “For college students seeing the fluorosis newspaper advertisements, they know that fluorosis impacts their job interviews, their self confidence, their professional relationships, and even personal and dating relationships in a very real way. For parents of young children, fluorosis on their child’s teeth can mean financial costs in the future, and of course they wonder what other harm has also occurred, such as impact on kidneys, thyroid glands, bones, and even IQ. So I think perhaps it’s not surprising that what consumers are hearing about fluorides from product sellers is changing.”
A toddler training toothpaste referenced in the Nemphos case filings warns of white spots on children’s teeth from swallowed fluorides. Several companies now sell an unfluoridated toddler training toothpaste described as safe if swallowed because they are fluoride-free.
REFERENCES:
1. Fluorosis advertisement in The Hoya: http://issuu.com/the_hoya/docs/issuu_3.4.14/7?e=3568114/6958776
2. Journal of Dental Research 69 (Spec. Iss.): 539-549, February 1990
3. Journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology; 1999; 27: 72-83
4. Public Justice website information about the Nemphos case: http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GrhMorZArTsCQl5WQDfAu%2FcuqdwdXzbQ
5. Email for Washington D.C. attorney Chris Nidel: chris@nidellaw.com
Daniel G. Stockin, MPH
stockin2@yahoo.com
Friday, March 7, 2014
New Zealand Court Verdict on Fluoride Is In.....and it came from Illinois over in the USA???
Fluoridation court ruling in New Zealand
http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/03/fluoridation-court-ruling-in-new-zealand/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fluoridation-court-ruling-in-new-zealand
by Sharon Hill • March 7, 2014 • 2 Comments
Fluoridation is a reasonable activity for the common good. It is not medication, says a new ruling.
Fluoridation a local government issue: court.
The High Court has affirmed the right of local government to fluoridate drinking water.
In a decision released today, Justice Rodney Hansen threw out claims from anti-fluoride campaigners who disputed the South Taranaki District Council’s decision add fluoride to drinking water in Waverley and Patea.
The campaign group, New Health New Zealand, applied to review the council’s decision.
The court rejected the application on all grounds.
Justice Hansen quoted a decision from a case in the Illinois Supreme Court: “Fluoridation programmes, even if considered to be medication in the true sense of the word, are so necessarily and reasonably related to the common good that the rights of the individual must give way.”
He drew analogies between fluoridation and the use of chlorine, which is an accepted public health treatment of drinking water.
David Sloan, Chairman of New Health New Zealand Inc, said in a statement that New Health “respectfully disagrees” with the High Court’s decision and will appeal.
Opponents say that fluoridation is a medical treatment and should not be imposed on citizens since there are problems with dosage and individual needs as well as consent. However, this process is widespread and demonstrable SAFE and EFFECTIVE. Yes there are issues but the comparison to chlorine and iodine addition makes some sense. You can always buy bottled water without fluoride. Many people have chosen that route for various reasons. Is this controversy settled? Nope. Not by any means. It’s not a simple one.
The High Court has affirmed the right of local government to fluoridate drinking water.
In a decision released today, Justice Rodney Hansen threw out claims from anti-fluoride campaigners who disputed the South Taranaki District Council's decision add fluoride to drinking water in Waverley and Patea.
The campaign group, New Health New Zealand, applied to review the council's decision.
The court rejected the application on all grounds.
Justice Hansen said the purpose of local government was to enable democratic local decision-making and action by and on behalf of communities.
It was within the council's legal power, and right mind, to add fluoride to drinking water, he said.
Murray Thomson, professor of dental epidemiology and public health at the University of Otago, said the judgment was "sensible" and "affirmed the important role of community water fluoridation in keeping New Zealanders healthy".
Justice Hansen quoted a decision from a case in the Illinois Supreme Court: "Fluoridation programmes, even if considered to be medication in the true sense of the word, are so necessarily and reasonably related to the common good that the rights of the individual must give way."
He drew analogies between fluoridation and the use of chlorine, which is an accepted public health treatment of drinking water.
"The addition of iodine to salt, folic acid to bread and the pasteurisation of milk are, in my view, equivalent intervention made to achieve public health benefits by means which could not be achieved nearly as effectively by medicating the populace individually."
A person who did not want to consume fluoride could choose to supply their own drinking water or filter out fluoride.
David Sloan, Chairman of New Health New Zealand Inc, said in a statement that New Health "respectfully disagrees" with the High Court’s decision and will appeal.
In particular, New Health disagrees with the view that fluoridation is not a medical treatment for the purposes of the Bill of Rights.
"In today’s consumer-enlightened era, people should have the choice whether or not to ingest something that has a claimed therapeutic purpose," Sloan said.
"Delivering medication this way is contrary to medical ethics as it fails to control for dose, individual need and sensitivities, and overrides individual consent."
Fluoride was first added to New Zealand drinking water in Hastings in 1954. Forty-eight per cent of the New Zealand population now live in communities with water fluoridation programmes.
Jonathan Broadbent, a public health dentistry specialist at the University of Otago, said: "The decision reaffirms the legal basis of the scientifically sound practice of community water fluoridation.
"The people of New Zealand have the right to benefit from this effective public health practice. Community water fluoridation benefits everyone, especially those New Zealanders who are disadvantaged."
The naturally occurring fluoride level in New Zealand water supplies is usually between 0.1 parts per million and 0.3ppm. Fluoride content for drinking water in New Zealand is in the range of 0.7 - 1.0ppm. The maximum acceptable value for fluoride is 1.5ppm (parts per million).
- © Fairfax NZ News
http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/03/fluoridation-court-ruling-in-new-zealand/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fluoridation-court-ruling-in-new-zealand
by Sharon Hill • March 7, 2014 • 2 Comments
Fluoridation is a reasonable activity for the common good. It is not medication, says a new ruling.
Fluoridation a local government issue: court.
The High Court has affirmed the right of local government to fluoridate drinking water.
In a decision released today, Justice Rodney Hansen threw out claims from anti-fluoride campaigners who disputed the South Taranaki District Council’s decision add fluoride to drinking water in Waverley and Patea.
The campaign group, New Health New Zealand, applied to review the council’s decision.
The court rejected the application on all grounds.
Justice Hansen quoted a decision from a case in the Illinois Supreme Court: “Fluoridation programmes, even if considered to be medication in the true sense of the word, are so necessarily and reasonably related to the common good that the rights of the individual must give way.”
He drew analogies between fluoridation and the use of chlorine, which is an accepted public health treatment of drinking water.
David Sloan, Chairman of New Health New Zealand Inc, said in a statement that New Health “respectfully disagrees” with the High Court’s decision and will appeal.
Opponents say that fluoridation is a medical treatment and should not be imposed on citizens since there are problems with dosage and individual needs as well as consent. However, this process is widespread and demonstrable SAFE and EFFECTIVE. Yes there are issues but the comparison to chlorine and iodine addition makes some sense. You can always buy bottled water without fluoride. Many people have chosen that route for various reasons. Is this controversy settled? Nope. Not by any means. It’s not a simple one.
Fluoridation a local government issue: court
KATIE KENNY
Last updated 17:53 07/03/2014
The High Court has affirmed the right of local government to fluoridate drinking water.
In a decision released today, Justice Rodney Hansen threw out claims from anti-fluoride campaigners who disputed the South Taranaki District Council's decision add fluoride to drinking water in Waverley and Patea.
The campaign group, New Health New Zealand, applied to review the council's decision.
The court rejected the application on all grounds.
Justice Hansen said the purpose of local government was to enable democratic local decision-making and action by and on behalf of communities.
It was within the council's legal power, and right mind, to add fluoride to drinking water, he said.
Murray Thomson, professor of dental epidemiology and public health at the University of Otago, said the judgment was "sensible" and "affirmed the important role of community water fluoridation in keeping New Zealanders healthy".
Justice Hansen quoted a decision from a case in the Illinois Supreme Court: "Fluoridation programmes, even if considered to be medication in the true sense of the word, are so necessarily and reasonably related to the common good that the rights of the individual must give way."
He drew analogies between fluoridation and the use of chlorine, which is an accepted public health treatment of drinking water.
"The addition of iodine to salt, folic acid to bread and the pasteurisation of milk are, in my view, equivalent intervention made to achieve public health benefits by means which could not be achieved nearly as effectively by medicating the populace individually."
A person who did not want to consume fluoride could choose to supply their own drinking water or filter out fluoride.
David Sloan, Chairman of New Health New Zealand Inc, said in a statement that New Health "respectfully disagrees" with the High Court’s decision and will appeal.
In particular, New Health disagrees with the view that fluoridation is not a medical treatment for the purposes of the Bill of Rights.
"In today’s consumer-enlightened era, people should have the choice whether or not to ingest something that has a claimed therapeutic purpose," Sloan said.
"Delivering medication this way is contrary to medical ethics as it fails to control for dose, individual need and sensitivities, and overrides individual consent."
Fluoride was first added to New Zealand drinking water in Hastings in 1954. Forty-eight per cent of the New Zealand population now live in communities with water fluoridation programmes.
Jonathan Broadbent, a public health dentistry specialist at the University of Otago, said: "The decision reaffirms the legal basis of the scientifically sound practice of community water fluoridation.
"The people of New Zealand have the right to benefit from this effective public health practice. Community water fluoridation benefits everyone, especially those New Zealanders who are disadvantaged."
The naturally occurring fluoride level in New Zealand water supplies is usually between 0.1 parts per million and 0.3ppm. Fluoride content for drinking water in New Zealand is in the range of 0.7 - 1.0ppm. The maximum acceptable value for fluoride is 1.5ppm (parts per million).
- © Fairfax NZ News
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Fluoride Updates from FAN:
March 5, 2014
Before we update you on the latest fluoride-free victories, alerts, and news we would like to invite you to follow us on Twitter and “like” FAN’s Facebook page. We currently have more than 40,000 Facebook friends who use our page to get daily updates and to interact with fellow supporters from around the world. Please join today!
Recent Fluoride-Free Victories:
Hernando County, Florida – County Commissioners rejected a proposal to fluoridate the drinking water for the entire county (more than 60,000 people) after hearing presentations from local citizens and health officials on both sides of the issue. A vast majority of those presentations were from residents who opposed the practice, with the primary proponent being retired dentist and pro-fluoridation radical, Johnny Johnson, who made the initial request for the introduction of the proposal. The Tampa Bay Times, which is known for printing incorrect and misleading information about fluoridation, is now attacking the commissioners for their vote, just as they did to officials in Brooksville and Pinellas County.
New South Wales, Australia – State legislators killed a bill that would have forced all communities within the state to fluoridate drinking water despite public opposition to the practice. The Labor Party introduced the legislation at the request of state health officials after local councils started voting against fluoridation, and others started debating whether to end the practice.
Quick Campaign Alerts:
Councilors in Owen Sound, Ontario will be holding a second public hearing to consider ending fluoridation and whether they should put the question to a citizen vote on the next ballot.
A well-funded campaign has been launched in Hartford, Vermont to force the local water board to implement fluoridation.
The Water Authority in Albuquerque, New Mexico is considering a proposal to increase fluoride levels from 0.5 to 0.7ppm. There is a town hall meeting scheduled for April 10 and a tentative vote scheduled for April 23.
Residents in Forsyth, Missouri will be getting a ballot question on fluoridation sent to them as part of a newsletter. The Aldermen will consider the results at their April meeting.
Do you have an upcoming hearing or vote on fluoridation in your town, region, or state? Let FAN know and we will share it with FAN supporters in your area. Just email the details to fluorideevent@gmail.com.
Lancet IQ Article & Kansas Legislation
An article was published in the March 2014 Journal Lancet Neurology in which medical authorities newly classified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin. The prominent peer-reviewed medical journal published the article entitled “Neurobehavioral effects of developmental toxicity.” The authors point out that 27 studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water found an average lowering of IQ by seven points; twice that of the effects of secondhand smoke on children.
See FAN’s Press Release on the Lancet Article
The Lancet article has been covered in news stories throughout the U.S., but such an important development needs to be seen by as many as possible. Please use our automated system to send a letter-to-the-editor to your local newspapers about fluoride’s impact on IQ:
Spread the News, Send a Letter
Meanwhile, the Kansas legislature is currently considering a bill to require that warning statements are sent to consumers in fluoridated communities notifying them that “ingesting fluoride lowers I.Q in children.” Mark Gietzen, of the Kansas Republican Assembly, has spearheaded the campaign in support of the legislation. A public hearing was held that included favorable testimony from Dr. Yolanda Whyte, Dr. Charles Hinshaw, and FAN’s Special Projects Director Michael Connett. The House Health and Human Services Committee voted to table the bill after the hearing rather then kill it, creating an opportunity to gather more support before the deadline for action. Introduction of a similar bill is also being considered in the Senate.
International Fluoride-Free Teleconference
The next International Fluoride-Free Teleconference will be held on at 2pm (Pacific Time) on Sunday, March 9. It will feature a presentation by the Center for Self-Government, an educational non-profit in Tennessee that teaches community activism strategy and tactics. The emphasis will be on improving your political influence on local and state fluoride policy.
Click Here to Register & Learn More
The February teleconference was on infant exposure to fluoride and how citizens can take action to implement infant fluoride warnings in their communities. The call featured presentations from Bill Osmunson, DDS, David Kennedy, DDS, and myself (FAN’s Campaign Director). If you missed the call you can access the audio and accompanying materials by clicking here. You can also learn how to start your own infant warning campaign using FAN’s comprehensive resources.
Sincerely,
Stuart Cooper,
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Kansas HB2372 Tabled - Chm. of House Health & Human Services Committee declares anti-fluoride bill dead
Anti-fluoride bill tabled by committee
Measure requiring municipalities to put warning on water bills sees no action
Posted: February 24, 2014
Special to The Capital-Journal
A proposal that would have required communities to post a warning on their water bills if they fluoridate was tabled by a 10-2 vote in the House Health and Human Services Committee Monday.
Committee Vice Chair Rep. Susan Concannon, R-Beloit, moved to table the bill, and there was no debate. Two committee members opposed the motion: Rep. Patricia Sloop, D-Wichita and Rep. Kevin Jones, R-Wellsville.
The chairman of the committee said he thought there wasn’t enough to push the legislation forward.
“I supported tabling the bill,” said Rep. Dave Crum, R-Augusta. “I didn’t feel like the proponents of the bill were able to bring substantial scientific evidence that fluoride is harmful.”
Proponents of the bill relied mainly on a Harvard study that was performed in China.
House Bill 2372 stated that more research would need to be made on the exact effects of fluoride. The bill went onto say there was a possibility for harm to the brain and other important organs in the human body.
Rep. Leslie Osterman, R-Wichita, a member of the committee, said it wasn’t his place to legislate the matter at the state level.
“My feeling it’s not my job up here to direct municipalities,” Osterman said. “I felt like people that want this fight should take it to the municipalities."
The committee heard testimony on the bill this past Wednesday, which drew a large crowd. There were proponents and 24 individuals and organizations that opposed it, which included all the major dental associations in Kansas.
For the rest of the meeting the committee moved forward on several other pieces of legislation, including the passage of House Bill 2552 on prompt payments from KanCare-managed care organizations. After some slight amendments, the bill passed.
UPDATE: Kansas lawmakers table anti-fluoride proposal
By: Associated Press
Posted: Mon 4:58 PM, Feb 24, 2014
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas House committee has tabled a bill to require cities and other local governments to warn consumers if they put fluoride in their water supplies.
Chairman David Crum said the House Health and Human Services Committee's 10-2 vote Monday means the anti-fluoride bill is dead.
The measure has been condemned by public health officials and the Kansas Dental Association. The federal Centers for Disease Control last year called fluoridation of water "one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century."
But the bill says fluoride is dangerous and would require local governments to warn consumers if it fluoridates water -- and to warn that it might lower children's IQs.
Anti-fluoride activist Mark Gietzen said supporters of the bill will try to get action in the Senate.
Previous story:
A Kansas House committee is considering a proposal to require cities and other local governments to warn consumers if they put fluoride in their water supplies.
The bill on the Health and Human Services Committee's agenda Monday has been condemned by public health officials and the Kansas Dental Association. The federal Centers for Disease Control last year called fluoridation of water "one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century."
But the bill declares that fluoride is dangerous and says more studies of it are urgently needed. The bill would require local governments that fluoridate water to warn consumers and that it lowers children's IQs.
The bill stems from an active anti-fluoride movement in Wichita, which does not add fluoride to its water.
Latest Update from Citizens for Health
Take Aim Against Fluoride in Drinking Water
An Issue You Can Sink Your Teeth Into
March 4, 2014
Dear Citizen for Health,
As a supporter of CFH, we know you work to stay informed about the issues that affect your ability to maintain your health and wellness. We emailed you last week to draw your attention once again to the potential negative health effects of water fluoridation, and are working to bring you resources for staying informed, as well as opportunities to take action.
There are reasons to be concerned:
--"Fluoride amounts to public murder on a grand scale." A shocking quote from Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the National Cancer Institute's Cytochemistry Sector, co-discoverer of biotin and publisher of more than 250 scientific articles. Why was he so concerned about the link between fluoride and cancer? Watch an interview with Dr. Burk here.
--Residents of Bernalillo County, home of Albuquerque, take note: Your Water Utility Authority Board is considering a reversal of a decision from 2011 to stop adding fluoride to drinking water. The move would cost taxpayers $400,000 initially, and $100,000 per year thereafter - read more here.
--And we noted in our last email that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) own National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory says that fluoride is a chemical with "substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity". We think this bears mentioning again. And often.
The good news is that people all over the world are taking this fight to the grassroots, and we here in the U.S. must follow the lead set by nine states proposing anti-fluoridation bills last year. Stay tuned for more on this issue, and for how you can add your voice to the chorus calling for an end to forced fluoridation of our drinking water.
As always, we sincerely thank you for your financial investment in Citizens for Health as we continue to fight for those who believe Americans have a fundamental right to pursue natural health alternatives.
The Citizens for Health Team
P.S.: If you haven't already, please add your comments in support of our petition calling for thorough and accurate labeling of products containing high fructose corn syrup, or HFCS - click on the green button below.
State of Kansas Update > Infant Warning on Water Utility Invoices has been "tabled" -- Below is the newest focus that Citizens for Health has on Fluoride
Look Ma! No...Fluoride?
Is 2014 the Year to Put a "Dent In" Water Fluoridation?
February 25, 2014
Dear Citizen for Health,
As a supporter of CFH, we know you work to stay informed about the issues that affect your ability to maintain your health and wellness. One of those issues is the fluoridation of our water - imposed upon us even while there is substantial evidence supporting its potential negative health effects.
The argument that proponents of fluoridation cite claims that fluoride is necessary for healthy teeth because it repairs and re-mineralizes exposed "dentin". However, there is significant evidence that it can be detrimental if swallowed daily.
There are reasons to be concerned:
--The main chemicals used to fluoridate water are industrial byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry and can contain elevated levels of arsenic and lead.
--Dr. Philippe Grandjean, chair of environmental medicine at the University of Denmark and adjunct professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, shared the results of decades of researching chemicals capable of damaging the developing brain in a paper published earlier this month. On the list with PCBs, toulene and ethanol: fluoride.
--The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) own National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory says that fluoride is a chemical with "substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity".
The good news is the tide may be starting to turn. Already in 2014 a small community in Florida has gotten the ball rolling by following the lead set by nine states proposing anti-fluoridation bills last year. On January 28 the Wellington Village Council voted 3-2 to end 14 years of fluoridating their water.
It has been said that "it takes a village" - and we applaud the Wellington Village Council for taking the lead on this important issue - but it will take much more to raise awareness across the country. You can do your part by becoming informed and sharing that information with friends and family.
Stay tuned for more on this issue, and for opportunities to take action.
Thanks, as always, for your participation.
The Citizens for Health Team
P.S.: Don't forget to sign the petition calling for proper labeling of products containing high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) - just click on the green bar below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)