Part 2 - Fluorides in Water Systems and Dentristry

Fluoridation of Municipal Water Supplies

France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Northern Ireland, Austria and the Czech Republic do NOT put fluorides in their water supply!  If fluoridation is such a boon to mankind, why on earth would so many European nations refuse to do it?  According to statements from these governments, the main reason is that they consider it unethical medication of persons without prior consent. 

In the case of the Netherlands, their water was fluorinated until their Supreme Court threw it out. (June 22, 1973)

The Czech Republic said this:

"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:

Uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)

Unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)

Unethical ("forced medication")

Toxicologically and physiologically debatable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999).

According to data from the World Health Organization these countries have about the same level of tooth decay as the United States which is 60% fluoridated.  In addition to the US, the UK, the former USSR and Australia do or did until recently use fluoridation.

http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html

A more extensive list of countries who do NOT fluoridate their water can be seen at:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/hileman.htm

We have already seen why the United States and it's prime defense contractors and manufacturers such as DuPont) was so interested in this "forced medication" program and went to great lengths to promote and implement it.  Now lets take a look at the consequences.

Fluorosis (over-fluoridation of teeth resulting in white spots later becoming brownish spots and extreme brittleness) is becoming an epidemic problem. http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluorosis-pics.htm

Vulnerable population segments include the elderly, people with diabetes, deficiencies of calcium, vitamin C, cardiovascular problems, kidney problems, underactive thyroids or those with hypersensitivity to fluoride.

Aluminum uptake to the brain has been shown to be facilitated by fluoride.

 "Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride (either as sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride) in doubly distilled and de-ionized water, were found to have increased levels of aluminum in their brain and amyloid deposits (11). Amyloid deposits in the brain are associated with Alzheimer's disease." http://www.fluoridealert.org/varner.htm

In addition, other studies have suggested fluoride also facilitates aluminum uptake in bone tissue resulting in increased osteoporosis and other bone weaknesses causing proneness to fracture.  The fact that kids nowadays seem to get broken bones much easier is surely no cooincidence.

Accumulation in bones, pineal gland and other tissues.

Suppression of normal thyroid function (may be useful in treating hyperthyroid condition).  In fact the amount of fluoride ingested daily by most Americans is in excess of that used to treat hyperthyroidism.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/galletti.htm

Hazardous Wastes - because all fluorides used for municipal treatment are derived from industrial waste (as stated above by Reeves, CDC), arsenic, lead and other highly toxic metals and compounds  including radioactive isotopes can easily be brought along with it.

Fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate (silicofluorides) are used in 90% of water treatment programs and A study published in the journal Neurotoxicology (27) found that blood lead levels in children were consistently and significantly higher in New York communities where silicofluorides were used to fluoridate the water http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/mar01/fluoride.html

Other studies have found an assosiaction between fluorides and Down's Syndrome http://www.fluoridealert.org/downs-syndrome.htm

This is just a sampling of the increasing number of findings about the health consequences of fluorides.  For more information on this subject try these links:

www.fluoridealert.org

www.fluoridation.com

http://www.rosehealth.com/fluoride.htm

Fluorides and the Dental Industry

The primary justification for fluoridation has always been that it prevents Caries in children's teeth.  Let's take closer look at the history of dentistry and fluoridation.

According to Dr. Paul Connet, PHD, the very claims of dental benefit are dubious are best. He states:

"The benefits to teeth are questionable."

3. The key initial studies which purported to show that fluoride was a benefit to teeth, conducted in Grand Rapids, Michigan (1945), Newburgh, New York (1945), Evanston, Illinois (1947), and Brantford, Ontario, Canada (1945), were of a very dubious scientific quality. This is fully and thoroughly documented by Dr. Philip Sutton in his book, "The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation"

(1). While the science was dubious, the confidence of the US Public Health Service (PHS) was enormous. In  April 1951, before any single fluoridation trial had been completed, the US Surgeon General, Leonard Scheele, was telling a Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, "During the past year our studies progressed to the point where we could announce an unqualified endorsement of the fluoridation of the public water supplies as a mass procedure for reducing tooth decay by two thirds"

(2). Subsequent Surgeon Generals have continued to act as cheerleaders for this procedure. Their passionate promotion bears little relation to the quality of the science involved in fluoridation, either to its efficacy or to its safety. Another Surgeon General, Thomas Parran, stated, "I consider water fluoridation to be the greatest single advance in dental health made in our generation"

(3). Such an opinion sharply contrasts with that of former US EPA scientist, Dr. Robert Carton, who after he examined the evidence declared, "Fluoridation is a scientific fraud, probably the greatest fraud of the century"

(4). The early studies upon which the entire program was built are now shown to be seriously flawed.  In fact there never was a truly scientific double-blind study done on fluoridation in those days!  Dr. Connet is kind in his assessment that these scientists were simply over-enthusiastic in their efforts.

Meanwhile, considerable evidence has accumulated that the state of children's permanent teeth in non-fluoridated communities, as measured by their DMFT (decayed, missing and filled teeth) values, is just as good as (if not better than) those in fluoridated communities. For example, in 1995 the teeth of the children in fluoridated Newburgh were again compared to those in still unfluoridated Kingston (this study started in 1945) and there was little difference in the DMFT values across the 7-14 years age range.

If an average is taken the children in unfluoridated Kingston had slightly better DMFT values. However, there was one big difference: the average levels of dental fluorosis were about twice as high in fluoridated Newburgh as it was in unfluoridated Kingston (7). Dental fluorosis is a mottling of the teeth. In its mildest form it consists of white patches or streaks. As the severity increases the color of the patches changes from white to yellow, to orange and then to brown. In its severest form dental fluorosis results in loss of tooth enamel and extreme brittleness. The only known cause of dental fluorosis is exposure to fluoride and the rates are increasing.

The argument used by the pro-fluoride authors of the Newburgh-Kingston study is that the improvement in DMFTs in non-fluoridated Kingston is due to exposure to fluoride from other sources: fluoridated toothpaste, beverages and processed food. If we accept this argument at face value then it completely undermines the need to add fluoride to the drinking water since a better result  (i.e. slightly better DMFTs and less dental fluorosis) was achieved in Kingston without fluoridation."

There is not space here to go into the all the more recent studies and tests, which clearly implicate Fluorides in a whole host of dental, medical and mental problems.  A search of the web will easily turn up hundreds of pages on these topics for those who will like to pursue it more.

OK, we know the government and big industry did this to us to protect their pocketbooks.  Why the dentists went along with it can only be speculated, but I suspect in the beginning there was considerable pressure put on the dentists by the agencies that regulate them, and of course they were presented with the same flawed studies that everyone else was.  And dentists, like many doctors, frequently fail to continue their education after they have left medical/dental school.  But there may be an ulterior motive as well - given the kind of damage fluorides produce in the teeth of a significant portion of the population, fluoridation may have actually resulted in more work and profits for dentists rather than the opposite which would be expected if the claims of fluoride benefits were actually true.

Despite the current awareness among the public that there may be serious problems with fluoridation, many dentists continue to promote and sell fluoride treatments (the same one who continue to promote and use mercury-amalgam fillings I would suppose, but that is for another article!).   And the CDC and the government continue to promote and expand the fluoridation program.  The EPA has carefully sidestepped the question and steadfastly refused to take any action, however, the union of scientists representing EPA research scientists has come out and demanded a moratorium on fluoridation until better study and analysis of the problem can be done.   This should be a wakeup call to the public and to the communities still administering fluorides to their constituents.

Tags: fluoride, fluorine, heath, government, water

Add A Comment