Fluoride in our water

[DennisK]

Recent independent research by scientists not associated with dental trade organizations has shown the following:

1.  Neurotoxic and Lowers IQ
2.  Causes Cancer & Brain Lesions
3.  Changes Bone Structure and Strength
4.  Causes Birth Defects and Perinatal Deaths
5.  Proven Ineffective Against Cavity Prevention
6.  Impairs Immune System
7.  Causes Acute Adverse Reactions
8.  Causes Initial Stages of Skeletal Fluorosis
9.  Increases Lead and Arsenic Exposure
10. Causes Osteoarthritis
11. Contributes to the Development of Repetitive Stress Injury
12. Causes Permanent Disfigurement of the Teeth in Many Children
13. Inhibits Key Enzymes
14. Supresses Thyroid Function
15. Causes Large Numbers of Acute Poisonings
16. Independent Experts Oppose Dumping Fluoride Into Water
17. Unethical
18. Banned in Many Countries

The above taken from: http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/

Many respected researchers who have opposed the use of fluoride in our water supply have been sacked or vilified or funding has been halted or a combination of all three.  Here is a video regarding an investigative journalist's inquiry into fluoride.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo&feature=related

[joeactor]

Pffffft!  Forget Flouride!

I'm more concerned about this:
http://www.dhmo.org/

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.

(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/quotes)

Meh.  I'll wait for actual evidence.  (you know, where I can see it on CNN as opposed to reading anything)

[McQ]

Pffffft!  Forget Flouride!

I'm more concerned about this:
http://www.dhmo.org/

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.

(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/quotes)

Meh.  I'll wait for actual evidence.  (you know, where I can see it on CNN as opposed to reading anything)

You fast-fingered-fellow! You beat me to the DHMO link!  

LOL!

As for the Flouride, can't say for sure, but in excessive amounts, I'm guessing it wouldn't be real healthy. It's always made me a bit nervous.

[DennisK]

While I am very concerned about the effects of fluoride in our drinking water and who knows where else.  What I'm for concerned about is how and why it is put into our bodies.  Fluoride is toxic by itself, but putting it in our water with arsenic and lead.

Only three chemicals are certified for fluoridation: sodium fluoride, hydrofluosilicic or fluosilicic acid, and sodium silicofluoride (the latter silicofluorides), according to the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF).

"...the most common contaminant detected in these products is Arsenic...," reports NSF. "The other significant contaminant found...is Lead," they report.

The most common form for water treatment is hydrofluorisilicic acid which is a hazardous waste liquor.

[SSY]

That list looks somewhat overblown to me

I assume all those studies were done with groups representing a cross section of society, over a thousand people, and double blind of course?

I would err on the side of less fluridation, however, the uneducated's refusal of oral hygene precepitates a need for this measure to be foisted on all of us, a shame.

[DennisK]

http://www.wddty.com/033638003695241336 ... rd-no.html

Studies from America, Canada and New Zealand show no difference in the rates of tooth decay between fluoridated and non fluoridated areas (Fluoride, 1990; 23: 55-67). Indeed, some studies indicate that the average rates of tooth decay in children are lower in non or low fluoridated areas (J Can Dent Assoc, 1987; 53: 753-5; Am J Phys Anthropol, 1989; 78: 79-92).

In fluoridated areas, high percentages of the population suffer from dental fluorosis, where teeth are mottled from high deposits of fluoride. In Birmingham, where water has been fluoridated at 1 ppm since 1964, more than a third of children suffer from dental fluorosis (Health & Homoeopathy, Spring, 1998: 24-5).

[DennisK]

From this article: http://thyroid.about.com/cs/relatedcond ... lushot.htm

"No increase in caries (cavities) was found in Kuopio (Finland) 3 years after the discontinuation of water fluoridation," according to Caries Research (1). In fact, when Kuopio was compared to a similar never fluoridated Finnish town, cavity rates in both towns either remained the same or decreased six years after fluoridation was stopped in Kuopio.

Seven years after fluoridation ended in LaSalud, Cuba, cavities remained low in 6 to 9 year olds, decreased in 10 to 11 year-olds, significantly decreased in 12 to 13 year olds, while caries-free children increased dramatically, reports Caries Research (2).
East German scientists report, "following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed," according to Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (3). Additional surveys in the formerly-fluoridated towns of Spremberg and Zittau found. "Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both towns significantly decreased... following the cessation of water fluoridation."

Not only did decay rates remain stable during an 11-month fluoridation break in Durham, NC, between September, 1990, and August, 1991 but dental fluorosis declined in children born during that period, according to the Journal of Dental Research (4)

In British Columbia, Canada, "the prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community," reported in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. (5)

In 1973, the Dutch town of Tiel stopped fluoridation. Researchers counted drilled, missing, and filled tooth surfaces (DMFS) of Tiel's 15-year olds, then collected identical data from never-fluoridated Culemborg. DMFS initially increased in Tiel then dipped to 11% of baseline from 1968/69 to 1987/88 while never-fluoridated Culemborg's 15-year-olds had 72% less cavities over the same period, reports Caries Research. (6)

[McQ]

I remain unconvinced that water fluoridation is beneficial in any significant way, as the studies are either not well reproduced (that I've seen or am aware of). However, I'm still not convinced it's as dangerous (i.e. carcinogenic) as some have made it out to be, although there is evidence (as some of the studies Dennis has linked to) that it can be dangerous in a number of other ways. So I remain somewhat concerned. Our municipality does not fluoridate our water, so I am ok with what we get. I also read the annual test of our water from the independent testing source that does it and am satisfied with the quality. That said, I still use a charcoal based filtration system as an added safety feature!

[DennisK]

Even if the dangers are not as great as these studies imply, it is perplexing that fluoridation is still being used when there is little to no gain in dental health.  My community's water is not fluoridated and I too use a filtering system for drinking water, however, it upsets me that others buy into the notion so easily that fluoride is good.  And without it thrust upon us our teeth will surely rot away.   Also, just because we are filtering our drinking water doesn't mean we are free from fluoride.  You can get it from produce or animal consumption through "trickle down" logic.

Even if there is merit fluoridation's moderate improvement in dental health, why do we need to add fluorosilic acid (most common form of treatment) to our water.  It is one of the most highly toxic substances on our planet, yet it is good for you in low dosages?

"Fluoridating drinking water with recovered pollution is a cost-effective means of disposing of toxic waste. The fluorosilicic acid would otherwise be classified as a hazardous toxic waste on the Superfund Priorities List of toxic substances that pose the most significant risk to human health and the greatest potential liability for manufacturers."

Here is a good link to more updated reactions to fluoridation of our water.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63514

Sweden's Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Prize winner in physiology or medicine, objects to the practice, saying that everyone reacts differently to medication and what is beneficial for one person may be harmful for another. He calls community fluoridation "obsolete."

Opponents like Carlsson point out that each person drinks a different amount of water, meaning dosage cannot be controlled, and could become toxic for someone who drinks more water. Add to that variable the widespread use of fluoride toothpastes by the American public and the fact that much of the food supply is grown or raised using fluoridated water, and you can see the great potential for overdosing, they say.

...In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences found the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum standard for fluoride of 4 milligrams per liter could cause health problems such as dental fluorosis and weakened bones over a lifetime of consumption.

The EPA's Headquarters Professionals Union, made up of scientists, lawyers and other professionals, also now opposes community fluoridation.

..."The early studies that purported to show ingested fluoride reduced tooth decay were seriously flawed," says Dr. Paul Connett, emeritus professor of environmental chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y., and executive director of Fluoride Action Network. "There is no significant difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated industrialized countries. The vast majority of countries are not fluoridated."

[McQ]

Even if the dangers are not as great as these studies imply, it is perplexing that fluoridation is still being used when there is little to no gain in dental health.  My community's water is not fluoridated and I too use a filtering system for drinking water, however, it upsets me that others buy into the notion so easily that fluoride is good.  And without it thrust upon us our teeth will surely rot away.   Also, just because we are filtering our drinking water doesn't mean we are free from fluoride.  You can get it from produce or animal consumption through "trickle down" logic.

Even if there is merit fluoridation's moderate improvement in dental health, why do we need to add fluorosilic acid (most common form of treatment) to our water.  It is one of the most highly toxic substances on our planet, yet it is good for you in low dosages?

"Fluoridating drinking water with recovered pollution is a cost-effective means of disposing of toxic waste. The fluorosilicic acid would otherwise be classified as a hazardous toxic waste on the Superfund Priorities List of toxic substances that pose the most significant risk to human health and the greatest potential liability for manufacturers."

Here is a good link to more updated reactions to fluoridation of our water.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63514

Sweden's Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Prize winner in physiology or medicine, objects to the practice, saying that everyone reacts differently to medication and what is beneficial for one person may be harmful for another. He calls community fluoridation "obsolete."

Opponents like Carlsson point out that each person drinks a different amount of water, meaning dosage cannot be controlled, and could become toxic for someone who drinks more water. Add to that variable the widespread use of fluoride toothpastes by the American public and the fact that much of the food supply is grown or raised using fluoridated water, and you can see the great potential for overdosing, they say.

...In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences found the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum standard for fluoride of 4 milligrams per liter could cause health problems such as dental fluorosis and weakened bones over a lifetime of consumption.

The EPA's Headquarters Professionals Union, made up of scientists, lawyers and other professionals, also now opposes community fluoridation.

..."The early studies that purported to show ingested fluoride reduced tooth decay were seriously flawed," says Dr. Paul Connett, emeritus professor of environmental chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y., and executive director of Fluoride Action Network. "There is no significant difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated industrialized countries. The vast majority of countries are not fluoridated."

No argument here, Dennis. The rationale behind continuing the practice of fluoridating water is totally perplexing. I have little doubt that we will eventually learn that increases in osteoporosis and a few other nasties are directly due, at least in a large part, to this.

It's strange that in something like this, where there is no significant benefit that can be proven, that we continue to apply this water treatment simply because some organizations say that there is no detriment either. That makes no sense. If there i no detriment (cough cough), but there is also NO BENEFIT, then why the hell spend the money to do it?!

But as with so many things, just follow the money to find the answer. This is similar to and why I am in agreement with you also on part of your issue with big pharma...because so much is spent (and reaped) on products that have no appreciable difference or benefit from current, cheaper products, or are simply "me too" versions of unneccessary products.

[DennisK]

The scary thing, McQ, about my recent thirst for knowledge and investigations is that one thing usually leads to another.  They often get progressively worse and a lot of them seem to be interconnected.

For example, in looking into fluoride, I found how Rumsfeld was integral in the FDA approval of Aspartame and he was CEO of Searle (Aspartame manufacturer) prior to being involved in politics.

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive15.htm

"When Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle, that conglomerate manufactured aspartame. For 16 years the FDA refused to approve it, not only because its not safe but because they wanted the company indicted for fraud. Both U.S. Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. They were Sam Skinner and William Conlon. Skinner went on to become Secretary of Transportation squelching the cries of the pilots who were now having seizures on this seizure triggering drug, aspartame, and then Chief of Staff under President Bush's father. Some of these people reach high places. Even Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas is a former Monsanto attorney. (Monsanto bought Searle in 1985, and sold it a few years ago). When Ashcroft became Attorney General, Thompson from King and Spalding Attorneys (another former Monsanto attorney) became deputy under Ashcroft. (Attorneys for NutraSweet and Coke).

"However, the FDA still refused to allow NutraSweet on the market. It is a deadly neurotoxic drug masquerading as an additive. It interacts with all antidepressants, L-dopa, Coumadin, hormones, insulin, all cardiac medication, and many others. It also is a chemical hyper sensitization drug so that it interacts with vaccines, other toxins, other unsafe sweeteners like Splenda which has a chlorinated base like DDT and can cause auto immune disease. It has a synergistic and additive effect with MSG. Both being excitotoxins, the aspartic acid in aspartame, and MSG, the glutamate people were found using aspartame as the placebo for MSG studies, even before it was approved. The FDA has known this for a quarter of a century and done nothing even though its against the law. Searle went on to build a NutraSweet factory and had $9 million worth of inventory.

"Donald Rumsfeld was on President Reagan's transition team and the day after he took office he appointed an FDA Commissioner who would approve aspartame. The FDA set up a Board of Inquiry of the best scientists they had to offer who said aspartame is not safe and causes brain tumors, and the petition for approval is hereby revoked. The new FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, over-ruled that Board of Inquiry and then went to work for the PR Agency of the manufacturer, Burson-Marstellar, rumored at $1000.00 a day, and has refused to talk to the press ever since.

I've found Monsanto to be involved in many of my horrific findings involving food and drugs.

[joeactor]

For example, in looking into fluoride, I found how Rumsfeld was integral in the FDA approval of Aspartame and he was CEO of Searle (Aspartame manufacturer) prior to being involved in politics.

Now this is one I can agree whole-heartedly on.  And Rummy was involved!?!?  Sheesh.

Aspartame is some nasty stuff.  Read an entire book on it years ago.  Seems many of the guys who developed it didn't want it approved.  Also had some very shoddy research studies behind it (with horrifying results).  The book had 18 pages of references, if I recall correcly.  So, how did it get approved?  (Cha-Ching!)

I loves me some sugar,
JoeActor

[Will]

It's really difficult to tell what is or isn't in drinking water, let alone what in it is good or bad. The best option seems to filter it, and simply get whatever you need from multivitamins and your regular diet. I highly recommend using a reverse osmosis filter if you can afford one. They filter out pretty much everything but the water, including fluoride.

Is the fluoride in the water beneficial? Probably not.

[crocofish]

It's really difficult to tell what is or isn't in drinking water, let alone what in it is good or bad. The best option seems to filter it, and simply get whatever you need from multivitamins and your regular diet.

I'm not as concerned about the fluoride as with things like trihalomethanes which come from chlorination, and other pesticides and industrial chemicals that get into the water supply.  My local water supplier publishes and mails an analysis every year of what they find in the water from periodic testing.  I use a Brita filter pitcher for most of my drinking water, and I think that strips out some of the fluoride.
 
Fluoride occurs naturally in tea but not in what thought to be harmful levels, although there are cases of people who drank large amounts of concentrated instant tea and got symptoms of fluorosis (fluoride overdose).

[DennisK]

For example, in looking into fluoride, I found how Rumsfeld was integral in the FDA approval of Aspartame and he was CEO of Searle (Aspartame manufacturer) prior to being involved in politics.

Now this is one I can agree whole-heartedly on.  And Rummy was involved!?!?  Sheesh.

Aspartame is some nasty stuff.  Read an entire book on it years ago.  Seems many of the guys who developed it didn't want it approved.  Also had some very shoddy research studies behind it (with horrifying results).  The book had 18 pages of references, if I recall correcly.  So, how did it get approved?  (Cha-Ching!)

I loves me some sugar,
JoeActor

This same shoddy research (or should I say deliberately deceptive research) was how fluoride got into our water in the first place.