Fluoridation: A conspiracy so old, we think it's normal, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 22 times
Topic started on 27-9-2005 @ 12:11 AM by loam



Over the years, a serious debate concerning whether or not we should fluoridate our drinking water has largely occurred without much national public-interest. This is due in part because the message in favor of fluoridation has been so effective, that few question the practice.

Fluoride is currently added to the drinking water of nearly 2/3 of the people in the US.





On August 5, 2005, eleven EPA unions representing more than 7,000 workers took the unusual move to call for a national moratorium on programs to add fluoride to drinking water, citing what they said was "startling and disturbing new information that confirms the worst fears" of fluoridation. Even more unusual was that the EPA unions addressed letters to members of Congress and to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator of the EPA, alleging a "Cover-Up!" and demanding a Congressional investigation into the matter, and a criminal investigation by the EPA’s Office of Criminal Enforcement or Department of Justice.



Coalition of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Unions Letter to U.S. Congress on Fluoride

Regulation

Senate Committees:
Environment and Public Works (Inhofe and Jeffords)
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (Enzi and Kennedy)
Commerce, Science and Transportation (Stevens and Inouye)
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry (Chambliss and Harkin)

House Committees/Subcommittees:
Energy and Commerce (Barton and Dingell)
Subcommittee on Environment snd Hazardous Materials (Gillmor and Solis)
Subcommittee on Health (Deal and Brown)
Science (Boehlert and Gordon


August 5, 2005

RE: Bone Cancer-Fluoridation Cover-Up


Hon. Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member
Committee on Science and Transportation
560 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-6125


Dear Senator Inouye:

Our unions represent a substantial portion of the nation-wide workforce at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and we are writing to ask for a moratorium on the national program of the U.S. Public Health Service to fluoridate all of America’s public water supplies.

One of us (Dr. Hirzy, of NTEU Chapter 280) testified before the Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Water of the Senate on June 29, 2000 on this subject on behalf of his headquarters union. At that time the union called for a moratorium based on science indicating a number of adverse health effects and out-of-control, excessive exposures to fluoride.

We now join NTEU Chapter 280 in renewing the call for a moratorium, based on startling and disturbing new information that confirms the worst fears expressed in the earlier testimony.

...



And in its letter to Stephen L. Johnson, wrote:



...We at EPA can be ahead of the curve on this important issue or behind it. We do not think the latter choice is in the best interest of the public, the Civil Service or EPA, and we fervently and respectfully hope that you will agree with us. As a wise man once said, ”The science is what the science is.”

Letter.




At the heart of the controversy is a 2001 Harvard doctoral thesis produced by a Dr. Bassin showing the carcinogenicity of fluoride in young boys. Dr. Bassin at the time was a student of Harvard Professor Chester Douglass who had received a $1.3 million grant from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to study the potential link of osteosarcoma and fluoridated water. It should also be noted that Professor Douglass was also the Editor of the Colgate Oral Health Report. At the conclusion of the study, and despite Bassin's significant finding of a definitive link, Professor Douglass reported no connection was found between fluoride and osteosarcoma.







Fluoridation, Cancer: Did Researchers Ask The Right Questions?

...

Questions about fluoridation have returned with renewed vigor because of allegations of scientific misconduct against a prominent researcher at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization in Washington, charged last month that Chester Douglass misrepresented an unpublished study about bone cancer and fluoridated tap water. In written testimony to the National Research Council last year, Dr. Douglass said he had found no evidence that fluoridation increased risk of osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. But a 2001 study he cited, and oversaw, found that boys who drink fluoridated water have a greater risk of developing the disease.

...

More interesting than what Dr. Douglass said or didn't say, however, is the study he swept under the rug. It was conducted by one of his doctoral students, Elise Bassin. She started with the same raw data as her mentor -- 139 people with osteosarcoma and 280 healthy "controls" -- but saw a way to improve on it. Since most of the 400 people diagnosed in the U.S. each year with osteosarcoma are kids, and since any ill effect of fluoride would likely come when bones are growing most quickly, she focused on the 91 patients who were under 20.

HER RESULT: Among boys drinking water with 30% to 99% of the fluoride levels recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk of osteosarcoma was estimated to be five times as great as among boys drinking nonfluoridated water. At 100% or more, the risk was an estimated seven times as high. The association was greatest for boys six to eight.

more...




As will be discussed later in this post, you should note that the increased risk discovered by Dr. Bassin was associated with levels significantly below those recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. You'll be surprised to learn how likely it is that everyone exceeds these limits on a daily basis. Moreover, also later in this post, I will discuss the other negative risks associated fluoridated drinking water also not very well known.


THE HISTORY OF FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER

What might surprise you is that the fluoridation of drinking water actually has its roots with the development of the atomic bomb under the Manhattan Project.



FLUORIDE, TEETH, AND THE ATOMIC BOMB

Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents. Massive quantities of fluoride – millions of tons – were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S atomic bomb program--both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal.



Because of the significant focus by the public of the potential dangers of fluoride, the US government embarked upon one of the most bizarre and Orwellian efforts in American history.



Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.

Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water--conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F," they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel.

The original secret version...of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) – considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies – for reasons of national security.

The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester, site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mind-set, in which "national security" was paramount.



Over the years, many scientific studies have drawn a link between exposure to fluoride and severe health risks.

Bone Effects
Brain Effects
Cancer
Dental Fluorosis
Reproductive Effects
Gastrointestinal Effects
Kidney Effects
Pineal Gland Effects
Thyroid Effects
Fluoride Accidents/Poisonings

See also, generally, Toxic Chemicals In Your Water


Yet despite the growing mountain of evidence against fluoridation, the US government has continued to either cast a blind eye to the problem or actively interfere with the publication of evidence that fluoridation of drinking water represents a severe health risk.



"Information was buried," concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990's indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.

During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous U.S. studies of fluoride's effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), where an NIH panel, she says, flatly told her that "fluoride does not have central nervous system effects."

Source.



See also, Fluoride & The Brain: An Interview with Dr. Phyllis Mullenix


OK, BUT IT HELPS TO PREVENT CAVITIES, RIGHT?




You may be very surprised by the answer.






...tooth decay rates have declined at similar rates in all western countries in the latter half of the 20th century - irrespective of whether the country fluoridates its water or not. Today, tooth decay rates throughout continental western Europe are as low as the tooth decay rates in the United States - despite a profound disparity in water fluoridation prevalence in the two regions.

Source.



See also:

Statements from European Health, Water, & Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation
Scientists at Drug Company Admit That Fluoride Causes Gum/Mouth Disease


Despite all the evidence, the National Institute of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the American Dental Association continue to advocate the fluoridation of drinking water.


Here are a few organizations who oppose it.

American Cancer Society
American Heart Association
National Kidney Foundation
American Academy of Allergy and Immunology
American Diabetes Association
Society of Toxicology
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Activation Network
American Psychiatric Association
American Chiropractic Association
American Civil Liberties Union
National Institute of Law Municipal Officers


And yet the fluoridation of our drinking water continues, even though fluoride is already dangerously present in many other foods and beverages.

See, FredT's ATSNN.com article on "Harmful Fluoride Levels Found in Instant Iced Tea"

Consider also the following:



How Much Fluoride is in Our Foods?




If your children had only one Coke, a glass of milk and Wheaties and no other food the entire day, they would receive 130% of the recommended "optimal" dose!




And:



Have we approached a critical mass in fluoride exposure? The evidence of fluoride over-dose is amassing at an alarming rate



In 1971, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that an adult's daily average fluoride intake was about 1.0 - 1.5 mg/day in the early 1950s. This was considered "optimal" at the time. The chart is a graphic example of how much we're now getting. However, even the maximum values will not reflect true intakes for some subsets of the population. For example, athletes, diabetics, pregnant women, construction workers, and heavy tea drinkers can consume considerably more fluoride (up to 14 mgF/day). Case reports have shown that arthritis can be markedly alleviated by giving up tea.

According to the World Health Organization, in combination with certain other factors (e.g., sub-optimal nutrition, kidney disease, etc.), a chronic fluoride intake of between 2.0 and 8.0 mg/day can produce the pre-clinical stage of skeletal fluorosis, a debilitating and/or crippling bone disease. The pre-clinical and early stages of skeletal fluorosis can be mistaken for arthritis... It is noteworthy to mention that ...many 6-mo-old infants are receiving a fluoride intake in mg/kg/day which equals the dose known to cause crippling skeletal fluorosis in adults if maintained.




Are you convinced there's a problem yet?

Perhaps most surprising is the lack of successful legal challenges concerning fluoridation of water.

See here, for a full legal analysis on whether fluoridation falls within the state's police power.


SO HOW MUCH OF THIS STUFF IS IN MY DRINKING WATER?



If you really want to know, the CDC provides a searchable database of fluoride levels HERE.

In the meantime, keep smilin' ...it's all very normal...


[edit on 25-4-2006 by loam]

[edit on 30-7-2006 by kinglizard]


reply posted on 27-9-2005 @ 03:34 PM by loam
Well, this is a bit of a surprise...



Fluoride shortage could push up water rates

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority says its fluoride costs are about to increase 32 percent as a result of a nationwide shortage that could ultimately hit the wallets of MWRA ratepayers.

more...



A nationwide shortage of fluoride?

Everything I read during my research indicated they couldn't get rid of enough of the stuff...

This is very curious and requires more research.

Will let you know what I find.


reply posted on 2-10-2005 @ 01:48 AM by dr_strangecraft
Something I personally believe, but don't talk about because people start to squint and back away when you bring it up.

I remember talking with one of my Physical Anthropology professors (actually he was tenured). Here's what I remember, but I don't have notes:

- The human body does have some need for flouride in trace amounts. But all the the flouride your body can use will have been absorbed by the time you are 7 years old. After that age, it has absolutely no health benefits.

- Hip fractures in the elderly are almost totally caused by excessive flouride, and not the naturally occuring variety. He pointed out a community in Arkansas, with the highest naturally occuring flouride levels in the US. He said the govt. always points to that community as evidence that flouride is benighn; while in fact, it only proves this about natrually occuring compounds, not the sodium flouride added by govt to drinking water. Instead, it's the compound added to water that causes the problem. He claimed that fractures of the Hip were uncommon until the 1970's among the elderly; that the bone splits easier becuse of flouride uptake and storage in the pelvis.

- I remember him saying that flouride has "almost" the same density as calcium, and that the body integrates flouride "mistakenly" thinking it is getting valuable calcium. But whereas calcium has the shear-strength similar to aluminum, flouride is much softer and increases the number of bone fractures both in children and the elderly.

-He pointed to the number of e.r. visits today for children and seniors, compared to pioneer days, when there were no E.R.s. Also the frequency of elderly falls resulting in broken bones, which never happened, even among the long-lived populations in the Massachusetts Bay colony, where the first generation of women had a life expectancy of nearly 80 years, but nowhere near the rate of fractures we see today.

Don't know how much of that is true or verifiable. Thought I'd throw it in, in case someone needs the ammo.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Cooking With Aluminum Foil Should Be Avoided
  Posted 16 days ago with 43 member flags
"US teen invents advanced cancer test using Google"
  Posted 17 days ago with 38 member flags
A virus that kills cancer: the cure that\'s waiting in the cold
  Posted 6 days ago with 21 member flags
Stem cells bring back feeling for paralysed patients
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags
Gruenenthal\'s thalidomide apology \'insulting\'
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags