It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
According to LCI's [Lucier Chemical Industries Ltd.]product data sheet, hydrofluorosilicic acid--or simply, "fluoride" as it is euphemistically called by its proponents-- is a "20 to 35 per cent aqueous solution. It is a colourless to straw yellow, transparent, fuming, corrosive liquid. It has a pungent odour and irritating action on the skin."
It is not a naturally occurring substance, but rather a by-product of the fertilizer manufacturing process due to anti-pollution measures. Formerly it was released as fluorine gas, until farmers in various locations who lived downwind of the factories noticed that their crops were burning, and their animals dying from strange maladies.
Scrubbers in smokestacks alleviated that problem, but created another: a fluorine-rich waste product that, because of its silicon component, is not suitable for any of the industrial processes that currently rely on fluorinated inputs.
The only use, according to LCI's website, is adding it to our drinking water.
Because, if tradition is any guide, there will be a babel of conflicting science presented on the matter. Proponents in white coats will cite study after study that show a clear net benefit in terms of reduced dental cavities among the public, notably the poor. They'll promptly discredit any studies which show negative or inconclusive outcomes of fluoridation.
Opponents, meanwhile, will present chapter and verse to the contrary. They'll emphasize the potential harm of fluorosis, a discolouration and weakening of teeth that even proponents acknowledge as a possibility. And they'll cite studies that indicate weakened bones among those who have long histories of ingesting fluoridated water.
Somewhere along the line somebody is sure to ask another question. If fluoride is so benign and beneficial, why did the American Dental Association, in 2006, issue a guideline to mothers advising them to use non-fluoridated water in preparing baby formula for the first 12 months?
They will also point to unambiguous remarks like the following, by Dr. J. William Hirzy of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 26, 2001: "In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small--if there are any at all--that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behaviour on the part of governments."
In the summer of 2008, the following two reports reviewed the published studies reporting an association of high fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. The fluoride levels in water in these studies range from 0.88 – 9.4 ppm.
...These studies were conducted in different areas of China, where fluoride concentrations ranged from 2.5 to 4 mg/L. Comparisons were made between the IQs of children from those populations with children exposed to lower concentration of fluoride ranging from 0.4 to 1 mg/L. The studies reported that while modal IQ scores were unchanged, the average IQ scores were lower in the more highly exposed children. This was due to fewer children in the high IQ range. While the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and their relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the collective results warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence. Investigation of other mental and physiological alterations reported in the case study literature, including mental confusion and lethargy, should also be investigated."
"On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.
...children who live in a fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a nonfluorosis area or a slight fluorosis area.
1 chronic fatigue, not relieved by extra sleep or rest
3 dryness of the throat and excessive water consumption
4 frequent need to urinate
5 urinary tract irritation
6 aches and stiffness in the muscles and bones; arthritic-like pains in the lower back, neck, jaw, arms, shoulders and legs
7 muscular weakness
8 muscle spasms, involuntary twitching
9 tingling sensations in the feet and, especially, in the fingers
10 gastrointestinal disturbances: abdominal pains, diarrhoea, constipation, blood in stools, bloated feeling or gas, and tenderness in the stomach area
11 feeling of nausea, flu-like symptoms
12 pinkish-red or bluish-red spots, like bruises but round or oval, on the skin, that fade and clear up in 7–10 days (Chizzola maculae.a They were first recognized by an Italian general practitioner, Dr M Cristofoloni, in the neighbourhood of an aluminium factory near the village of Chizzola in northern Italy).
13 skin rash or itching, especially after showers or bathing
14 mouth sores, also with using fluoridated toothpaste
15 loss of mental acuity and the ability to concentrate
17 excessive nervousness
19 tendency to lose balance
20 visual disturbances, temporary blind spots in the field of vision, a diminished ability to focus
21 brittle nails
22 repeated miscarriages or still births
23 male infertility
24 dental fluorosis with discolouration of the enamel of the front teeth, the central or lateral incisors of the upper and lower jaws
If symptoms remit after avoiding fluoride, little encouragement should be needed to continue to avoid it. Neither laboratory studies on animals nor data on human teeth and bones have provided conclusive evidence that fluoride is essential for life.
Rather than medication for remediation, Dr Susheela recommends proper nutrition to give a diet containing at least 1.0 g of calcium a day together with vitamin C, vitamin E, and other antioxidants such as β-carotene, glutathione, quercetin, allicin, capasaican, ellagic acid, gallic acid, epicatechin, lycopene, glucosinolates, lutein and zeaxanthin. Antioxidants are particularly important in protecting the body from fluoride toxicity. They act as “scavengers” to remove “free radicals” and occur naturally in fresh fruit and vegetables. Vitamin E (α-tocopherol), a potent antioxidant, exerts its protective effect primarily through destruction of cell damaging free oxygen species. Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is an antioxidant with detoxification properties. Calcium may help overcome the hypocalcaemia induced by fluoride and act synergistically with vitamin C.
"Fluoridation fight takes on new intensity"
A local group that successfully fought fluoridation of Lafayette's drinking water in the 1980s has resurfaced to fight the latest attempt mandated by the state.
"Years ago we had a group and kept it out of Lafayette," resident Jean Hunt said. She is a member of Citizens Opposing Fluoridation. "Our goal is to keep it out of the state and definitely out of Lafayette."
"It's a poor medical practice. It is unethical. It is unnecessary," Connett said of adding fluoride to public drinking water.
Engineers can control how much fluoride they add to drinking water supplies, but they cannot control how much water - hence how much fluoride - people consume every day, Connett said.
"You're forcing medication on individuals without their informed consent," which is unethical, Connett said.
Too much fluoride can be harmful, causing thyroid, dental and bone problems, he said.
Fluoridating water is an inefficient way to administer the chemical anyway, since most water is sent down the drain with baths, showers, washing machines and toilets, retired UL Chemical Engineering Professor James Reeves said.
Twenty-three studies in four continents show too much fluoride reduces a child's IQ and causes brittle bones in the elderly, he said.
Fluoridating public drinking water is a controversial and expensive undertaking.
Just the equipment to ready Lafayette Utilities System for fluoridation will cost $654,200. It will cost another $530,000 a year to operate the system once fluoridation is added, Don Broussard, water operations manager, said.
Enamel Fluorosis: ...the committee concludes that the SMCL of 2mg/L adequately protects the public from the most severe stage of the condition (enamel pitting).
Skeletal Fluorosis: ...the existing epidemiological evidence is insufficient for determining whether stage II skeletal fluorosis is occurring in US residents, so no quantitative conclusions could be made about risks or safety at 2mg/L exposure.
Bone Fracture: ...this study alone is not sufficient to base judgment of fracture risk for people exposed to fluoride at 2mg/L in drinking water. Thus, no quantitative conclusions could be drawn about fracture risk or safety at the SMCL.
Originally posted by adrenochrome
reply to post by Whisper67
here's a limited copy of Fluoride in Drinking Water - A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards...
...gotta love factual, scientific evidence!
now put THAT in your pipe and filter it!
[edit on 31-3-2009 by adrenochrome]
On November 9, 2006, the nation's leading fluoride advocate, the American Dental Association (ADA), issued an alert advising parents to avoid fluoridated water when reconstituting infant formula. According to the ADA, babies consuming fluoridated water are at high risk for developing dental fluorosis (a tooth defect that can result in staining and sometimes corrosion of enamel). The advice, however, has gone largely unheeded. Nursery Water, the nation's leading fluoridated water for babies still markets its product nationwide at Wal-Mart and other major retailers.