Why is the CDC Covering up a Fifty year old Mistake?

[Guest guest]

Why is the CDC Covering Up a Fifty Year Old Mistake?

Roger D. Masters (Research Professor, Dartmouth College)

 

Home

 

Note: The information on this website is not a substitute for

diagnosis & treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.

 

Controversy over " fluoridating " public water supplies has been on the agenda for

half a century. Although the specific chemicals in use raise genuine scientific

questions, most proponents (from the Surgeon General to the American Dental

Association) and critics talk about " fluoridation " without discussing the

difference between sodium fluoride, familiar in toothpaste, and fluosilicic acid

or sodium silicofluoride (jointly called " silicofluorides " ), which are the main

chemicals used for water fluoridation in the U.S. Does the difference matter? If

so, why does a long-delayed CDC report on fluoride treatments carefully list the

chemicals in fluoridated gels and mouthwash, but refuse to mention the chemicals

used in our water supplies?

 

Water fluoridation was begun in the mid 1940's as a ten year experiment to see

if drinking-water with sodium fluoride would reduce tooth decay. All tests of

safety were conducted on sodium fluoride. In 1950, however, the Public Health

Service authorized the substitution of silicofluorides, even though they had

never been tested for effects on health and behavior. Today, over 90% of

fluoridated water (delivered to over 140 million Americans) is treated with one

of the silicofluorides.

 

The switch to silicofluorides about 50 years ago may have been an enormous

mistake. Three years of intensive research, supported by the Earhart Foundation,

has indicated that

 

1. Silicofluorides have never been tested for health and safety, and the EPA

admits it now has no information on the effects of " chronic exposure " to water

treated with them.

2. Silicofluorides do not dissociate completely after injection in public water

supplies and their biochemical effects are not benign.

3. Extensive data analysis (based on three large samples of over 400,000

children) reveals that where silicofluorides are in use, children absorb

significantly higher levels of lead from environmental sources (such as old

housing).

4. Additional studies show that where silicofluorides are in use, there are

higher rates of behavioral problems that have been linked to lead toxicity

(including hyperactivity and other learning disabilities, substance abuse, and

violent crime). These findings are based on a " cumulative loading " model of

environmental risk factors (for the foregoing see

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/ahabs.htm).

 

The CDC and EPA have constantly refused to support objective scientific testing

and have apparently engaged in a cover-up of data suggesting toxicity and

harmful effects due to silicofluorides. The pattern evident in prior reports and

funding decisions is especially noteworthy in the long-delayed CDC report on

" Recommendations for Using Fluroide to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the

United States " (MMWR, Aug. 17, 2001, 50 [RR14] 1-42). This document is silent on

the different health and behavioral effects of silicofluoride treated water

compared to that treated with sodium fluoride. Although the report identifies

the specific chemicals used to add fluoride to mouth rinse (sodium fluoride),

dietary fluoride supplements (sodium fluoride), gel and foam (acidulated

phosphate fluoride, sodium fluoride, or stannous fluoride) or fluoride varnish

(sodium fluoride or difluorsilane), there is no mention of the specific

chemicals used to fluoridate public water supplies or toothpaste (the two

principal sources of fluoride for caries control).

 

Given the foregoing information, informed observers suspect that the CDC

intentionally omitted information to " cover up " the fact that silicofluorides,

although used in over 90th of water fluoridation in the U.S., have never been

subjected to the tests conducted on sodium fluoride or other health products and

medicines. Some CDC personnel know the research questioning silicofluorides, and

in one case attended a presentation of research on their dangers.

 

It is time to discuss openly a toxin that could well contribute to higher rates

of hyperactivity (ADHD) and crime in many American communities. Why should we

allow bureaucrats to block discussion of the differences between either

fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride (toxic byproducts of manufacturing

phosphate fertilizer as well as nuclear fuel and warheads) and sodium fluoride?

Since silicofluorides have never been tested, shouldn't there be a moratorium on

their use until their safety has been proven? If you live in Manhattan, you can

choose non-fluoridated toothpaste but not non-fluoridated water. It's time for

Congressional hearings on an issue that could help our children at virtually no

cost (except for lost revenue to some chemical corporations and embarrassment to

the CDC, EPA, and American Dental Association).

 

 

 

 

The complete " Whole Body " Health line consists of the " AIM GARDEN TRIO "

Ask About Health Professional Support Series: AIM Barleygreen

 

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/AIM.html

 

 

 

 

 

Free online calendar with sync to Outlook.