Kids Fluoride Overdosed - Cavities Increase

June 20, 2006

" Eagle " <nweagle

Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:41:55 -0700

[MedicalConspiracies] Gov't Report Kids Fluoride Overdosed

Kids Fluoride Overdosed - Cavities Increase,

Gov't Report Reveals

American Children are Fluoride Overdosed - Cavities Increase in

Primary Teeth: Gov't Report

New York â€ " September 29, 2005

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 1/3 of six to

nineteen year-olds are fluoride overdosed and display dental

fluorosis - white spotted, yellow or brown and sometimes pitted

or crumbly teeth. (A) While, tooth decay increased in primary teeth

of two - five-year-olds. When the questionable category of fluorosis

is included, as it was in 1945, the report is more dire:

40% of 6-11-year-olds have fluorosis

49% of 12-15 year-olds have fluorosis

42% of 16-19-year-olds have fluorosis

The New York Times reports, " Dr. Burton L. Edelstein, a professor

of clinical dentistry at Columbia University...said, 'the dramatic

finding for young kids is that caries increased 15 percent between

the two periods... According to Dr. Edelstein, the best predictor

of cavities in permanent teeth is the number of cavities in baby

teeth. If this holds true, the next generation of adolescents could

see a significant decline in dental health. " (B) In 1945, dentists

projected water fluoridation would create fluorosis (discolored

teeth) in 10% of the population in its mildest form white spots.

But now, according to the CDC, not only do children and adolescents

suffer from fluoride overdose at rates three to four times over the

1945 projection, but 4% is severe fluorosis yellow or brown stained

and/or pitted or crumbly teeth, which actually decays faster than

healthy dentition.

Fluorosis occurs more often in blacks (42% see table 20) who also

have the highest tooth decay rates (43% of 2 â€ " 11 year-olds). (A)

â€œSince blacks have the most dental fluorosis and the most

cavities, if anything, this report shows fluoride is an ineffective

cavity fighter,says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State

Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. " We are shocked at current media

reports indicating children who drink bottled water lack fluoride

when researchers and government reports clearly indicate a fluoride

glut, " says Beeber.

" Cavities doubled in Kentucky after mandatory fluoridation to

prevent tooth decay, " says Beeber. © Infant formulas prepared with

fluoridated put babies at increased dental fluorosis risk, according

to research published in the Journal of the American College of

Nutrition (JACN) (1) and elsewhere. JACN study co-author Marshall

told Reuters Health, " Very young infants are unlikely to benefit

from the caries-prevention effects of fluorideâ€¦They may

be at increased risk of dental fluorosis. " (1a) To prevent this

tooth staining, researchers caution against mixing infant formulas

with fluoridated water.

Fluorosis is the too-late warning sign that babies overdosed on

fluoride, creating a new lucrative market for dentists - covering up

those fluorosed teeth (6). Neither a nutrient nor essential to

health, fluoride, can also damage bones.(1b) Researchers Marshall and

colleagues found more fluorosed teeth in children who consumed the

most fluoridated water either alone or through infant formulas (1).

In a different study, researchers, Brothwell and Limeback, urge

breastfeeding, or mixing infant formula with non-fluoridated water,

to avoid dental fluorosis, in a November 2003 Journal of Human

Lactation study. They found three times more fluorosis in children

consuming 1 milligram per liter fluoridated water compared to those

who drank non-fluoridated water.(2) Breastfeeding does not increase

cavity risk, according to a recent Journal of the American Dental

Association study (3).

Another researcher AK Mascarenhas, also advised parents to avoid

fluoridated water for infant formula preparation to prevent

fluorosis, in a 2000 Pediatric Dentistry study (4). At least eleven

other studies link reconstituted formula with fluorosis.(5a-k).

" Neither the CDC nor the American Dental Association, who heavily

promote fluoridation warns parents to avoid fluoridated water for

infant feeding. Why not? " asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New

York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. â€œAre they protecting

fluoridation or children?â€ However, the Academy of General

Dentistry does recommend against mixing infant formulas with

fluoridated water. (6a) Formula prepared with optimally fluoridated

water provides 100 times more fluoride than the amount in breast milk

(7). And newborns do not have " fully developed renal handling

capacity for fluoride at this early stage of life... " (8) which can

lead to dangerous bone-fluoride build up and more. Not only is

infant fluoride intake risky, it's unnecessary. According to the

CDC, " Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted? " (9).

Further, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration never safety-tested

fluoride for ingestion (10). In 2000, after extensively reviewing

fluoride and health studies, a panel of British scientists

report, " We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality

evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide, " (11)

despite incorrect news reports disseminated by prominent fluoride

proponents about this review (12).

Fluorosis intake can be lowered by avoiding obvious fluoride sources

and by signing a petition asking for a moratorium on water

fluoridation posted here:

_http://petition.powalliance.org/index.html_

(http://petition.powalliance.org/index.html)

Eleven Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Unions have taken the

unprecedented action to jointly appeal to Congress members for an

immediate national moratorium on water fluoridation and a full

Congressional hearing. They also jointly urged " EPA management to

recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in

people. "

(Access EPA Unionsâ€™ press release at:

_http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm_

(http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%

20Fluoride.htm)

)

END

For more information, contact:

Paul S. Beeber, President & General Counsel

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

PO Box 263,

Old Bethpage, NY 11804

_nyscof_ (nyscof)

_http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof_

(http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof)

References:

A) U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center

for

Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office of

Communication, â€œNew

Report Finds Improvements in Oral Health of Americans,â€ 8/25/05

_http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r050825.htm_

(http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r050825.htm)

B) " Dental Health Getting Worse for Some, Report Says. " By

Nicholas

Bakalar, The New York Times , September 13, 2005

_http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/091305HA.shtml_

(http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/091305HA.shtml)

York

State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation

_http://groups.google.comFluoridation-News-

Releases/browse_thread/thread/e70b0d4fe2bbfd33/87cbed83b58babd8#

87cbed83b58babd8_

(http://groups.google.comFluoridation-News-

Releases/browse_thread/thread/e70b0d4fe2bbfd33/87cbed83b58babd8#87cbed

83b58babd8)

1) " Associations between Intakes of Fluoride from Beverages during

Infancy and Dental Fluorosis of Primary Teeth, "

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abs

tract & list_uids=15047676 & query_hl=17._

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & d%

20b=pubmed & ...)

1a) " Too Much Fluoride May Harm Babies' Teeth, " Reuters Health, May

5,

2004

_http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/05/too_much_fluoride_may_harm_babies_t

eeth.htm

l_

(http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/05/too_much_fluoride_may_harm_babies_t

eeth.html)

1b) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, " Public Health

Statement for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine "

_http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs11.html_

(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs11.html)

2) " Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis in a

nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario, Canada "

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abs

tract & list_uids=14620452 & query_hl=1_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=14620452 & query_hl=1)

3) " The relationship between healthful eating practices and dental

caries in children aged 2-5 years in the United States, 1988-1994 "

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abs

tract & list_uids=14959875 & query_hl=3_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=14959875 & query_hl=3)

4) " Risk factors for dental fluorosis: a review of the recent

literature "

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abs

tract & list_uids=10969430 & query_hl=1_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=10969430 & query_hl=1)

5a)

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=10860326_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=10860326)

b)

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=10343089_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=10343089)

c)

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=9829868_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=9829868)

d)

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=8639113_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=8639113)

e)

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=7776294_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=7776294)

f)

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=2589311_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=2589311)

g)

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=3198847_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=3198847)

h)

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=12925822_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=12925822)

i)

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=11324405_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=11324405)

j)

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=11109209_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=11109209)

k)

_http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2004Hawaii/techprogram/abstract_40477.htm

_

(http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2004Hawaii/techprogram/abstract_40477.htm

)

6) " Using microabrasive material to remove fluorosis stains "

_http://www.pmbrowser.info/pmdi splay.cgi?issn=00028177 & uids=1

5058619_

(http://www.pmbrowser.info/pmdisplay.cgi?

issn=00028177 & uids=15058619)

6a) â€œMonitor Infant's Fluoride Intake,â€ Academy of General

Dentistry,

News Release _ http://www.agd.org/consumer/topics/baby/fluoride.asp_

(http://www.agd.org/consumer/topics/baby/fluoride.html)

7) The Ecologist, 1986, Volume 16 " Fluoride: New Grounds for

Concern, "

By Mark Diesendorf and Philip R.N. Sutton

_http://www.fluoridealert.org/ecologist-1986.htm_

(http://www.fluoridealert.org/ecologist-1986.htm)

8) Caries Research 1984 " Fluoride Balance Studies on Infants in a

1-ppm-water-fluoride area " by Ekstrand J, Hardell LI, SpakCJ

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abs

tract & list_uids=6580961 & query_hl=6_

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=6580961 & query_hl=6)

9) U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

_http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm_

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm)

10) Suite 101 - Fluoridation - includes e-mail correspondence

between

Suite 101 author and the FDA " Fluoride - Not FDA Approved for

Ingestion, " March 21, 2004

_http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/11749/107324_

(http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/11749/107324)

11) " What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water

really found, " 28 October 2003, Centre for Reviews and

Dissemination,

University of York, York, UK

_http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm_

(http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm)

12) National Center for Fluoridation Policy & Research and Oral

Health

America's Center for Fluoridation,

Michael W. Easley, D.D.S., M.P.H.; Director

_http://fluoride.oralhealth.org

/papers/2000/stpetersburgtimes100700.htm_

(http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/2000/stpetersburgtimes100700.ht

m)

For more information

_http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof_

(http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof)

_http://www.FluorideAction.Net_ (http://www.fluorideaction.net/)

June 21, 2006

Summary of govt and medical reports

Join our Email Newsletter

Fluoride problem reporting

Respected Medical Professionals and Scientists

are warning of long-term health consequences.

Read the safety letter dentists refuse to sign.

Daniel, a 13 year old boy, wrote a research report for school.

" I would advise against

fluoridation.. Side-effects cannot be excluded .. In

Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible

with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic

substances. "

- Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000)

" The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm

will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out

any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of

any side effects. " - Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health,

American Medical Association. [letter] " I am appalled at the prospect of

using water as a vehicle for drugs.

Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a

long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable. "

- Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

" E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer

data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other

effects. " - Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A. " Water

contains a number of substances that are undesirable, and fluorides are just one

of them " stated Dr. F. A. Bull, State Dental Director of Wisconsin, speaking at

the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors. These are strong,

deliberate statements.

They are made by the top medical authorities in our nation

based on the latest medical research

.(More quotes by Medical Authorities & Research Scientists)

There are 4 main arguments against water fluoridation:

Any purported benefits of fluoridation are in scientific controversy.

Studies from 50 years ago do not pass muster under today's standards for safety

or effectiveness. Research from the same era also " proved " cigarettes don't

cause cancer.

Even the AMA concedes that no studies were done to determine any side effects

caused by fluoridation. [letter]

The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and

is considered by the FDA as an " unapproved drug " . The proper use of any drug

requires an understanding of how much is too much. Since fluoride is already in

many foods and beverages, an estimated total intake of existing fluoride amounts

is imperative. Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already

receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily

amount.

Constitutional and Civil liberty issues regarding the forced mass

medication of the population when alternative means of reducing cavities are

easily available, such as tooth brushing. Even so-called mandatory school

immunizations provide exemptions for parents who wish not to participate.

The chemicals used for fluoridation are not high

purity, pharmaceutical quality products. Rather they are byproducts of aluminum

and fertilizer manufacturing and contain a high concentration of toxins and

heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. All proven to be carcinogens.

There have been many government sponsored reports - U.S., England and

Canada - which have reviewed the various aspects of fluoridation and all have

questioned the practice. Even UNICEF, the health arm of the United Nations,

warns of fluoride's negative effects.

Unfortunately, most dental professionals have a difficult time accepting that

new medical and scientific understanding often change what we held to be true

decades earlier. This is just human nature.

Dennis Mountjoy, a California Assemblymember, sponsored AB1565, a bill which

required fluoride compounds to tested and approved for safety and effectiveness.

Unfortunately, his colleagues thought his idea was too radical! They believed

our children's health was a secondary consideration when confronted by industry

lobbyists. [read his letter]

Several environmental groups are also on record as opposing fluoridation due

to its impact on plants and animals, including people.

The Center for Children's Health and the Environment, a part of the Mount

Sinai School of Medicine, demonstrates the relationship between exposure to

toxic chemicals and childhood illness.

" Of the thousands of synthetic chemicals on the market, relatively few have

been tested for safety. And even fewer have been tested in combination with

other chemicals. For our health, for our children’s health, such testing should

be in place for all chemicals. " - Center for Children's Health

One of the arguments by those advocating fluoridation is that it's needed to

help the poor kids. The latest report by the Surgeon General, " Oral Health in

America " (May 2000) stated " ..80 percent of Medicaid kids don't receive dental

care because few dentists take Medicaid. " Perhaps the money used to fluoridate

could be better used to subsidize dental care.

Delta Dental, the largest dental insurance company in California advocates

fluoridation and gives grants to cities to who fluoridate. In our local area, we

estimate they given away over $1 million. In what can only be considered a

hypocritical action, Delta Dental advocates fluoridation but won't pay for any

dental repair work caused by fluorosis.

And in a new devious twist, the American Dental Association, acting like

teenage hackers, bought the domain name " www.fluoridealert.com " and

" www.fluoridealert.net " to deceive web surfers away from fluoridation opponents'

website, http://www.fluoridealert.org. Instead, with a slip of a " dot com, "

unsuspecting web surfersare tricked to the American Dental Association's

pro-fluoridation information.

Dr. Hirzy, EPA Sr. Scientist, called for a " moratorium on fluoridation " as he

testified before the U.S. Senate on June 29, 2000 about the dangers of water

fluoridation. Citing numerous studies he said that when the relative toxicity

levels of lead, fluoride, and arsenic were compared, fluoride is slightly less

toxic than arsenic and more toxic than lead. The federal maximum contaminant

level (MEL) for lead is 15 parts per billion (pub), with the EPA recommending 5

pub for arsenic; yet the maximum contaminant level for fluoride has been

established by EPA at 4000 pub.

Even the federal government is concerned about fluoridation. The U.S. Army

Medical Command, MEDCOM, which is in chargeof the Walter Reed Army Medical

Center, in Washington, D.C. and three [input] other major in stallations are

concerned about fluoridating the water supply of Fort Detrick, Maryland. They

contacted an acknowledged expert in neurotoxicity, Dr. Mullenix, and requested

an expert opinion concerning fluoridation. Dr. Mullenix's revealing analysis

stated that " fluoride exposures today are out of control, " and " .. there are no

advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today far exceed the hoped for

benefit. " Dr. Mullenix cites data from 18 clinical studies in her analysis.

A Toxicological Profile done by the Department of Health and Human Resources,

revealed that certain people may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects

of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people

with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with

cardiovascular and kidney problems. Other studies show some people do have an

allergic reaction to fluoride.

Dr. Mullienix is not alone. Dr. James B. Patrick, a Harvard Ph.D and former

NIH (National Inst. of Health) scientist, testified in front the U.S. Congress

in 1982 about why most European nations reject fluoridation.

In Sweden the government sought the opinion of the Nobel Medical Institute,

one of the most prestigious in the world. The Institute recommended against

fluoridation, based largely toxicity, and Swedish water remains unfluoridated.

In a similar manner the French government consulted the Pasteur Institute. That

Institute strongly recommended against fluoridation and France also remains

unfluoridated.

The respected magazine Newsweek, advised the public that " political decisions

[about fluoridation] were at odds with expert advice " and " fluoride from your

tap may not do much good-and may cause cancer. "

In 1992, Newsweek published another fluoride safety related article, " Is

Science Censored? " , a look at how political considerations influence what

scientific studies get published.

A quote from the leading paid advocate for fluoridation,

" a most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs when a

physician or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses their professional

standing in the community to argue against fluoridation, a clear violation of

professional ethics, the principles of science and community standards of

practice " (Michael Easley, Director of the National Center for Fluoridation

Policy & Research).

Comments like these led the associate technical director for Consumers Union,

Dr. Edward Groth, to conclude that

" the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic,

authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open

debate of scientific issues. " (Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social

Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate, 1991)

The University of California at Davis also has interesting things to say

regarding the deceptive use of statistics to promote fluoride. [letter]

No fluoride advocate ever discusses how much fluoride is already being

consumed in the food and beverages we drink. If they did, the truth would be

known that we already consume excessive amounts of fluoride from our diets. The

need for water fluoridation would be unnecessary.

For example, if you have cereal with milk and a Coke, you have overdosed on

fluoride. You have exceeded the American Dental Association's recommended daily

dose by over 130%.

Many juices our children drink are loaded with fluoride, just look at the list

and you can see for yourself. A number of laboratory analysis are available.

If we examine an average elementary school lunch in a nonfluoridated

community, we can get an estimate of how much fluoride our children are actually

receiving. The facts clearly show an overdose of the " recommended " amount of

fluoride in just one school meal.

In Ireland, the Chairman and six other councillors of the Kildare County

Council took a urine test to check the current level of fluoride in their system

after a lecture by a British expert discussed how we are already overdosed on

fluoride. The test showed they had enough fluoride to cause medical concern even

though their community isn't fluoridated.

In 1993, the Environmental Studies and Toxicology Board of the National

Research Council (NRC) reported that fluoridation of municipal drinking water

supplies may result in dental fluorosis in about 10% of the population. You have

a 1 in 10 chance of experiencing tooth damage from water fluoridation!!

Even UNICEF, a United Nations organization, cautions that excess fluoride

exposure negatively affects children's health. In their official position

statement, they state, " But more and more scientists are now seriously

questioning the benefits of fluoride, even in small amounts. "

See what mild fluorosis looks like and then decide if it's o.k. for your

children's teeth to be disfigured.

In 1993, the National Research Council stated African-American children

experience twice the prevalence of dental fluorosis as white children and it

tended to be more severe.

Fluoride advocates also don't want you to know that the chemicals used for

fluoridation are not pharmaceutical quality, rather they are derived from the

waste byproducts of fertilizer manufacturing. Unfortunately, they also contain

heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic. Chemifloc Ltd., a fluoridation chemical

manufacturer, clearly states this in a letter.

NSF, a corporation which developed drinking water standards stated the " most

common contaminant in [fluoridated water] is arsenic " along with other

significant contaminants, such as lead. The chemicals used for fluoridation

exhibit similar toxicity as lead and arsenic but are permitted in 100x

quantities.

Children exposed to lead at levels now considered safe scored substantially

lower on intelligence tests, according to researchers who suggest one in every

30 children in the United States suffers harmful effects from the metal.

“There is no safe level of blood lead,” said Dr. Bruce Lanphear, lead author

of the lead study presented Monday at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual

meeting.

The New England Journal of Medicine reported that the vast majority of cancers

(50%) are caused .. by environmental and behavioral factors such as chemical

pollutants.

Here's an plant in Florida where fertilizer is processed and fluoride is

created as a waste byproduct. Other plants are in Juarez, México. Even more

interesting is the published description, by a large manufacturer, of various

uses of this fertilizer byproduct, such as " Rust and Stain removal for textiles "

and " Wood preservative "

The City of Palo Alto California, home of Stanford University, is well aware

of the dangers of fluoridation. In Palo Alto's published water analysis, they

also identify the source of fluoride, fertilizer manufacturer, and states that

fluoridation damages water pipes [because it dissolves lead out of the pipes

and/or solder joints]

Several states, including Nevada, have laws that identify chemicals used for

pesticides. Included is sodium fluoride, a chemical used for water fluoridation.

The fluoride controversy isn't new. In 1997, the city of Natick Mass.

considered the fluoridation of the town's water supply. In order to sort out

conflicting claims, they commissioned a respected team of top scientists to

analyze the data and make recommendations. The widely read analysis is known as

the Natick Report. The panel of doctors and scientists made 12 very specific

recommendations. In summary, the scientists " emphatically " recommended the water

supply " not be fluoridated. " Their analysis also concluded a host of other

medical problems may ensue from artificially fluoridating the water.

In March 2000, Wilmington Massachusetts also reviewed both sides of the

fluoridation issue and decided against it. The town's Board of Health cited many

critical concerns in their five page summary.

The City of Auburndale Florida was so concerned about the health of workers

handling fluoridation chemicals, they changed what they were doing.

Most recently, the York Report, a review of several hundred selected papers on

fluoridation was published. Profluoridationists touted the report as " proving "

fluoridation was safe. So misleading were their statements, that in an unusual

step, the Chairman in charge of the York Report had to issue a statement a month

later clarifying what was stated in the report, including " The review did not

show water fluoridation to be safe. "

Natick, Wilmington and Auburndale aren't alone. Over 80 cities have rejected

fluoride since 1996, including Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Mtn. View California

in 1985. This includes a number of towns which already were fluoridated.

In an 1998 fluoridation advisory vote in Mtn. View, a small town in northern

California, population 75,000, the American Dental Association (ADA) spent over

$50,000 in a political campaign to promote fluoridation. They paid almost $5 for

every yes vote they received, an expensive campaign by any standards. Perhaps

the money would be better spent towards subsidizing dental care for those who

can't afford it instead of purchasing slick campaign brochures.

The ADA states fluoridation is 100% safe (if not swallowed). Dentists cannot

give a professional opinion of the safety of fluoridated ingested water. The

California Board of Dental Examiners recently issued a letter (Dec. '99) stating

that " Effects of ingested fluoride is not within the purview of dentistry!! "

Dentists can not give a professional opinion as to the safety of fluoridated

water as they would be practicing medicine without a license.

Why doesn't your dentist warn you about the negatives? The ADA simply refuses

to discuss any negatives of fluoridation with member dentists or the public and

wants no public discussion.

According to Section 20 of the American Dental Association Code of Ethics,

" Dentists' non-participation [ in fluoridation promotion] is overt neglect of

professional responsibility. " In recent years, several dentists who have

testified on the anti-fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state

dental officers. If a dentist speaks out against fluoridation, he could lose his

license. This is professional and scientific censorship.

It's also impossible to discuss or debate any ADA member. They simply refuse

to attend any town debate where fluoridation is the topic. Their strategy is not

to expose the subject to common sense. When open minded people hear both sides,

the ADA's arguments fall flat and fluoridation fails.

Perhaps this is why the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) “retaliated”

against Dr. Marcus, an EPA Senior Toxicologist, by firing him in May 1992 for

his scientific reports which recommended removing fluoride from drinking water.

The EPA was sued and found by the Court to have destroyed key documents and lied

about other evidence.

The best proof as to which side current science supports is to prove it in

court with expert witnesses. There were three landmark cases adjudicated since

1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas.

Testimony in the Texas case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully described

the benefits and risks of water fluoridation. Judge Flaherty issued an

injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned

on jurisdictional grounds but his findings of fact were not disturbed by

appellate action.

Here's what Texas Judge Farris said was PROVEN in court.

" That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as

is contemplated by [Houston] City Ordinance No. 80-2530, may cause or may

contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and

chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial

fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that

the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of

tooth decay in man. " - Judge Farris

For researchers, here's the background on California's Law mandating

fluoridation.

From August 1995 to August 1996, the American Dental Association's list of

endorsements diminished by the following eleven national associations and

organizations.

just say NO!

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

We talk research, they plead " trust me " and NEVER talk facts.

God gave us all a brain and expects us to use it.

email us:TellMe*AT*nofluoride.com

(To avoid spammers, replace the *AT* with

the @ symbol for the correct email)

Contact us at:

California, Mtn. View (650) 968-1424

Other U.S & International contacts

The Power of ONE

INFORMATION

Use the following letters as a guide to your own " Letter to the Editor " or to

government officials

Find you California & Federal representatives

Need Promotional Items for your fight?

Join the Nationwide Call for Congressional Hearings on fluoridation

Need a ballot measure?

Here's what you can do to help stop fluoridation.

PRESENTATION MATERIALS

Order our new Video Tape containing TV news reports and interviews with top

researchers.

Download a compelling presentation loaded with " down to earth " information

powerful enough to change most minds.

califpacific <califpacific wrote: " Eagle "

<nweagle