Just What is Fluoride?

[Guest guest]

Just What is Fluoride?

by Jeff Green

http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Fluoride.html

 

Mr. Green, the volunteer director of the nonprofit Citizens for Safe Drinking

Water, has been a management consultant for health providers since 1972. He

created the Dentist Information Bureau, dealing with the public’s questions

regarding dentistry.

 

If one were to ask the average person on the street, “What is fluoride?†the

answer would most likely be, “It’s that stuff they put in toothpaste to

fight tooth decay.†Indeed, after decades of exposure to advertisements

touting

the benefits of fluoride as a super cavity fighter, the common perception of

fluoride as a benign substance used primarily to reduce tooth decay has become

well ingrained in the public persona.

 

For individuals whose only source of information is advertisements, or the

advice of well-meaning professionals who are trusted to be fully informed before

declaring that fluoridated drinking water presents absolutely no risk, the

warnings of adverse health effects are difficult to believe or to put into

perspective. The individuals who object to its use are often characterized as

kooks

and crackpots. But these objections become more reasonable the more one

understands the true nature of fluoride.

 

Fluoride is the term used, and sometimes misused, by laymen and scientists to

indicate a wide variety of substances containing the element fluorine.

Fluorine is the most negatively charged and most chemically active of all

elements

on earth. Contrary to the mythical public image, fluoride substances are prized

by commercial, agricultural, pharmaceutical and military interests for their

extreme corrosivity, high toxicity, ability to inhibit enzyme activity and

ability to disrupt and re-configure molecular bonds. Fluoride is more toxic than

lead, only slightly less toxic than arsenic, and is chemically the most active

seeker of electrons which it “steals†from its neighboring molecules.

 

Commercially, fluoride is used to etch glass, ceramics and computer chips;

refine petroleum products; make ceramic materials more porous; inhibit

fermentation in breweries and wineries; polish aluminum; refine metals; and is

used as

a refrigerant, as a rust remover, and more. In agriculture, fluoride is the

key ingredient in the world’s most widely used insecticides and pesticides.

The

most commonly used fumigant for termites is sulfuryl fluoride (Vikane).

 

Sodium fluoride is a powerful roach killer and rat poison.

 

In medicine, fluoride is used in most general anesthetics and in many

psychotropic drugs. Prozac (fluoxetene), Phen-Fen (fenfluramine, the diet drug

recently removed from the market), and Rohypnol (flunitrazepam, or

“Roofies,†the

date rape drug) are a few recognizable examples of fluoride-based drugs which

affect chemical activity in the brain.

 

In the military, fluoride is used to separate uranium isotopes in the

production of nuclear warheads, in rocket fuels and in certain types of nerve

gas.

One example is Sarin Gas (rated 1,500 times more deadly than cyanide).

 

Since the mid 1940s, fluoride has been added to municipal drinking water

systems in approximately half of the cities in the United States for the alleged

purpose of reducing tooth decay in children. However, results of peer-reviewed

clinical studies and actual statistical analysis involving hundreds of

thousands of people over that same 50+ year time span have caused highly

respected

toxicologists, biologists and medical researchers from all over the world to

challenge the use of fluoride in drinking water. What they have consistently

found is that fluoride ingested into the body (such as drinking fluoridated

water)

produces no identifiable effect on tooth decay; and that fluoride’s decay

prevention effects are solely topical, such as in the use of toothpaste.

 

Ingested fluoride is, however, linked to health risks.

 

On July 2, 1997, the union that consists of and represents all of the

biologists, toxicologists, chemists, engineers and attorneys at the

Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, D.C., voted unanimously to

take a stand against water fluoridation. They cited scientific evidence of

fluoride’s link to increased risk of hip fracture, cancers, bone pathologies,

genetic mutation, and neurological impairment, including lower IQ in children.

Recent science also links fluoride to Alzheimer’s disease, kidney damage,

chronic

fatigue symptoms and sleep disorders.

 

Dental fluorosis, a permanent chalky mottling of the teeth and a window to

fluoride overdose of the entire body, is on the rise, even in non-fluoridated

communities.

 

The U.S. Public Health Service has identified pregnant women, infants,

individuals with heart or kidney disease, the elderly, menopausal women,

diabetics,

and the malnourished as persons most susceptible to fluoride toxicity.

According to the text Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 5th Edition,

lead

is given a toxicity rating between 3 and 4, and fluoride is given a rating of 4

(3 = moderately toxic, 4 = very toxic). On December 7, 1992, the new EPA

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for lead was lowered to 0.015 parts per million

with a goal of zero. The U.S. MCL for fluoride is currently set at 4.0 parts per

million. That’s 266 times higher than lead! One can only speculate how a

discrepancy such as this is allowed to exist.

 

The California EPA did not accept the MCL adopted by the U.S. EPA, and has

established a maximum contaminant level of 2.0 parts per million. But leading

scientists worldwide point out that both the U.S. and California EPA MCL’s are

not protective of the population and do not comply with the more recent 1996

Safe Drinking Water Act that requires that contaminants be evaluated considering

total exposure from all sources. This includes swallowed toothpaste and the

ever-increasing foods and beverages made with fluoridated water or containing

fluoride-based pesticide residue -- not just drinking water.

 

The most common form of fluoride used in public drinking water is

hydrofluosilicic acid. It has never been tested for safety. This chemical is

listed as a

Class 1 hazardous waste by the California Code of Regulations. It is neither

food grade nor pharmaceutical grade, but rather a waste product that comes

straight from the industrial scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. If

not destined for public water supplies, this toxin would have to be disposed of

in the highest-rated hazardous waste facilities at an enormous expense to the

producers. This very same waste product is sold at a profit to municipalities

for addition to drinking water, creating a huge financial incentive to

perpetuate the myth that fluoridated drinking water is somehow good for

children’s

teeth.

 

In October of 1995, despite ample evidence submitted for legislative analysis

detailing the scientific research that links water fluoridation to a long

list of health risks, and with NO credible evidence of decrease in tooth decay,

the California State Legislature voted to fluoridate the public water systems

of the entire state (AB 733).

 

After decades of experimentation, 98 percent of Europe is now

fluoridation-free, as is Japan.

 

Haven’t we all heard health professionals recommend that we increase water i

ngestion as a step to reduce toxicity at the first sign of systemic illness or,

for that matter, to drink more fluids every day? Would that recommendation

still apply if our water was “adjusted†to deliver another substance

intended

to medicate?

 

Total fluoride exposure from all sources

 

In the early 1940’s, prior to the existence of fluoridated toothpaste or the

presence of fluoride in beverages and foods, a concentration of 1 ppm (part

per million) of fluorine in “optimally†fluoridated water was chosen as a

method of delivering 1 mg. (milligram) of fluorine to a child who drinks 1 liter

of

water a day.

 

It was determined at that time by the proponents of fluoridation that a child

ingesting 2 mg. per day was at risk of unacceptable, severe dental fluorosis.

This margin of safety made no allowances for variances in the amount of water

consumed or body weight, and susceptibility was suspect from the very

beginning and hotly contested. However, this rate prevailed in communities that

accepted fluoridation.

 

Dental fluorosis is a disruption of the enamel of the teeth that appears as

white spots, staining and mottling, making the teeth more fracture-prone. Just

as important, it is outwardly visible proof that the child has been poisoned

by overdose from fluoride. The specialized cells that create the enamel are

only present from prebirth until approximately 8 years of age; thus we have this

unique window to how our bones and other calcium-rich tissue are affected by

fluoride for only a short time.

 

What the proponents of fluoridation did not share with the public while

lobbying for fluoridation is that, even at the “optimal†1 mg per day, 10

percent

of all children would display fluoride poisoning.

 

To our knowledge, no community has proceeded with fluoridation after

completing an accurate study of their own community’s total current exposure

to

fluoride, including exposure from all foods, beverages, air, oral care products,

pesticide residues and current level of water fluoridation.

 

The U.S. Health and Human Services (Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks,

1991) reports that, even in nonfluoridated communities, the level of fluoride

exposure ranges from 0.88 mg./day to 2.20 mg./day. In so-called “optimallyâ€

fluoridated communities, citizens are receiving up to 6 and 7 times the stated

goal of 1 mg./day.

 

If a community is already receiving the goal of 1 mg./day from all sources,

why would health-conscious professionals still be pushing for fluoridation?

 

Mass medication exceeds levels recommended for prescription

 

Fluoride drops and tablets are intended to be a controlled dosage substitute

for fluoridated water and prescribed only in nonfluoridated communities. In

1995, the American Dental Association and American Academy of Pediatrics

published revised supplement schedules which recommend to prescribing

professionals

that, in order to prevent overdose, all infants (less than 6 months) receive no

additional fluoride, even in communities with absolutely no fluoride in the

water. The recommended schedules never reach the level found in fluoridated

water for children under 6 years of age.

 

Physicians, pediatricians, and dentists are not able to prescribe even a 1/4,

1/2, or 1 mg. of fluoride drops or tablets without first assessing a patient’

s weight, growth and development, total exposure from all sources, and

individual susceptibility.

 

In 1979, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered that all government

documents remove all references to fluoride as an “essential nutrient†or

even

a “probable essential nutrient.†The FDA has never received or ever

reviewed, much less approved, fluoride drops and tablets for safety or

effectiveness!

 

Who supports mass medication with no control of dosage at a level exceeding

personal physicians’ standardized limitations?

 

Why We Say No to Fluoridation

 

Don’t we have the right to choose for ourselves what foods we will eat and

drink, and the medications we will accept?

 

If one looks beyond the health-related aspects of fluoride, it becomes

evident that the true underlying concern is not about dental health, but about

the

appropriate use of the public drinking water. All Americans possess an

inalienable right to freedom of choice, and that includes the freedom to choose

what

we will eat and drink for the rest of our lives. This universal freedom, upon

which our nation was founded, must not be set aside. No one person should have

to abandon the use of our public’s most precious resource because it has been

converted into a delivery system for a substance which any individual chooses

not to take into their bodies or which they must avoid for medical reasons,

regardless of its alleged benefits.

 

Many people choose to drink alcohol, eat meat, use sugar in coffee, drink

diet sodas, eat spicy foods, smoke tobacco or cigars, etc., but our individual

freedom of choice precludes the majority dictating that those in the minority

must do the same.

 

There are numerous alternatives to using the public water supply for

delivering any product or substance that will not interfere with any

individual’s

right to choose, and still assure full public access.

 

Iodine was added to the water in the 1920’s to reduce goiter (enlargement of

the thyroid), but was soon removed because there is no method to control the

amount of water any one person drinks, or the compounding of the total amount

of exposure from processing the public water.

 

Universal access was accomplished, with each individual’s right to choose

unfettered, by adding iodine to commercially available salt. Should any person

choose to ignore the warnings of adverse effects while in Europe, which is 98

percent fluoridation-free, salt can be purchased with or without iodine, or with

or without fluoride.

 

If the U.S. Public Health Service could produce credible science that would

pass unbiased public and scientific scrutiny proving ingested fluoride actually

reduces tooth decay, and if they were intent on supplying fluoride of

food-grade quality and consistency, they could have made fluoride accessible to

every

person in our nation by adding it to commercially available salt more than

fifty years ago (at no cost to the state!), and thus preserve our individual

right to choose.