Dare To Think . . . a message about fluoride

[Guest guest]

Dare To Think

.. . . a message about fluoride

_http://www.all-natural.com/think.html_

(http://www.all-natural.com/think.html)

by Darlene Sherrell

 

Just in time for Children's Dental Health Month, (February 1997) the

Reader's Digest published HOW HONEST ARE DENTISTS?, by William Ecenbarger,

winner of

the George Polk Award for Investigative Journalism. The article revealed

that in 28 states dentists examined the same set of x-rays and the same set of

pearly whites, and then recommended widely differing treatments, with price

tags to match: $500.00 to $29,850.00. They didn't seem to know what to do or

how much to charge for doing it. " I got 50 opinions, " Ecenbarger writes, " and I

am not comforted. "

This article, however, barely scratches the surface with regard to

dishonesty. For decades, the American Dental Association has worked hand in

glove with

industry to cover up the toxic properties of fluoride, causing untold pain

and suffering among an unsuspecting population urged to trust their dentists,

trust their government, trust their political leaders, no matter what.

In the early 1930s, when American Dentistry was becoming aware of the damage

fluoride can cause during the development of our children's teeth, there was

a great call to remove the fluoride naturally present in water supplies.

Communities in sixteen states had observed disfiguring stains and pits in their

children's teeth. In 1940 the Journal of Dental Research contained a report

describing a survey of the inhabitants of St. David, Arizona, where water

supplies contained 1.6 to 4 parts per million of fluoride There was no apparent

dental benefit from fluoride. In fact, more than half the people in all age

groups over the age of twenty-three had artificial dentures. With this new

awareness came fear.

Industries necessary for the production of electricity, aluminum,

refrigerants, pesticides, etc., were facing costly litigation due to an

emerging

environmental consciousness. The Country was facing a great dilemma: impossible

choices involving survival. Our military forces could not function without the

tools of war -- tools that could simply not be made if we were going to

restrict the release of fluoride into our environment. Emissions from

smokestacks,

and in wastewater could not be limited beyond a certain degree, and laborers

could not be given the benefit of an absolutely safe workplace.

Today, there are near-daily news reports covering past mistakes -- not

because of conspiracies, but good intentions -- the pavement, they say, on the

road to Hell. Today, as then, we are being led by persons with a hidden agenda.

The promoters of water fluoridation who speak through the mouth of the

American Dental Association are not isolated from those whose concerns are

manufacturing costs. Instead, they are one.

Years ago, when I found dozens of discrepancies between the descriptions

(abstracts) of scientific journal articles and the journal articles themselves;

I also found that the U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental

Association actually prefer to rely on the abstracts -- even though the

discrepancies involve the movement of decimal points, and simple errors in

arithmetic.

Like Ecenbarger, I was not comforted . . . it didn't make sense.

Particularly disturbing were the discrepancies involving the quantity of

fluoride capable of destroying a child's smile or causing osteoporosis,

arthritis, lower back pain, heartburn, stomach cramps, diarrhea. These were not

theories, but descriptions of the fate of hundreds of millions of people who

developed Dental Fluorosis or Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis. . . not necessarily

from fluoridated water, but from fluoride -- regardless of the source.

Although few of us are aware of the truly ubiquitous nature of fluorides, or

their role in our lives and our history; we all understand the words

overdose and side effect. Sooner or later, we must face the fact that our

children

are threatened, as we are, by a legacy of errors. The time has come for common

sense, and change.

The U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental Association are

currently promoting the idea of universal mandatory water fluoridation. Why?

Their

own experts point out that cavity rates have decreased worldwide, without

regard to the fluoride in a water supply . . . and without any connection

between the fluoride in children's teeth and their experience with cavities.

There's no benefit in exceeding the recommended dose, they say. On the

contrary,

the U.S. Public Health Service says fluoride makes dental enamel more porous,

and makes bone more brittle.

During the last twenty years Uncle Sam's Experts have had a great deal to

say about the nature of fluoride . . . things everyone should know. The problem

is that Policy requires that these things never see the light of day. They

lie buried under executive summaries and official interpretations handed out

in press releases. . . but facts are facts -- no matter whose slick mouthpiece

or distinguished scientist tries to tell you otherwise. Most of what you

think you know about fluoride just isn't so. Consider the facts . . . check the

references, and dare to think.

According to the National Research Council's 1993 review " It has been

calculated that the amount of fluoride ingested with toothpaste (or mouth

rinse) by

children who live in a community with optimally fluoridated water, who have

good control of swallowing, and who brush (or rinse) twice a day is

approximately equal to the daily intake of fluoride with food, water, and

beverages.

In the case of younger children or those who, for any other reason, have poor

control of swallowing, the daily intake of fluoride from dental products

could exceed dietary intake.

" Investigators seeking to examine the possible relation between fluoride

intake and health outcomes, such as dental caries, fluorosis, or quality of

bone, need to be aware of the complex situation that exists today. It is no

longer feasible to estimate with reasonable accuracy the level of fluoride

exposure simply on the basis of concentration in drinking water supply. "

Although the recommended " upper limit " for children is 0.04 to 0.07

mg/kg/day (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day), and the " optimum "

is 0.04

mg/kg/day; the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council

(NAS/NRC) reported in 1993: " Recent estimates of daily intake of fluoride from

food and drink by North American children up to 2 years of age are 0.01 to 0.16

mg/kg in areas without fluoridation and 0.03 to 0.13 mg/kg in areas with

fluoridation. "

In 1951, NAS/NRC wrote: " For practical public health purposes, it has been

proposed that a safe level has been reached when not more than 10 to 15 per

cent of children age 12-14 years, who have used water supplies since birth, and

who have been examined under standard conditions, show the mildest

detectable type of mottled enamel "

In 1993 NAS/NRC reported that in optimally fluoridated Augusta, Georgia,

80.9% of the children aged 12-14 had mottled enamel due to excess fluoride.

Most

was mild to very mild, but moderate to severe fluorosis was found in 14% of

the children. Some studies, they report, have found that with increasing

fluoride, the number of cavities increases as well. They also note, " the most

severe forms of dental fluorosis might be more than a cosmetic defect if enough

fluorotic enamel is fractured and lost to cause pain, adversely affect food

choices, compromise chewing efficiency, and require complex dental treatment. "

 

In 1977 the National Research Council (NAS/NRC) reported: " The possibility

of mutagenesis due to hydrogen fluoride is potentially important in cancer of

the stomach. ... the much higher stomach cancer rates in Japan are related to

intake patterns that are compatible with a hypothesis that fluoride is the

crucial factor involved. "

NAS/NRC also noted that " a retention of 2 mg/day would mean that an average

individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 years, based on an

accumulation of 10,000 ppm fluoride in bone ash. " It is generally agreed that

approximately one-half of the total daily intake of fluoride will be retained.

.. . thus, according to our most prestigious scientists, the ingestion of

less than 5 milligrams (mg) of fluoride daily will result, after 40 years, in

the condition called Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis.

In 1977, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

explained, " Fluorine and some of its compounds are primary irritants of skin,

eyes, mucous membranes, and lungs. Thermal or chemical burns may result from

contact ... even when they involve small body areas (less than 3%) can cause

systemic effects of fluoride poisoning by absorption of the fluoride through

the skin. " Brief exposure to inhaled fluorine " has caused sore throat and

chest pain, irreversible damage to the lungs, and death. Gastrointestinal

symptoms of nausea, vomiting, diffuse abdominal cramps and diarrhea can be

expected.

Large doses produce central nervous system involvement with twitching of

muscle groups, ... convulsions, and coma. " Fluoride is the active ingredient in

the deadly nerve gas, Sarin, and in the fungicide Flusilazole, which caused

crop damage and physical ailments in 40 states in the early 90s. Teflon is a

fluoride product, as is freon.

In the 1940s, the U.S. Public Health Service was reporting a total daily

fluoride intake from typical diets in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 milligrams. If

the

drinking water contained about 1 part per million fluoride, the total daily

intake could be expected to reach about 1 to 1-1/2 milligrams.

By the 1970s, the total from dietary sources had increased to as much as

3.44 mg/day, even in non-fluoridated areas; and by 1991, the range in total

daily dosage had exceeded 6-1/2 milligrams in areas said to enjoy optimal

fluoridation; exceeding 7 mg/day in areas having 2 or more ppm in the water

supply.

Once confined almost exclusively to drinking water, fluorides now reach us

from a variety of sources, including virtually every food and beverage item;

as well as dental products and drugs.

" Whereas dental fluorosis is easily recognized, " said the World Health

Organization in 1970, " the skeletal involvement is not clinically obvious until

the advanced stage of crippling fluorosis ... early cases may be misdiagnosed

as rheumatoid- or osteo-arthritis. "

If we place our trust in the wisdom of the American Dental Association, and

their pamphlet, Fluoridation Facts, we learn that for adults, " The

possibility of adverse health effects from continuous low level consumption of

fluoride

over long periods has been studied by the National Academy of Sciences. The

Academy found that the daily intake required to produce symptoms of chronic

toxicity after years of consumption, is 20 to 80 milligrams or more depending

upon body weight. Such heavy doses are associated with water supplies that

contain at least ten parts per million of natural fluoride. " However, if we

take the time to check the World Health Organization reference cited by the

ADA,

we can immediately see that the dosage figures are just 2 to 8 mg per day,

and the water supplies generally contain less than 1 part per million of

natural fluoride.

The reference cited by NAS/NRC describes the development of Crippling

Skeletal Fluorosis after exposures of eleven years duration, with a daily total

expressed as 0.2 to 0.35 mg/kg/day. . . the equivalent, in terms of lifetime

exposure to 2 milligrams daily for each 110 pounds of body weight. (lifetime =

55 to 96-1/4 years)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that 2 is considerably less

than 7 -- trusting your dentist in the matter of water fluoridation requires

a certain leap of faith.

NIOSH connects the dots between dentistry, industry, and fluoride in listing

the various sources and uses of fluoride: " Elemental fluorine is used in the

conversion of uranium tetrafluoride to uranium hexafluoride, in the

synthesis of organic and inorganic fluorine compounds, and as an oxidizer in

rocket

fuel.

" Hydrogen fluoride, hydrofluoric acid, and its salts are used in the

production of organic and inorganic fluorine compounds such as fluorides and

plastics; as a catalyst, in the petroleum industry; as an insecticide; and to

arrest

the fermentation in brewing. It is utilized in the aluminum industry, in

separating uranium isotopes, in cleaning cast iron, copper and brass, in

removing effloresence from brick and bone, in removing sand from metallic

castings,

in frosting and etching glass and enamel, in polishing crystal, in enameling

and galvanizing iron, in working silk, in dye, and analytical chemistry, and

to increase the porosity of ceramics. Fluorides are used as an electrolyte in

aluminum manufacture, in smelting nickel, copper, gold, and silver, as a

catalyst for organic reactions, a wood preservative, a fluoridation agent for

drinking water, a bleaching agent for cane seats, in pesticides, rodenticides,

and as a fermentation inhibitor. They are utilized in the manufacture of

steel, iron, glass, ceramics, pottery, enamels, in castings for welding rods,

and

in cleaning graphite, metals, windows, and glassware. Exposure to fluorides

may also occur during preparation of fertilizer from phosphate rock. "

When I wrote to the National Academy of Sciences asking for the source of

the 20 to 80 mg/day figures in the ADA pamphlet, they said the figures came

from Harold C. Hodge, Ph.D., who was formerly Chairman of the NAS/NRC Committee

on Toxicology. Dr. Hodge was also a consultant to several industries,

involved in the development of the atomic bomb, worked with the Atomic Energy

Commission, and participated in panels convened by NAS/NRC in 1951 and 1953.

Panel

chairman, Kenneth Maxcy, was consultant to the Secretary of War and editor

for one of the leading industrial health journals. Panel member Francis Heyroth

was Assistant Director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of

Cincinnati -- source of the abstracts used by the ADA as well as the Dental

Division of the Public Health Service. Kettering's sponsors included aluminum,

steel, petroleum, and chemical companies; and Kettering's director, Robert

Kehoe, was medical director of the Ethyl Corporation, consultant to the

Tennessee

Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission, the U.S. Air Force, and the

Division of Occupational Medicine of the Public Health Service. He was a

primary spokesman for the safety of fluoridation, and also testified for the

safety of atmospheric lead from auto exhausts.

Hodge prepared a chart of fluoride effects for NAS/NRC in 1953, naming

Roholm as his data source; and offered it in testimony before Congress in 1954,

as

they considered a bill to outlaw water fluoridation.

However, in order to convert the original data into a milligram per day

figure, Hodge had to apply the mg/kg figures to a typical range in body weight.

He chose 100 to 229 pounds. . . multiplying 100 times 0.2 to get 20 mg/day,

and then multiplying 229 times 0.35 to get 80 mg/day -- the dosage in his chart

and in the ADA pamphlet. Hodge had neglected to convert pounds to kilograms;

and in doing so, he created an artificial margin of safety for water

fluoridation. The erroneous figures found their way into hundreds of pamphlets,

magazine articles, journals, and textbooks; unchecked for forty years.

The fluoride that is added to community water supplies does not come from a

clean laboratory -- it comes with the rest of the scrubber water from the

smokestacks of the fertilizer or aluminum industry. . . contaminated with other

poisons in small but measurable quantities that industry considers safe. Just

think of the savings!

The erroneous 20-80 mg figures created by the alliance of dentistry,

industry, and national security made this possible. However, the error was

corrected

by the National Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and

Toxicology in the 1993 review for EPA titled Health Effects of Ingested

Fluoride.

(page 59)

Although the new figures are 10 to 20 mg/day for 10 to 20 years, the total

quantity of fluoride ingested is the single most important factor in

determining the clinical course of skeletal fluorosis. The severity of symptoms

correlates directly with the level and duration of exposure, so that the

advanced

crippling stages can occur at any age, and has been reported even in pediatric

age groups. If the time span is expanded to 40 to 80 years, the intake

producing crippling would be 2-1/2 to 5 mg/day.

The symptoms of phase one skeletal fluorosis include sporadic pain and

stiffness of joints, with minor osteosclerosis of the pelvis and vertebral

column.

Phase two is described as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, slight

calcification of ligaments, increased osteosclerosis of cancellous bones, with

or without osteoporosis of the long bones; and phase three, limitation of

joint movement, calcification of ligaments in the neck and vertebral column,

crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, muscle wasting, and

neurological defects with compression of the spinal cord. The condition has

been

observed in many countries throughout the world, but has never been a

" reportable

disease " in the United States.

This, then, is the risk we face with excess fluoride; and since fluoride is

the 13th most abundant element and widely distributed throughout the earth,

arthritis from fluoride has been a threat since the earliest times.

There is also the strong possibility of a connection between fluoride intake

and kidney stones. In 1987 the fifth edition of Trace Elements in Human and

Animal Nutrition was published by Academic Press; edited by Walter Mertz,

U.S. Department of Agriculture. It describes symptoms including headache,

gastrointestinal problems, and the arthritic complaints mentioned earlier;

adding,

" Although the exact genesis of renal stones in fluoride toxicity is not

known, it is conjectured that insoluble calcium fluoride is deposited in the

urinary tract as a nucleus around which other salts are deposited. " They also

discuss " neighborhood fluorosis, " caused by the discharge of fluoride in

smokestack emissions, mentioning reports from Ohio, where Chi Vit, an enamel

factory

in Urbana, managed to avoid the purchase of smokestack scrubbers in the late

1970s. As is the custom, the American Dental Association provided speakers to

assure residents that fluoride is harmless. Anyone who disagreed was

obviously misinformed, they said. " Trust your dentist. "

In 1977, NIOSH explained, " Substances that act chemically to produce injury

to organs and tissues of the body usually do so by two basic means: either by

depressing or by stimulating the activity of the enzyme systems. A single

substance may have more than one pathway and site of action. Multiple pathways

of action may be invoked simply by differing doses of the toxic agent; low

doses may stimulate enzyme action, high doses depress and inhibit the same or

different enzyme systems. This is a characteristic action of most, if not all,

toxic substances, including arsenic, benzene, chloroform, cobalt, fluoride,

and vanadium.

" Potentiation and synergism, the enhanced toxicity of two or more

simultaneously acting substances, can be explained by the action of one

preventing the

elimination or the metabolism of the other, wholly or in part, thus

maintaining elevated systemic levels of the toxic agent, resulting in an

observed

toxicity greater than the additive toxicity of the combined components.

NIOSH quotes: " A. Marier, in his report, Environmental Fluoride, states that

'In several surveys in which sulphur dioxide had been suspected as the

primary air pollutant, fluoride was found to be the factor responsible for

environmental blight.' He points out that industries that release fluoride

effluents

also use fossil fuel as an energy source, thereby emitting significant

quantities of sulphur dioxide, and comments on possible synergistic effects.

'Synergistic' means that a substance stimulates and enhances the effect of

another

substance. Thus, if the two occur together, the combined effect would be

greater than the sum of either occurring alone. It is a phenomenon well known

in

pharmacology, but it does not appear to have been seriously considered in

connection with fluoride from the medical point of view. So far, only

environmentalists have looked at it.

" A large number of pesticides, chiefly organic phosphates and carbamates,

act in the body by blocking this enzyme action, thus allowing excessive amounts

of the muscle stimulator to accumulate. The excessive stimulation results in

paralysis of the host. "

If all this comes as a surprise to you, it is precisely because too many

civic leaders, and others, have trusted their dentists in matters that have

nothing to do with dentistry. Even more alarming, according to William L.

Marcus,

Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Office of Science and Technology,

Environmental Protection Agency, " the levels of fluoride found in the bones of

rodents

who had osteosarcoma (bone cancer) was lower than the level found in human

adults exposed to allowable levels of fluoride ... with the exception of

fluoride, no other compounds including radioactive compounds, have been able to

produce osteosarcomas in rodents. "

Children have died in the dentist's chair after treatment with topical

fluoride. Adults have died during kidney dialysis when fluoride spills occurred

but were not reported. Household products, including toothpaste, have caused

serious illness among unsuspecting consumers.

In February of 1972 the ADA reported that in fluoridated cities, the

dentists reaped a net profit 17% higher than in nonfluoridated cities. And,

today,

although the vast majority of children are already showing clear signs of

fluoride overdose, dentists follow the party line, arguing for universal

mandatory water fluoridation, while ignoring current studies showing no

significant

difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas

worldwide.

In summary: documents sent to me by the National Academy of Sciences

Institute of Medicine, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control,

describe

increasing numbers of children whose teeth require complex dental treatment

because of excess fluoride; and adults with headaches, back pain,

gastro-intestinal problems, arthritic symptoms, and hyperparathyroidism; but no

correlation between cavities and the fluoride incorporated into dental enamel,

except

that with increased dosage, cavities tend to increase as well.

In 1979, Edward Groth III, Senior Staff Officer, Environmental Studies

Board, National Research Council, wrote: " ...the politically minded zealots

have

used tactics of intimidation, professional and financial reprisals, derogatory

personal attacks, and relentless public relations propaganda to silence

scientific critics, to prevent the publication of adverse evidence, and to make

politically untenable any interpretation except the official view, that

fluoridation is absolutely safe. Can scientific evidence really be suppressed

in

the free world? Easily. "

Obviously, things are not always what they seem. . . bargains not always

bargains; and, as Francis Bacon observed, " Nothing doth more hurt in a state

than that cunning men pass for wise. "

 

REFERENCES

1. The Merck Index - An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and

Biologicals (1996) #8520 Sarin

2. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride (1993) National Academy of

Sciences

3. Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks (1991) U.S. Dept. Health &

Human Services, p.17,46

4. Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition (1987) editor: Walter

Mertz, U.S.D.A.

5. Occupational Diseases - A Guide to Their Recognition (1977) NIOSH,

(U.S.Dept. H.E.W.)

6. Drinking Water and Health (1977) National Academy of Sciences, page

372

7. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1974) volume 27, pages

590-594

8. Fluorides - Biological Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants (1971)

National Academy of Sciences, pp. 211,218

9. Fluorides and Human Health (1970) World Health Organization, pages

37,239,240

10. The Role of Fluoride in Public Health (1963) Kettering Laboratory,

University of Cincinnati, Ohio

11. Fluoride Drinking Waters (1962) F. J. McClure, Editor, U.S.D.H.E.W.

12. Fluoridation: Facts, Not Myths (1957) American Dental Association

13. Fluoridation as a Public Health Measure (1954) James H. Shaw, Editor,

page 49

14. American Journal of Public Health (December 1952) volume 42, page

1568

15. Fluorine Intoxication (1937) K. Roholm, H.K. Lewis & Co., Ltd.,

London, page 319

16. Journal of Dental Research (1933) volume 13, page 139,140

17. Fluoridation Facts, American Dental Association

 

__

 

__

 

Who is Darlene Sherrell?

 

The Detroit News headline for March 28, 1978 read, " State study to find out

if we're fluoride OD's. The article quoted Craig Ruff, an aide to Governor

Milliken: " It's a good example of what one citizen on a white horse can do. " On

the previous day, in the capitol, the State Journal quoted Dr. Maurice

Reizen, Director of the Michigan Department of Public Health, who said " There

is

nobody more knowledgable or dedicated on this subject than Darlene Sherrell. "

In a recent talk, she described herself as follows:

Ladies and Gentlemen. I have often been asked questions about my credentials

.. . . my background . . . my qualification to speak or write about fluoride

.. . . my right, so to speak, to disagree with a dentist or physician.

So, let's get it over with. Beyond what I learned at my mother's knee, plus

a few of the tricks of arithmetic from my father, I am largely self-educated.

Take a look at my school records and you'll find I missed a great deal of

time because of illness.

However, at twenty-seven I was the administrative assistant to the Chief

Judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals, in charge of preparing the budget,

maintaining the library, checking the citations in opinions, recruiting new law

clerks, purchasing, public relations, etc. I had a large office to myself, with

my name on the door, a state car and expense account, and was expected to

keep the other judges on their toes with respect to getting their opinions

written on time.

After leaving the court I worked as research associate for the American

Business Men's Research Foundation, an educational organization concerned with

beverage alcohol. We produced educational materials for schools and helped

bring about recognition of fetal alcohol syndrome.

Still later, my concern for the environment and growing knowledge of

nutrition and agricultural practices caused me to gather a group of people

together

for the purpose of establishing a new 501c3 -- a non-profit tax-exempt

foundation -- which I called Orenda. We taught classes in natural foods

cooking,

co-op buying, organic gardening methods, solar and wind power, identifying wild

edible plants, herbal remedies, etc. I published a monthly newsletter called

The Golden Thread. With the exception of $15.00 to file the original papers,

everything was done by the barter method. . . with contributions paying for

postage and materials costs.

During my early youth I suffered with arthritis, asthma, gastrointestinal

problems, and chemical sensitivities. When I was eighteen an episode with

anaphylactic shock almost killed me. Within a year, there were two others, less

severe. Until the age of twenty five, my medical problems were a mystery.

I began to study nutrition, and within a year, every sign of arthritis,

allergies, chronic fatigue, etc. were gone. . . but still, I had no knowledge

of

fluoride. Without realizing it, I was avoiding fluoride.

In 1976, while living in Lansing, Michigan, I met our local typical little

old lady in tennis shoes, carrying a large paper shopping bag full of tattered

newspaper clippings and copies of magazine articles about fluoride. She told

me fluoride caused cancer and was put into our water to keep us docile. I

was 35, she was in her mid- 60s, and I immediately classified her as a nutcase.

Then, one day, I got curious and looked in my pharmacology book to see what

I could find about fluoride. What I found changed my life.

I learned that when the drinking water contained about one part per million

of fluoride, 10 to 15 percent of the children would show a faint change in

the appearance of their teeth called dental fluorosis; but with 2 or 3 parts

per million, nearly all will be affected by this first and only visible sign of

fluoride poisoning. I also learned that fluoride is the key ingredient in a

widely used cancer drug called 5-FU. The cells die because fluorine enters

into one of the molecules in DNA -- the genetic material.

At that time, I lived very near to Michigan State University, was not

employed, and was able to spend as much time as I needed at the science

library.

Not having gone to college, I was unaware of the indexing which makes a search

of the literature much easier. I began my study with the year 1930, and the

dental journals. This was before computers took over. I pulled each book off

the shelf and looked at the index in the back, searching for anything

mentioning fluoride. With each article I found references to other articles,

and the

names of other journals. I carried rolls of nickels and made copies to read

at home. There were well over a thousand, spanning the years to 1976, and have

been many more since then.

Now, let me tell you. When a person of my age sees The Atomic Energy

Commission listed as the sponsor of an article about tooth decay, it brings up

a red

flag. . . and when an article called Toxicological Evidence for the Safety

of Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies is based on studies involving " a man,

or six people in South Africa, two people, heights and weights, pediatric

exams, rabbits, sheep, cattle, swine, pooled urine samples, and x-rays, " it

doesn't require much intelligence to suspect that something is wrong. Comments

such as " we excluded everyone with symptoms of disease, no matter how mild, "

will grab the attention. After all, what were they looking for, if not

symptoms of disease. These were safety studies!

During the early years, before anyone suggested adding fluoride to the water

supply, everyone seemed hell-bent on removing it.

H. Trendley Dean, who later became known as the " father of fluoridation "

wrote about an apparent tendency to a higher incidence of gingivitis, and a

greater proportion of filled teeth lost due to their brittleness. He wrote " The

same amount of fluorine that causes a mild toxic reaction in one individual

may cause a severe reaction in another. In other words, we are dealing with a

low-grade chronic poisoning of the formative dental organ, . . . some authors

have called attention to an apparent delay in the eruption of permanent teeth

of children living in endemic areas. "

In 1942, an article in The Lancet reported, " The family derived their water

from a surface well containing at different times 0.3 to 1.2 ppm fluorine.

All the children show severe dental fluorosis with pitting of the teeth. " In

another article, in the journal Radiology, skeletal fluorosis is described in

an area having just 1.2 ppm fluoride in the water supply. . . though most

reviews describe this case with the erroneous figure 12 ppm.

The Journal of the American Dental Association reported that at 1.6 to 4

ppm, 50% or more past age 24 have false teeth because of fluoride damage to

their own. . . and the journal Oral Surgery reported mottled enamel at 0.5 ppm

fluoride. This was at a time when the food supplied only 0.2 to 0.3 milligrams

of fluoride daily, and there was no such thing as fluoride toothpaste or

mouthwash.

I noticed that after 17 years of fluoridation in Grand Rapids, 19.3% of

continuous resident white children, and 40.2% of continuous resident black

children had dental fluorosis.

In poverty areas of Puerto Rico, according to the American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition, there was relatively little reduction in dental caries, but

dental fluorosis was common.

I learned that the original suggestions for benefits from fluoride came from

industries being sued for fluoride pollution, and that fluorides have caused

more damage to crops and livestock than any other airborne pollutant . . .

and learned that the fluorides added to city water supplies are not naturally

occurring calcium or magnesium fluoride, but the contents of smokestack

scrubber water -- difficult to dispose of because they are so corrosive, and so

deadly to all living things.

In the areas of Texas, where dental health was good, the soil and water

contained elements which help to de-toxify fluorides. An article in Caries

Research reported that 42 elements can be incorporated into developing enamel.

The

Journal of the American Dental Association reported that " There was no

significant difference in the fluoride content of high and low caries

individuals, "

and strontium was more closely associated with dental health. The journal

Archives of Oral Biology reported: " Studies which show that there are

substantial differences in caries prevalence between localities which have

equivalent

fluoride concentrations in water supplies substantiate the possible role of

other trace elements. "

I found several reports of skeletal fluorosis -- from areas having less

fluoride in the water supply than EPA considers safe today. . . and in reading

the Occupational Health journals, noticed that over the years the

pre-employment physicals included measurements of fluoride in urine which were

higher and

higher as the years passed. The rules for Workmens Compensation were

established to eliminate anyone whose exposure to fluoride was below the 20 to

80

milligram per day mark, for 10 to 20 years -- an erroneous figure established

by

Harold Hodge in 1953.

Each time I wrote to the Michigan Department of Public Health asking about a

particular point, the answer contained references to journal articles, but

the articles themselves failed to support the answers.

Eventually, I learned that the Public Health Service used abstracts -- not

journal articles -- and that was the difference between my opinion and theirs.

They were following industries' version, which often included the movement

of decimal points or significant differences in describing study methods. . .

and with these side-by-side examples, easy enough for a child to see and

understand; I was able to convince the Governor of my State, as well as several

legislators, to abandon their faith in the advice of the experts at Public

Health.

One day, in a fruitless attempt to instruct the chief of the dental

division, I showed him several dozen examples of the side-by-side discrepancies

--

using only the most obvious. After looking at the fraudulent abstracts, he

said, " Look, lady, if the abstracts don't agree with the originals, there must

be

something wrong with the originals. " He went on to explain that he had been

involved when fluoridation began in Grand Rapids . . . they had always used

the abstracts from the Kettering Laboratory, he said, . . . they must be

right!

Now, as I said earlier, I did not go to college, and have no claim to

superior intelligence regarding water fluoridation; but, when I see studies

involving rats that show increasing cavities with increasing doses of fluoride,

or

studies involving pooled urine samples which have been controlled for fluoride

content ahead of time, or see the major proportion of the data rejected in

order to support a pre-determined conclusion, and see that almost all of the

books used by the Public Health Service have been funded by industries

threatened with litigation due to fluoride pollution; my nose knows. . .

something

smells of deception.

I have kept up a correspondence with the U.S. Public Health Service for over

twenty years, asking in vain for the name of just one safety study in which

the researchers actually looked for the symptoms of skeletal fluorosis.

According to all that I can find, these occur prior to the advanced crippling

stage of the disease when x-rays are useful. I have asked to know why no

physicians have ever been allowed to report cases of skeletal fluorosis. I have

asked

why EPA's maximum contaminant level for fluoride in drinking water does not

take into account the fluoride ingested from foods, dental products, or other

beverages -- which, today, usually represent three-quarters of the daily

dosage in a fluoridated area. I've asked why, with all the mounting evidence of

overdosage, they still want to add more fluoride to our diet.

In 1989 I began writing to the National Academy of Sciences, asking for the

basis of their 20 to 80 mg/day threshold dosage for skeletal fluorosis. These

figures appear in the American Dental Association's pamphlet, Fluoridation

Facts, as well as in numerous magazine articles, journals, textbooks, etc.

After more than two years, the Academy identified Hodge's interpretation of

Roholm as the data source.

Roholm studied the effects of fluoride on cryolite workers who were exposed

to 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day for

several years. Although some developed crippling skeletal fluorosis in a

very short time, in general, after 2-1/2 years, the first stage of the disease

appeared. After 4-1/2 years, the second stage; and after 11 years, crippling

skeletal fluorosis appeared.

Simple arithmetic told me that either Hodge was assuming that these men

weighed as much as 1600 pounds, or he was severely challenged mathematically.

It

was obvious he had neglected to convert pounds to kilograms when he applied

Roholm's data to a typical range in body weight (100 to 229 pounds). He simply

multiplied 0.2 times 100 to get 20, and multiplied 0.35 times 229 to get 80

milligrams. Then, rather than say 11 years or less, he said 10 to 20 years.

Because this error involved arithmetic, rather than scientific opinion, and

because I had the support of Dr. Robert J. Carton, who was, at that time, a

senior official at EPA, and Senator Bob Graham of Florida; the National

Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology was forced to

correct the 40-year old error.

Their new figures agree with the data source, and are equivalent to 2-1/2 to

5 milligrams of fluoride daily for 40 to 80 years. With approximately half

the daily dosage, or half the time, the second stage of fluorosis can be

expected. . . but the symptoms are not considered " adverse health effects, " and

are not currently included in regulations governing the amount of fluoride

allowed in water -- or anything else. These early symptoms are not crippling,

but

simply arthritis and osteoporosis.

Over the years, everything I have written about fluoride has been confirmed

in official documents published by Uncle Sam. In 1976, without knowing the

term itself, I wrote about hyperparathyroidism -- the effect of fluoride on the

calcium content of our blood. . . which is regulated very closely by the

parathyroid gland, and results in osteoporosis. I was concerned about

increasing

numbers of children whose teeth would need expensive dental treatment

because of fluoride damage, and concerned about people whose arthritis would be

caused by excess dietary fluoride. I managed to change the law in Michigan,

giving people the right to vote on the issue of water fluoridation. Michigan

was

the first state to repeal their mandatory fluoridation law.

However, to this day, I read about " experts " speaking for the American

Dental Association or the Public Health Service, who appear before groups

shouting

that fluorides do not accumulate, cannot harm anyone, and are essential to

life. I often wonder what it would mean to have those letters attached to my

name, indicating that I'm qualified as a professional, but suspect I'd rather

not. I think, perhaps, they would only mean that I'd have to keep my mouth

shut if I wanted to keep my job.

__

 

__

 

Letter to Senator John Glenn

Darlene Sherrell

 

426 Heritage Oaks Drive E-Mail:

 

Eugene, Oregon 97405 sherrell

 

12 February 1997 FAX: 541 345 1786

 

 

 

The Honorable John Glenn

United States Senate

 

Dear Senator Glenn,

 

I believe your efforts regarding the Human Research Subject Protections Act

of 1997 may very well be the most important of your career; and am writing

to call your attention to another example of ethically-suspect research on

human subjects -- including children and other vulnerable populations.

 

The enclosed letter from Robert J. Carton, Ph.D., dated April 24, 1992,

refers to my correspondence with the National Academy of Sciences regarding

the quantity of fluoride which produces an arthritic condition known as

Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis . . . the risk Americans are being forced to

take without their informed consent.

 

Because current U.S. policy regarding fluoride was based on an error in

arithmetic, rather than one involving scientific opinion, the National

Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology was forced

to correct NAS/NRC's official estimate of the quantity of fluoride which

results in Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis. This quantity is smaller than

current daily intake estimates published in 1991 by the Department of

Health and Human Services.

 

Your own personal knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the symptoms of

chronic fluoride poisoning, the various sources of fluoride in your diet,

and the quantity of fluoride you ingest on a daily basis, from all sources,

-- as well as the quantity of fluoride capable of causing adverse health

effects -- is the proof I offer. Were you informed?

 

On 9 November 1995, when the Director of the Centers for Disease Control

wrote to Senator Graham in response to my concerns, he mentioned " new

research. " I wrote to Dr. Satcher on 1 February 1996, calling his attention

to the fact that the " margin of safety " with water fluoridation was the

product of an error in arithmetic corrected by NAS/NRC in 1993. I wrote

again on 1 January 1997, asking Dr. Satcher about the status of the new

research he mentioned: " Is it being done on U.S. citizens without their

knowledge or consent? Have our physicians been notified? Are they now able

to report suspected cases of skeletal fluorosis which mimic arthritis? Have

they been notified of the erroneous dosage figures? " I wrote again on 21

January 1997. Officials at the CDC have been avoiding my questions about

dosage and reporting for twenty years.

 

Senator Ron Wyden wrote to Dr. Satcher on 4 February 1997, asking to see a

copy of his reply. Will you join him? Will you begin your noble effort

with the most flagrant example of all?

 

With respect,

 

Darlene Sherrell

 

 

cc: The Honorable Senator Ron Wyden

 

 

__

Darlene Sherrell, 426 Heritage Oaks Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97405

E-Mail: sherrell; Phone/Fax 541-345-1786