Fluoridation is not about “children’s teeth,” it is about industry getting rid of its hazardous waste at a profit, instead of having to pay a fortune to dispose of it.
If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2
The EPA has
recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both
lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero
parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend
adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3
On
July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our
members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years,
including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link
between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological
impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent
epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in
children.”4
The largest study of tooth decay in America (by
the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was
no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated,
partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17,
surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The
study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to
hear the results.5
Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of
New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent
study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50
years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number
of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5
The recent
California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health
Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much
water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California
children have less tooth decay than the national average.6
From the
day the Public Health Service completed their original 10-year Newburgh
and Kingston fluoridation experiment, fluoride promoters have repeatedly
claimed that fluoride added to drinking water can reduce tooth decay by
as much as 60 to 70 percent.
Adding fluoride to the water has
never prevented tooth decay, it merely delays it, by provoking a
genetic malfunction that causes teeth to erupt later than normal. This
delay makes it possible to read the statistics incorrectly without
lying. Proponents count teeth that have not yet erupted as “no decay.”
Therefore, they claimed that the fluoridated Newburgh children age 6 had
100 percent less tooth decay; by age 7, 100 percent less; by age 8, 67
percent less; age 9, 50 percent less; and by age 10, 40 percent less.
Obviously,
the only reduction that really counted was the 40 percent by age 10,
but the Public Health Service totaled the five reductions shown, then
divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70
percent.”
Had the Health Department continued their survey
beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction
continued down hill to 30, 20, 0, and eventually the children drinking
fluoridated water had more cavities–not less. The rate of decay is
identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. In other words, this “65
percent less dental decay” is just a statistical illusion. It never
happened!7
EPA scientists recently concluded, after studying
all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used “as a
vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylatically useless. . .
substance.” They felt there should be “an immediate halt to the use of
the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic
waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.” Unfortunately, the
management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with
industry on this issue.8
There is less tooth decay in the
nation as a whole today than there used to be, but decay rates have also
dropped in the non-fluoridated areas of the United States and in Europe
where fluoridation of water is rare. The Pasteur Institute and the
Nobel Institute have already caused fluoride to be banned in their
countries (France and Sweden). In fact, most developed countries have
banned, stopped or rejected fluoridation.9
Several recent
studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with
higher rather than lower rates of caries. There has been no study that
shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by
a Rand corporation study and found to be “simply not warranted by
available evidence.”10In fact, dentists make 17 percent more profit in
fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.11 There are no
savings.
Meanwhile, the incidence of dental fluorosis has
skyrocketed. It is not just a “cosmetic effect.” Webster’s Encyclopedic
Unabridged Dictionary says: “Fluorosis is poisoning by fluorides.”
Today, in North America, there is an increased prevalence of dental
fluorosis, ranging from about 15 percent to 65 percent in fluoridated
areas and 5 percent to 40 percent in non-fluoridated areas.12
African-American children experience twice the rate of dental fluorosis
as white children and it tends to be more severe.13 The widespread and
uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, foods and
beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities) is causing
pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population.
A 1995 American Dental Association (ADA) chart shows that a certain fluoride drug should not be given to children under six months of age. It also shows that if fluoride is put into water, all children under six years of age will be getting an overdose.14
The FDA states
that fluoride is a prescription drug, not a mineral nutrient. Who has
the right to put a prescription drug in the water supply where there can
be no control of dosage? People who drink a lot of water, like
diabetics and athletes, will be overdosed, and studies have proven that 1
percent of the people are allergic to fluoridated water. Today, an
unusual number of children in non-fluoridated areas are developing
dental fluorosis!
Even if fluoride were good for teeth,
shouldn’t the water be as safe as possible for everyone? Why should
those who are against it be forced to drink it? What has happened to
“Freedom of Choice?” We all know that fluoride is not “just one of forty
chemicals used to treat water,” it is the only chemical added to treat
the people! It is compulsory medication, which is unconstitutional.
There are other alternatives that do not infringe on the rights of all
consumers to choose their own form of medication.16
When the
people have been given a chance to vote on this issue, more often than
not, they have voted “no.” In the majority of cases, nationwide, it is
the local city council that has forced it on the people. Fluoride
promoters find it much easier to convince a few city council members
than the general public. Here in America, we shouldn’t have to fight to
keep a hazardous waste out of our water supply!
Bottom line:
There are no benefits to fluoridation. We actually pay the phosphate
fertilizer industries for their crude hazardous waste. Fluoridation
contributes to many health problems and hither dental bills, and causes
more (not less) suffering. Only big business wins with fluoridation–not
our children (or us).
On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a
former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest
case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.
Impossible? No, it’s not–look at how many years millions of people were
fooled by the tobacco industries!
References
George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A
Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22,
1991.
R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial
Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL)
EPA/NSF Standard 60.
San Diego Union Tribune, May 25, 2000, “EPA
proposes stricter rules for arsenic levels in water supplies,” and
Associated Press, Jan. 17, 2001, “EPA Orders Sharp Reduction in Arsenic
Levels in Drinking Water,” by H. Josef Hebert.
Letter of July 2,
1997, from J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. to Jeff Green. The union (now NTEU,
Chapter 280) consists of and represents all of the toxicologists,
chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters,
Washington, D.C.
“New studies cast doubt on fluoridation
benefits,” by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67,
No. 19, May 8, 1989. “Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children,”
Jayanth V. Kumar, D.D.S., M.P.H.; Elmer L. Green, D.D.S., M.P.H.,
Pediatric Dentistry, Feb. 1998.
San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
Konstatin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, “Fluoridation
Benefits–Statistical Illusion,” testimony before the New York City Board
of Estimate, Mar. 6, 1957.
J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” May 1, 1999.
Mark Diesendorf, “The mystery of declining tooth decay,” Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29.
“The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation,” John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995.
The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.
K.E. Heller, et al, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997.
National Research Council, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” 1993, p. 44.
Pediatrics, May 1998, Vol. 95, Number 5.
Food and Drug Administration letter dated Aug. 15, 1963.
Abbot Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, IL, June 18, 1963.
https://www.westonaprice.org/.../fluoridation-the.../...
