Having problems with message search?
Hi Sean,
You have hit it right on - the lack of evidence for harm is because evidence for harm has been not collected, and when accidentally observed it has been denied, suppressed, and covered up with fraudulent reporting (Douglass, Bassin). Absence of evidence for harm has been used for 65 years to "prove" that fluoridation is harmless.
However, Second Look (www.slweb.org) and FAN (www.fluoridealert.org) have extensive lists of scientific studies. Darlene Sherrell's site is updated and also has tons of evidence, well organized. (www.rvi.net/~fluoride) Parents of Fluoride Poisoned CHildren is another source but I don't know if it has been updated. Probably your best source is the US 2006 National Research Council - National Academy of Sciences report on fluoride in drinking water. Thanks to Drs. Limeback, Thiessen, Isaacson and one other I forget, the rest of the panel was FORCED to include recent research that clearly shows fluoride is always harmful to health at the levels the CDC and EPA claim are no problem and almost certainly harmful at lower levels that the CDC recommends for safe upper intake. However, the sociopath who wrote the summary (which of course is the only thing that is ever quoted) claimed that there was no evidence that water fluoridation levels were harmful. The body of the book clearly shows otherwise, but Dr. Doull ruled with a corrupt iron fist that is controlled by the planet wrecking fluoride industries like Cargill.
If you ask your health officials to provide you with daily fluoride intake proven to reduce cavities, they can't. However, there is a good peer-reviewed study from the sixties that proves 1 mg per day supplementation causes dental fluorosis in one third of kids by age 8 with no improvement in dental decay rates, and causes hypersensitivity disease symptoms such as gastric damage in 1% of humans dosed with a daily 1 mg pill (Feltman and Kosel).
If you ask them to provide you with the optimum saliva and serum concentrations of fluoride that are proven to reduce cavities, they can't. But there is peer reviewed research from Japan and from the US CDC proving that the serum concentration and dose of fluoride that dental officials say is safe and non toxic causes severe poisoning in 100% of cases and death to some (Akiniwa; Whitford; Krishnamachari). There is peer reviewed research from Europe showing that in order to reach a concentration of fluoride in saliva that inhibits the enzymes in the Strep mutans decay bacteria, the patient would reach cardiac arrest from the dose of fluoride required to achieve that saliva concentration (Westendorf).
If you ask them how much fluoride we should be getting from food and air pollution, they can't say. But there is peer reviewed research from all over the world that fluoride pollution from coal burning causes dental fluorosis, tooth loss, crippling bone disease and early death in about the same proportion as intake from water that has 2-8 ppm in India (krassindia.org).
If you ask them why fluoride from water works when fluoride swallowed from food, drugs, supplements and toothpaste residue does not, they can't answer. But there is ample evidence from the US CDC that topical fluorides, not ingested or inhaled fluorides, are the only form that show any (small) evidence of tooth decay prevention.
If you ask them why diabetics and athletes need more fluoride than ordinary people, they can't answer. But diabetics have twice the fluoride levels in blood as healthy people yet they are most at risk for tooth decay and gum disease. Ask them for the research showing that horribly fluoride-deficient breast milk causes tooth decay in children! The opposite is true! (Limeback and Brothwell)
Aliss
Hi Aliss,interesting angle re the fish being harmed above .3ppm Never heard of that before.Are you able to point me toward sources? I have people here in Ireland who are eager to get their hands on hard copies of research and clinical studies done on fluoride's harmful effects.They want to be able to walk into offices, slap multiple reports down on tables and say something like "okay, you tell me it's safe at uncontrolled dosages and to be released into the environment at 1ppm. Here's a heap of evidence that it's not. You contravene that evidence please. No committees, no expert bodies please. Just reach into your filing cabinet there and show me the documentation that you guys used to refute these studies before you decided to go ahead with fluoridation" - or words to that effect. And of course if lawyers are presented with these documents... well... who knows what might happen...!Sean.saolbeo.com
On 25 Meith 2007, at 21:03, A Terpstra wrote:
Hi Sean,The eventual result will likely be based on natural fluoride concentration as a default: most surface fresh water available for municipal usein Canada has .2 ppm or less. The Great Lakes, source of drinking water for nearly half the population of Canada, averages .1 ppm natural fluoride ion. It is accepted that anything above .3 ppm is harmful to fish that spawn in fresh water so I would guess that is the MAC that they will eventually accept in raw intake water -- if we can ensure transparency and disclosure during the process. Aluminum flocculators used in clarifying water treatment reduce the natural fluoride levels so they may up it a bit to allow for that. Kevin and I are each making submissions to this panel with that in mind. We have each gotten the complete runaround from Health Canada and Environment Canada, as has everyone else who is attempting to hold these clowns accountable for this corrupt and monumentally stupid public policy. I made an important deputation to the panel on drinking water quality for aboriginal people last year, on the necessity for a more stringent health-based MCL for water that is lower on aboriginal reserves than in the rest of Canada due to the genetic susceptibility to fluorosis and cultural foods that are high in fluoride, and reserve lands near coal burning, uranium milling and aluminum smelting that exposes aboriginals to extremely high amounts of airborne fluoride, and was basically told that I was barking up the wrong tree, that the panel had nothing to do with regulating environmental fluoride. (!!?) Personally, I think these guys are all sociopaths.Aliss----- Original Message -----Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 2:54 PMSubject: Re: [FluoridePoisoning] Kevin, helloHi Kevin...
... I've nearly fallen off my chair! The notion of the Canadian Gov lowering the Guideline to 0.0mg/L - wow, that would be terrific! Not only for you folk there in Canada, but also for us in Ireland.We'd have something politicallly very significant to put in front of both the medical professionals who support the practice here and our MInister for Health (who listens to those same professionals and makes no move to change the law that obliges our State to fluoridate).If that Guideline is reduced, I know we'll get the word via FAN but it would be nice to get it through this channel also.By the way, if you're into suing people... once Canada is sorted, is there any chance you'd come over here, get citizenship and then sue our Government?! ;-)Thanks.Sean.
On 25 Meith 2007, at 18:20, kevin millership wrote:
Paulette,
Good to hear from you, sometimes it feels like we're alone fighting this battle eh!
If it wasn't for people like the Connetts (FAN), Hirzys (EPA) and the Limebacks (Canadian Professor of Preventitive Dentistry and fluoride/fluoridati
on "Expert") of this world, we'd all be in a prison camp right now drinking 5ppm fluoridated drinking water! Here in Canada, the Federal Government, through Health Canada and the Federal-Provincial-
Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, is currently reviewing their current (1996) Fluoride Guideline (a drinking water guideline that recommends 0.8-1.0 mg/L of fluoride as "optimal" and 1.5 mg/L as "MAC"). Their reviewing this Guideline to lower it to combat the escalating cases of dental fluorosis fluoride poisoning occuring in Canada. They were suppose to review this Guideline in 2001, but waited until I sued them again in Federal Court in 2005 to start the review just now! The bastards, they'll do nothing unless booted in the butt. Luckily I know all their secrets and it's just a matter of time until they lower the Guideline to 0.0 mg/L as optimal and 0.5 or lower as MAC.
If I have to sue them again to have it done, so be it, but Canada will have a new Drinking Water Guideline for Fluoride by the end of this year that truly protects Canadains from p. w. fluoridation.
Keep on keeping on!!! Canada Kev
From: "meandarley" <meandarley@netzero.com>
Reply-To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups. com
To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [FluoridePoisoning] Kevin, hello
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:38:18 -0000
I second that. Good to know somebody out there is still alive, I sure
do miss reading the post from you guys, I don't get to get on my puter
like I used too, but I go on at least to find out any more news on
fluoride that might have came out, some I hope some day to make me
stand up and shout. Good to hear from you K. have a nice day and keep
me posted on anything new you might run across.
Good day to you. Paulette.
Do You Think That Your Home Is Bland And Boring? Add A Little Spice With The Help Of Professionals.
Offline 
Send Email