TOP 20 FLUORIDE NEWS STORIES OF 2011

Misinformed fluoridation promoters falsely assure unquestioning and confused legislators that fluoride-laced water is safe for everyone and no credible evidence proves otherwise. However, hundreds of studies and an abundance of evidence prove them wrong, reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

Here's what happened in 2011

1) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommends lowering water fluoride levels due to fluoride's harmful dental effects

For over 6 decades, HHS assured Americans that artificially fluoridated water was safe for everyone to drink. But they were wrong. About 50% of U.S. adolescents have fluoride-ruined teeth or dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. So HHS' recommends lowering "optimal" water fluoride levels.

2) HHS recommends avoiding fluoridated water when making infant formula to prevent dental fluorosis (discolored teeth)

Many government, health and dental agencies report that babies who consume fluoridated water are more apt to have fluoride-discolored/damaged teeth without benefit of less tooth decay. (References: http://www.FormulaFluoride.Webs.com)

3) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will lower safe water fluoride levels to protect bones and teeth

The prestigious National Research Council found EPA's current safe water fluoride levels can adversely affect bones and teeth. EPA's Office of Water will lower safe water fluoride levels

4) U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports growing numbers of U.S. children have fluoride-damaged teeth, arguably at epidemic proportions.

Due to fluoride over-exposure, the CDC reports that over 41% of 12-15 years olds are afflicted with dental fluorosis. However, no research was conducted to discover what fluoride over-exposure has done to children's bones.

5) Fumigant sulfuryl fluoride found to leave health-damaging levels of fluoride residues on food

EPA's Office of Pesticides proposes to ban fumigant sulfuryl fluoride because harmful fluoride levels remain on many foods e.g. cocoa beans and dried eggs.

6) Even fluoride-seller, Colgate, reports that studies confirm "the association between infant formula consumption and permanent dentition fluorosis."

Colgate joins many government, health and dental organizations in advising that infant formula should not be mixed with fluoridated water to lower babies' risk of developing dental fluorosis (http://www.FormulaFluoride.Webs.com), but this is little publicized.

7) Infant juices contain non-labeled tooth-damaging fluoride levels

Commonly-consumed infant fruit juices contain fluoride, some at levels higher than recommended for pubic water supplies, according to research presented at the International Association for Dental Research annual meeting.

8) More studies published linking fluoride to human brain damage and lower IQ

A review of studies published in Neurologia reports, "The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system." The research team reports, "It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride."

9) New Study Fails to Refute Fluoride-Osteosarcoma Link

A paper in the Journal of Dental Research by dentist Chester Douglass and colleagues, "An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma," claims to show no association between fluoride bone levels and osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer. However, Douglass' study has serious scientific flaws and is incapable of disproving a previous study (Bassin et al., 2006) which linked water fluoridation to osteosarcoma.

10) Prominent Hispanic Civil Rights Group Opposes Fluoridation

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) opposes fluoridation as a civil rights violation and because "the National Research Council in 2006 established that there are large gaps in the research on fluoride's effects on the whole body; a fact that contradicts previous assurances made by public health officials and by elected officials, that fluorides and fluoridation have been exhaustively researched."

11) Prominent Civil Rights Leaders Oppose Fluoridation

Because fluoride can disproportionately harm poor citizens and black families, Atlanta civil rights leaders, former UN Ambassador Andrew Young, Reverend Gerald Durley, PhD, Martin Luther King's daughters, Bernice and Alveda. asked Georgia legislators to repeal the state's mandatory water fluoridation law.

12) Tennessee House Speaker, Other Legislators Call for Halt to State Promotion of Fluoridation

Bipartisan group cites risks for citizens and water utilities. Tennessee, once 99% fluoridated, is now down in the low 90's according to the American Dental Association News.

13) Water Fluoridation Injury Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court

A 13-year-old's fluoride-discolored teeth were allegedly caused by drinking fluoridated bottled water since infancy. Her mom is suing the bottlers for the cost to cover up the unsightly teeth.

14) Review of Fluoride Supplement Studies Show No Evidence of Safety - No Benefit Either

According to the Cochrane Oral Health Group, fluoride supplements fail to reduce tooth decay in primary teeth, permanent teeth cavity-reduction is dubious and health risks are little studied -- The Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends NO fluoride supplementation because "Too much fluoride causes streaks in the teeth" and it's impossible to determine a child's individual daily fluoride intake from all sources. Sodium fluoride supplements "have not been found by FDA to be safe or effective," according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

15) Dental hygienist's Master's thesis and experience shows no Benefit from fluoridation

In a Master's thesis, a dental hygienist, with 20 years experience in a clinic for low-income children, noticed these children had significant tooth decay in spite of fluoridation. When people were educated about fluoride's risks and benefits, they stopped drinking fluoridated water, she reported.

16) CDC Reveals Fluoridation Fails Alaskans

The CDC reports that 91% of rural Alaskan Native adolescents have cavities whether their water is fluoridated or not. The CDC acknowledges that poor diets and lack of dental care are the probable culprits.

17) Pew Charitable Trust uses propaganda, PR and political clout to force more fluoride into people who don't want it.

The Pew Charitable Trust paid for lobbyists to misinform Arkansas state legislators into mandating fluoridation statewide which nullified local referendums where residents said NO to fluoridation. Pew continues to contaminate local fluoridation politics in New Hampshire, Iowa, Austin and elsewhere.

18) The Council of Canadians, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and Great Lakes United demand an end to fluoridation

Council of Canadians' Unfluoridate It! campaign. Great Lakes United statement against the 'practice of artificial drinking water fluoridation.'

19) Dr. Joe Mercola, owner of the world's most visited natural health website conducted Fluoride Awareness Week

Dr. Mercola reveals the science behind fluoride's adverse health effects to the brain, bones, the thyroid and pineal glands.

20) New York City Council Members introduce legislation (Int 0463-2011) to stop fluoridation

City Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. says, "There is a growing body of evidence that fluoride does more harm than good."

"Those who claim fluoridation is harmless for everyone and that fluoride's health effects have been exhaustively studied cannot be trusted because that's simply not true," says Beeber.

References: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/top-20-fluoride-news-stories-of-2011-138488989.html

http://www.formulafluoride.webs.com/

Infant Formula & Fluoridated Water Advice

• Breast milk is widely acknowledged as the most complete form of nutrition for infants.

• For infants who get most of their nutrition from formula during the first 12 months, ready-tofeed

• If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be

• The occasional use of water containing optimal levels of fluoride should not appreciably

http://democratherald.com/news/opinion/mailbag/mailbag-fluoride-down-the-drain/article_8339ef8c-6a1f-11e1-b55a-0019bb2963f4.html

Mailbag: Fluoride down the drain

Did anybody ever think about fluoridating water being the most inefficient means of preventive dentistry?

Almost everyone drinking the water is over- or underdosing. They say a person needs eight glasses of water a day. (That assumes they don't drink milk, soda, fruit or vegetable juice or eat moist food like spaghetti.) Eight glasses of water is about half a gallon a day per person.

When you flush a toilet you use a week's dosage of fluoride. A shower uses three to four weeks, and a bath six or seven weeks' worth.

I won't guess how much for laundry or dish washing. And don't forget we water our lawns with it in summer and the city parks department buys it for watering the many acres of parks we have.

Most of it goes into things that don't even have teeth. I am not a chemist and don't know how cumulative it is in the ground, but over the years there must have been some change in the chemical make-up of soil and plants watered with fluoride.

Forty years ago I bought a water distiller and still use it to avoid chlorine and fluoride. And I asked at my favorite restaurant if they were giving me city water and I was told they have an efficient filter on their water. It may be (and should be) required by state health inspectors.

Think of it like this. Fluoride is available in prescription doses in pills. The city buys you one of these pills every day and you take it and have great teeth. But for each pill they buy an undetermined number of the same pills (hundreds at least and some days thousands) which they dump on the ground or flush down the sewer every single day.

Ward Mackey, Albany (March 4)

Read more: http://democratherald.com/news/opinion/mailbag/mailbag-fluoride-down-the-drain/article_8339ef8c-6a1f-11e1-b55a-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1op6Oj6Jw

http://www.vendingmarketwatch.com/news/10653225/international-bottled-water-association-disputes-new-york-times-article-on-childrens-cavity-rates

The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) issued the following statement regarding a March 6, 2012, New York Times article concerning recent increases in children's cavity rates.

The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) issued the following statement regarding a March 6, 2012, New York Times article concerning recent increases in children's cavity rates:

"The New York Times article, Preschoolers in Surgery for a Mouthful of Cavities, (March 6, 2012), notes that the causes of increased dental problems in young children vary, from a simple lack of brushing to too many sugary foods and beverages. Unfortunately, the article also incorrectly states that drinking bottled water instead of `fluoridated tap water' can contribute to tooth decay.  This statement is both inaccurate and misleading. There is absolutely no correlation between consumption of bottled water and an increase in cavities. In fact, bottled water does not contain ingredients that cause cavities, such as sugar.

For consumers who want fluoride in their drinking water and wish to choose bottled water, approximately 20 IBWA member companies make clearly-labeled fluoridated bottled water products under stringent FDA guidelines. For a complete list of these brands, which are available in many markets across the country, please visit IBWA's Website, http://www.bottledwater.org/fluoride.

There are many sources of fluoride, and the amount of fluoride exposure varies greatly by community and individual. Approximately two-thirds of communities in the Unites States fluoridate their public drinking water supplies. Those who live in communities that do not fluoridate public drinking water, who get their drinking water from wells, or who filter their fluoridated tap water will not be getting fluoride in their drinking water. Fluoride is present in many foods and beverages and almost all toothpaste contains fluoride. Too much exposure to fluoride can lead to a condition called fluorosis, which results in stains to the teeth. Consumers should therefore look at how much fluoride they are receiving as part of an overall diet and should contact their health-care provider or dental-care provider for their recommendation.

As a packaged food product, comprehensively regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), bottled water labels must contain the name and place of business of the bottler, packer or distributor, and virtually all bottled water products provide a telephone number. With this information, consumers may contact the bottled water company directly to obtain information about the product. Bottled water companies must also follow fluoride labeling guidelines should fluoride be added to the product or be present at a naturally occurring level as set for the by FDA regulation (21C.F.R. §165.110(b)

Former U.N. ambassador Andrew Young and Dr. Gerald Durley were civil rights
leaders in south in the 1960's.  Along with Bernice King, daughter of Martin
Luther King, they are now opposed to water fluoridation and are calling for a
repeal of the Georgia mandatory fluoridation law.

One thing we can do is thank these people for their support.  They have come
under a lot of pressure since they took this stand.  After they wrote the
letters they had a meeting with some powerful high level people in federal
public health.  However, they have not withdrawn their letters.

If you go to http://spotsonmyteeth.com/ you will find the letters written by
Young and Durley in the "endorsements/letters" section.

I posted a message on Andrew Young's facebook page, which is here: 
http://www.facebook.com/ThinkingYoung
I also wrote a letter of support to Dr. Gerald Durley, his address is on his
letter found on the "spots on my teeth" website.  I wrote a letter for former
President Jimmy Carter, who signed the mandatory bill when he was governor of
Georgia.

Dan Stockin was the person who informed these leaders.  He asks that any letters
of support be respectful, and please don't ask them to do anything else
regarding fluoride or another issue.  They are very  busy with many things on
their plates.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/152266

City cuts fluoride levels in water supply

by Curtis Wackerle, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer

Printer-friendly version

Email this Story

Aspen's drinking water will contain less fluoride, City Council decided at Monday's meeting.

Effective immediately, the city will adapt the amount of fluoride it adds to the water supply to new federal standards recommending levels be set at 0.7 parts per million. The chemical is added to drinking water because of its ability to stem cavities in children, but is controversial because it is also a toxin with adverse health effects in high enough doses.

The city for decades has added enough fluoride, which is naturally occurring in lower levels in area streams, to bring the level up to 1.0 parts per million.

The official action by council comes after years of debate on the issue. Removing fluoride from public water supplies has become a cause for some, and officials within the city's water department have become concerned over the years about adding the substance.

"We have the best water in the world," said water treatment supervisor Charles Bailey, a 20-year veteran of the water department. "We cringe when we load" the fluoride bags into the water supply, he said, noting the chemical's industrial Chinese origin. There are no domestically available sources of fluoride additive, he said.

Bailey likened the practice of adding fluoride to polluting the water.

Councilman Torre was in favor of eliminating fluoride altogether, saying the practice is like medicating "nine out of 10 people because one out of 10 needs it."

File photo

Jake DeWolfe, treatment operator for the city of Aspen's water department, pours fluoride into a hopper that dispenses the chemical into the water system in this photo taken in 2011. When handling fluoride, one must wear a full-body protective suit, gloves and a respirator mask.

Councilman Steve Skadron, recognizing the issue's ability to stir passions on both sides, said there are "significant trade-offs and competing benefits and risks." He felt that lowering the amount of fluoride added, as opposed to eliminating it, best addressed all concerns.

Councilman Derek Johnson said he is concerned by reports from some local dentists, who claim that children in Basalt and Carbondale have higher incidents of cavities than their counterparts in Aspen. Basalt and Carbondale do not add fluoride to their water supplies.

However, he said the city should stay on top of the issue and continually monitor the fluoride added to the water supply to see what's really in it and keep up with federal recommendations.

The plan approved instructs the water department to "create a more extensive testing protocol" on fluoride levels, and report back annually to council on fluoride.

C.J. Oliver, the city's director of the environmental health department, wrote in a memo on the issue that the government must rely on "peer-reviewed" studies in deciding which way to go. While too much fluoride has been shown to degrade tooth enamel and lead to more bone fractures, the jury is still out on whether the levels of fluoride in Aspen's water are truly dangerous, the memo says. Other claims, including concerns that fluoride causes cancer and lowers IQ levels, are unsubstantiated at this time, Oliver wrote.

curtis@...

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20120313/NEWS/120319962

City will continue adding fluoride to water

Council says it was swamped with info on controversial issue

Andre Salvail
The Aspen Times
Aspen CO Colorado

Ireland said the council will review the fluoridation issue annually and asked the city's Water Department to test the substance in the bag, before it's added, on a regular basis. Fluoride is not manufactured in the United States — China is a leading producer — and part of the council discussion centered on ensuring its quality so that there is no outside health risk to the public.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20120313/NEWS/120319962&mode=comments

Testing the "product" that is coming from China needs to be done to each batch.   I guess that will also change the the "$1 spent gives $38 in savings" , which is not accurate to begin with.  Exactly what method will be used to test it?   Ion-chromatography with chemical suppression of eluent conductivity would be the best and what is the cost to do it?  Even better would be to require testing of individuals serum fluoride, thyroid function, kidney function, IQ, dental fluorosis, etc. and correlating it to other health conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, kidney disease, diabetes, and especially heart disease.   I guess this would again cause the "for every $1 spent"  to be diminished.  If you truely want to get the big picture all this and MORE is needed. 

I've been informed that all the members of the New Jersey senate health
committee were issued literature proving that NJ dental records are the same if
not better than more fluoridated states.
    I'd like to get that literature if possible.  Does anybody know who gave them
that literature?
    Thanks.

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/SelectedEnforcementActionsonUnapprovedDrugs/default.htm

Unapproved Drugs: Drugs Marketed in the United States That Do Not Have Required FDA Approval

Federal law generally requires that prescription drugs in the U.S. be shown to be both safe and effective prior to marketing. The FDA's evidence-based system of drug approval and the OTC monograph system play essential roles in ensuring that drugs are both safe and effective. For instance, during the drug approval process the applicant must demonstrate that its manufacturing processes can reliably produce drug products of expected identity, strength, quality, and purity. Furthermore, FDA's review of the applicant's labeling insures that health care professionals and patients have the information necessary to understand a drug product's risks and its safe and effective use.

The Agency has serious concerns that drugs marketed without required FDA approval may not meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness, quality, and labeling. Physicians and other healthcare practitioners, along with consumers, cannot assume that all marketed drugs have been found by the FDA to be safe and effective. For a variety of historical reasons, some drugs, mostly older products, continue to be marketed illegally in the U.S. without required FDA approval. The manufacturers of unapproved drug products have not received FDA approval and do not conform to a monograph for making over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. The lack of evidence demonstrating that these unapproved drugs are safe and effective is a significant public health concern.

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/SelectedEnforcementActionsonUnapprovedDrugs/ucm118990.htm

http://www.northjersey.com/news/health/142734515_Resident__council_join_debate_on_fluoride_safety.html

Belleville resident, council join debate on fluoride safety

http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/57/9/899.abstract

Influence of Fluoride upon Plaque and Gingivitis in the Beagle Dog

Two studies were conducted to explore the effects of twice daily topical applications of NaF, SnF ₂, and an amine fluoride at equivalent fluoride concentrations (0.1%) upon plaque and gingivitis in the dog. Although some trends toward modest benefits were noted in certain instances, none of the agents exerted a significant effect upon either parameter

===============================================================

http://www.drbui.com/artfluoride.html

There have been numberous of studies evaluated the effects of various topical fluorides on gingivitis in children. J.J. Murray in 1969 investigate the prevalence of gingivitis in 15 year old children from high fluoride (1.5 to 2 ppm) and low fluoride (0.2 ppm) areas. He reported that up to the level of 2 ppm, fluoride in drinking water has no influence on prevalence of gingivitis, on its extent or on the relative distribution of gingivitis in individual labial papillae and the margins associated with anterior teeth in 15 year old children. This study was in agreement with James et al. in 1960 who reported that there was no significant increase in incidence and severity of gingivitis in children living in the high fluoride areas. On the contrary, Ast and Schlesinger in 1954 measured gingivitis in children aged 6-9 years from the fluoride city of Newburgh (1-1.2 ppm F) and the control city of Kingston (F= .1ppm) and concluded that a slight but significantly more gingivitis was observed amongst Kingston children than among those in Newburgh. Russell in 1957 carried out a similar study involving school children of 7-14 yrs old and found that proportions of children free form overt signs of periodontal disease (including gingivitis) were higher throughout the age range in children of high fluoride city than the low fluoride city. It is rather difficult to assess whether the lower prevalence of gingivitis observed in children from fluoride areas is directly or indirectly associated with the F content of drinking water. One theory would be since application of fluoride involved involved mainly tooth brushing, the effect of gingival inflammation may well be a result of mechanical oral hygiene effort. Fluoride treatment, nevertheless, have not been shown to have significant effect on periodontal surgical healing in animal. Fluoride actually causes healing time to increase (delay wound healing). Another area of application of fluoride is hypersensitivity teeth. The use of sodium fluoride has been reported in many studies as an effective agent in treatment dentinal hypersensitivity (Stout et al. in 1955, Hoyt et al. in 1943).

A large number of studies reported no detrimental effects of fluorides on periodontal tissue. Side effect included staining, mild blanching of the gingiva when high concentration of SnF2 were applied topically (only on 5% of subjects), sloughing of gingival tissue of children within an hour of topical application of APF. This effect was related to the presence of inflammation, the more inflammation, the more sloughing. Crevicular epithelium was more susceptible to sloughing than the papillary gingiva. Branemark studied the effect of commonly used topical fluoride solutions on intact connective tissue, damaged connective tissue, and epithelium in hamster, rabbits, and humans. Changes noted varied with concentration of NaF and went from slight and reversible trauma to definite destruction of tissue cells leading to necrosis and subsequent proliferative reparative phenomena. Prolonged contact with fluoride solution may aggravate the existing chronic inflammation. Finally, titanium does not withstand certain acidic fluoride prophylactic agents. The use of fluoride near the implant restoration should be avoided. Lothar Probster et al. in 1992 examined the use of sodium fluoride gel, amino-fluoride gel, sodium fluoride solution, aminofluoride solution, and sodium fluoride lacquer. Drops of 4mm in diameter were placed on the polished titanium surfaces. Surface roughness was investigated with profilometer and SEM. They also placed and IMZ implant and its transmucosal abutment in Oral B fluor gel for 24 hours. The results showed significant increase of surface roughness in acidulated fluoride agent. Scannic electron microscope illustrated the corrosive effect of the acidic agent. The implant and abutment which was stored for 24 hours in Oral B gel showed massive corrosion and the effect is compatible to the cast titanium used in the study. Acidic fluoride agents should not be used in patients with titanium implants or restoration.

=========================================================================

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003996969902714

Gingivitis in 15-year-old children from high-fluoride and low-fluoride areas

Evidence concerning the influence of fluoride drinking water on gingivitis is inconsistent. In order to determine whether fluoride in drinking water up to the level of 2 ppm has any effect on the prevalence, extent or pattern of gingivitis in anterior labial units, the gingival health of 386 15-year-old children, continuously resident in West Hartlepool, a high fluoride area (1.5–2.00 ppm F), was compared with that of 38115-year-old children from York, a low fluoride area (0.2 ppm F).

The method of measurement was that described by Jackson (1965).

It was concluded that fluoride in drinking water, at least up to the level of 2 ppm, has no influence of clinical significance on the prevalence of gingivitis, on the extent, or on the pattern of gingivitis in individual papillae and margins associated with incisor and canine teeth in 15-year-old-children.

In both communities prevalence of gingivitis was higher in boys than in girls. However, when only those children with a good standard of oral cleanliness were considered this sex difference disappeared, suggesting that the observed sex difference could be due to differences in the standards of oral cleanliness between boys and girls.

A distinctive pattern of gingivitis in papillae and margins associated with anterior teeth was observed in all four groups studied, and this pattern was essentially the same as that observed independently by Jackson (1965) and Sutcliffe (1968), suggesting that this pattern is universally true.

=============================================================

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003996972901604

Gingivitis and gingival recession in adults from high-fluoride and low-fluoride areas

The prevalence of gingivitis and gingival recession in 1884 dentate adults, aged 15–65 yr, continuously resident in the natural fluoride area of Hartlepool (1.5–2.0 ppm F.) was compared with that in 2015 dentate adults from the low-fluoride town of York (0.15–0.28 ppm F.).

The measurement of gingivitis was restricted to the anterior labial gingival sites, after the method described by Jackson (1965). The prevalence of gingivitis did not vary with increasing age. Therefore, data for all age groups were combined. Eighty nine per cent in Hartlepool and 87 per cent in York had one or more gingival sites inflamed. In both communities, the slightly higher prevalence of gingivitis in males than in females disappeared when only those with good oral cleanliness were considered. In Hartlepool, the site prevalence of gingivitis was 37.2 per cent and in York 35.4 per cent. In those with good oral cleanliness, the site prevalence of gingivitis was 21.8 per cent in Hartlepool and 19.8 per cent in York. The maximum divergence between the two communities was 0.4 gingival units.

No sex difference in the prevalence of gingival recession was observed in either community. Therefore, data for males and females were combined. In Hartlepool at 15–19 yr of age, 3.0 per cent were affected by gingival recession; at 60–65 yr, virtually 100 per cent were affected. The trend with age in York followed exactly the same pattern as that observed in Hartlepool. The percentage of teeth with gingival recession also increased steadily with age. In Hartlepool at 15–19 yr of age, 0.2 per cent of teeth had gingival recession. At 60–65 yr, 66.7 per cent of teeth were affected. The corresponding values in York were 0.2 per cent and 63.8 per cent. No significant differences were observed between Hartlepool and York data.

It was concluded that fluoride in drinking water, at least up to the level of 2 ppm, has no effect of clinical significance on the prevalence of gingivitis or gingival recession in adults.

=====================================================================

Diane Drayton Buckland 

I found this report today

Risk Assessment of Water Fluoridation by Enviro Management Services

I am in the process of reading it now and needs to be reviewed by all .   Just looking at the table of contents

http://www.enviro.ie/Summary_Report_Fluoridation.pdf

page 22 - beautiful chart that should be a useful visual aid for all the tin foil hatters!!!!

http://www.northjersey.com/news/143796106_West_Milford_officials_opposed_to_fluoridation_mandate.html

West Milford officials opposed to fluoridation mandate

http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-36437-national-fluoride-critic-would-love-to-attend-athens-forum-on-the-issue.html

National fluoride critic would love to attend Athens forum on the issue

http://www.lovelycitizen.com/story/1828366.html

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Did the US Centers for Disease Control fudge dental fluorosis statistics?

The CDC officially reports that 41% of 12-15 year olds have fluorosis http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/...

But a presentation by the EPA reveals CDC's actual statistics show that 60% of 12-15 year-olds are afflicted with dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth - the outward sign of fluoride's toxicity to the human body http://www.nationaloralhealthconference....

(Slide 18)

If fluorosis is no big deal, then why the need to downgrade fluorosis levels. And why are dentists telling the national media that children lack fluoride because they drink bottled water when there's no data to support that but loads of data showing American children are fluoride-overdosed and dentist-deficient?

-- Posted by nyscof on Wed, Mar 21, 2012, at 4:11 PM

Fluoridation is a Waste of Tax Money

As a Civil Engineer, I know how wasteful fluoridation is. People drink only 1/2 % (one half percent) of the water they use, so for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this outdated practice.

That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.

Fluoridation surely is in contention as the most wasteful government program. Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical, because then we would have the freedom to choose which prescription drug we take.

It is pure propaganda for the dental groups to claim savings of $38 for each $1 invested in fluoridation.

-- Posted by jwillie6 on Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:23 AM

 

The cost is said to be $1.23 million. Does that include the costs changes made in its engineering to add chemicals to help with corrosion control,a new engineering study that would cost money; and adding anti-corrosive chemicals would also raise the yearly costs of fluoridation? NO!

So, $1,230,000 divided by 25,000 people =

$49.20 / person

The claim that for every dollar spent that savings of $38 accrue! Is that per year or for life of each person?

Anyway, $1,230,000 times $38 =

$46,740,000

Thats 46.74 MILLION DOLLARS !!!!

Holy mackeral - you dentists ought to think about setting up shop somewhere else!

But just think of all the savings each person will have

$46,740,000 / 25,000 =

$1,869.60

I guess that money will come in handy when they have to pay for all the health care they might need from drinking an unapproved drug.

-- Posted by FluoridePoisoned on Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:38 AM

http://www.petroliatopic.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3507750

Petrolia's fluoride debate starts


Posted 19 hours ago


David Pattenaude

The Petrolia Topic

Fluoridation of drinking water has been a contentious debate in communities for
years and the debate has begun in Petrolia — and may continue at Petrolia
council's April 23 meeting.

Councillors have received inquiries about fluoride being added to the town's
drinking water so the town asked for the opinion of Dr. Christopher Greensmith,
Lambton County's Medical Officer of Health.

Greensmith has told the town in a letter that "...community water fluoridation
is beneficial to all residents, especially children, low income families and the
elderly. Over 90 international organizations (such as the World Health
Organization, Public Health Agency of Canada and the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention) support the addition of fluoride into community water
supplies."

Greensmith added it's important that children have access to fluoride "...to
strengthen their teeth enamel and prevent dental disease."

But Petrolian Al Petersen, speaking to council at its March 19 meeting, said
"...the risks (of fluoride) outweigh the limited benefits."

He gave council a report, based on his research, that said "...producing safe
drinking water does not require fluoride to be added to it."

Petersen asked council to take a precautionary approach and discontinue
fluoridation.

Fluoride (fluorosilic acid) is added at the town's water treatment plant in
Bright's Grove at a dosage rate between .60 and .70 parts per million, according
to town corporate services director Scott Gawley.

Ontario Clean Water Agency operators contracted by the town to operate the water
treatment plant are responsible for adding fluoride to the drinking water, as
required under the plant's certificate of approval issued by the Environment
Ministry, said Gawley in a report to council.


"The addition of fluoride in the town's drinking water is primarily a municipal
issue in consultation with the public and the medical officer of health, he
said. After the meeting, Gawley explained the ministry doesn't require a
municipality to use fluoride.

Gawley said staff is checking to see how long fluoride has been added to
Petrolia's drinking water.

Petersen's report also said fluoridation is not required under Ontario's Safe
Drinking Water Act; it is a municipality's option.

His report said Petrolia council "...assumes full responsibility for verifying
the safety of the product (fluoride) used, its application to the water supply,
and the health risks which occur; yet take it on faith from other authorities
the product used not only meets the criteria, but is otherwise safe, even though
it's up to the town alone to make that final determination.

"The Ministry of Environment, local medical officer of health, Health Canada,
and the American Water Works Association can state in a general sense the
concept of fluoridation is beneficial because they assume no liability for
responsibility and decisions about Petrolia's drinking water system and chemical
supplies."

Petersen said fluoride is only potentially effective in protecting teeth as a
topical treatment; not from ingestion. He added because fluoride is also
ingested with mouthwash, food, toothpaste and beverages, "...total fluoride
exposure needs to be limited."

He said by adding fluoride to the water supply, council is accepting unnecessary
liability for potential damages and health impacts.

Petersen said ending the use of fluoride would:

• Eliminate the risk of chronic workplace exposure to hydrofluorosilic acid
chemical emissions for water treatment plant operators;

• Eliminate the potential risk to the health of drinking water consumers; and

• Eliminate exposure to liability for damages and impacts.

Peterson said it's challenging to determine if exposure to low concentrations of
any known hazardous compound over a long period of time causes health impacts.

But he said many municipalities have discontinued using fluoride and added "It's
clear from a simple risk/benefit analysis the benefits of water fluoridation
don't justify the cost and the risk."

Council tentatively tabled discussion about fluoride to its April 23 meeting
after Councillors Mary-Pat Gleeson and Joel Field said Peterson's report and
supplementary information is a "lot of information" to digest.

"There's a lot of information to go through, to make sure we are making the
right decision," said Field.

Mayor John McCharles said a municipal referendum would be needed to take
fluoride out of the town's drinking water

Gawley said after the meeting staff is checking to see if a referendum would
actually be needed; and is also checking to see if a referendum was used to
begin the use of fluoride. If a referendum was used to start it, another would
be needed to end it, he said.

Gawley said April 23 is only a tentative date to continue the fluoride debate
because the town is still trying to secure the attendance of people such as
Greensmith and Petersen.

Council meetings start at 7 p.m.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRXStxoGzXI

Fluoride: Safe And Effective?

Terry Wilson takes a look at the history, effectiveness, possible side effects, and large PR campaign that surround the issue of water fluoridation.

Municipal water supplies in North America have been adding hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water supplies sine 1945, in an attempt to lower tooth decay in children and the lower income populations.

In doing so, the basic human right of informed consent to a medical treatment has been completely bypassed in an attempt to achieve the "greater good:.

Keep hammering  on them JRD and all.  The success of Everett and San Deigo (if
and when) are going to be the blueprint for me and my town.

If the FDA would truely do their job none of this would be necessary.

Ron

--- In FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com, "James Robert Deal"
<jamesrobertdeal@...> wrote:
>
> 3-24-12
>
> The news from Washington:
>
>
>
> I put an ad in the Everett Herald:
> http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/Everett-press-releas
> e-3-18-121.pdf
>
> Which linked to this page:
> http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases
>
>
>
> So we had guests show up at the city council meeting, and we made new
> members who seem interested in helping organize.
>
>
>
> I delivered the city council a copy of the press release:
> http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases
>
>
>
> I explained to the council that the fluoridation materials are not
> legal. Wash law says that the materials must comply with NSF 60. NSF 60
> says that tox studies are done and that additives had to be safe at
> maximum use levels. But NSF official Stan Hazan has said under oath that
> tox studies are not being done. Fluoridation can only be done with
> materials that comply with NSF. Therefore there are no legal
> fluoridation materials and fluoridation itself is illegal.
>
>
>
> Now that the fluoride has been turned off, the tables have turned. They
> are going to have to take affirmative action to turn it back on. That
> will be an illegal action.
>
>
>
> I gave them a copy of the 2005 letter the FDA wrote stating that making
> untrue medical claims about a product can be a CRIME.
> http://fluoride-class-action.com/fda-letter-criminal-sanctions-for-makin
> g-untrue-claims
>
> We are going to hammer on that point.
>
>
>
> And the local paper published this opinion piece:
>
> http://heraldnet.com/article/20120324/OPINION03/703249995/-1/OPINION#Uti
> lity-should-have-to-prove-its-safety
>
>
>
> The additional good news is that the op-ed editor says that he will
> publish as many intelligent 300 word letters to the editor as we send
> him. He has been listening via the web to all the speeches that Fluoride
> Class Action and Washington Safe Water have been giving.
>
>
>
> On Friday Audrey Adams and I - representing Washington Action for Safe
> Water and Fluoride Class Action - attended the Snohomish Health District
> seminar on Fluoride.
>
>
>
> Howard Pollack, defender of the fluoride faith, cruised along from 8:30
> until 10:00 about how great fluoridation was.
>
>
>
> At the intermission I handed out my broadsheet:
>
> http://fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases/snohomish-health-distric
> t
>
>
>
> Thereafter Howard Pollack seemed to be flustered.  He asked me if I knew
> Paul Connett, and I said "of course".
>
>
>
> Audrey and I asked a lot of questions and made our arguments.
>
>
>
> Also present was Mark Weeks, who gave a virtual tour of the water
> treatment plant. I asked him if they ever suited up in hazmat gear when
> working with the fluoride. He said they did not even have one. He said
> they didn't even use breathers or masks. He said they did not even own
> any hazmat suits. He said that the ventilation removed ten volumes of
> air every hour and that was protection enough.
>
>
>
> The Washington Dental Foundation was there too. They are unquestioning
> supporters of fluoridation. I think they are funded by the Pew
> Foundation. The lady said that if she knew there was anything wrong with
> fluoridation, they would not support it. I intend to write them a
> letter.
>
>
>
> I will publish more about the conference when I have time. Now back to
> work.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> James Robert Deal , Attorney
> <mailto:James@...> James@...
>
> PO Box 2276 Lynnwood WA 98036
>
> Telephone: 425-771-1110
> Fax: 425-776-8081
>
> www.WashingtonSafeWater.com <http://www.WashingtonSafeWater.com>
>
> www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com <http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/>
>