Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Corporate Influence in Goverment Policy: Public Water Fluoridation

Posted 8 years ago on March 17, 2012, 8:21 p.m. EST by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"Water fluoridation is the single largest case of scientific fraud, promoted by the government, supported by taxpayer dollars, aided and abetted by the ADA and the AMA, in the history of the planet." -- DDS President of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, David Kennedy. Did you know fluoride is legally too toxic to dump but good enough to drink? Yes, fluoride is probably recommended by your dentist and dentists are good people in respectable white coats, who care for our well-being. Of course we want to put our trust in them. But wait. Let’s not forget that up until fairly recent times DDT and asbestos were considered safe and smoking was actually considered good for you! Cigarettes were even recommended by doctors in commercial advertisements up until the 1950’s! Of course, in retrospect we see there were corporate interests at work in promoting these beliefs, and it took some time for the truth to become obvious and the public to become outraged. Still, we imagine that today we are so much more sophisticated than we were back then and that if water fluoridation were harmful; we would know it by now. The fact is we already do. Thousands of scientists, doctors, and even dentists have gone before congress to testify about the dangers of fluoride. Their warnings have gone unheeded.
• Fluorides are listed by the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry as among the top 20 of 275 substances posing the most significant threat to human health. Fluoride is designated a Class 2 pesticide by the EPA and according to the handbook of Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, fluoride is more poisonous than lead and just slightly less poisonous than arsenic. • The chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies are largely hazardous by-products of the fertilizer industry and do not occur naturally in nature. Believe it or not, hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which are the industrial waste products commonly referred to as fluoride, are labeled toxic. Much of it is recovered from the scrubbing solution that scours toxins from smokestacks at phosphate fertilizer plants. And as waste products, they often contain other toxins, such as arsenic, lead, aluminum, uranium and radium. Chemical companies are not allowed to release the fluoride waste into the air, land, or waterways because of its toxicity. Yet they are allowed sell it at a profit to local municipalities to pour into the public water supply. • Fluoride is big business, costing tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. In these hard times, in which so many essential services are being cut, larger cities can pay chemical corporations millions of dollars every year for fluoridation. Recently, some municipalities have chosen to stop their water fluoridation programs not because of medical or ethical considerations, but for economic reasons. They have chosen to keep their teachers, police, and firefighters instead.
• There is no federal agency that either regulates the practice of water fluoridation, or the chemicals used, or accepts liability for damages. The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with setting the standards of water fluoridation levels but in their own words, the EPA states that “…there are no Federal safety standards which are applicable to additives, including those for use in fluoridating drinking water.” (US EPA Fluoride: Regulatory Fact Sheet,1997) In contradiction of the agency’s official position, the EPA’s own Headquarters Professionals’ Union of Scientists is now calling for an immediate halt to water fluoridation in the U.S. as well as a Congressional investigation into fluoride’s adverse effects, citing the EPA’s compromised position due to political pressures. • Fluoridation chemicals have never been required to undergo randomized clinical trials for safety or effectiveness by any regulatory agency in the world. The U.S. FDA classifies fluoride as an "unapproved drug." And yet fluoride has been recognized as being harmful to plants, animals, and people for over a century. In the 1800’s fluoride was used as a rat poison and insecticide. According to a 1972 report from the US Department of Agriculture, “airborne fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant." Fluoride proved to be one of the most costly chemical liabilities to American industry from the 1940s through to the 1960s. Fluoride was promoted as a medicine rather than a poison by studies paid for by the polluting industries and became national policy in the 1950’s in spite of the fact that no comprehensive medical studies had been conducted at that time. • Fluoridation is a violation of the individual's right to informed consent to medication. Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication; ostensibly to prevent tooth decay. All other treatment chemicals are added to improve the water's safety. Regardless of the growing controversy about the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation, most Americans would agree that the government does not have the authority to mandate medical treatment for the entire population, en masse. • Swallowing fluoride provides little or no benefit to the teeth. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, fluoride works best when applied topically and not via the systemic exposure of ingestion. In fact, a recent study found no relationship between the amounts of fluoride ingested and level of tooth decay. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, however the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization. 97% of Western Europe has refused this outmoded, unethical, and harmful practice, and allow individuals the right to choose, or refuse fluoride. • We receive an uncontrolled dose regardless of age, body mass, existing health conditions, and individual sensitivity. Topical treatment in the form of fluoridated toothpaste is universally available, so it is absurd to ingest fluoride and expose all the tissues of the body to its proven harmful effects. In fact, fluoride in toothpastes comes with a warning to seek medical attention if swallowed! • Fluoride is a known toxin, not an essential nutrient. No biological process in animals or humans has been shown to depend on it. On the contrary, it is known that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes and vital cellular constituents. This makes fluoride potentially toxic even at low doses. Fluoride has actually been found to damage teeth and bones because it interferes with calcium formation. The effects can mimic the symptoms of arthritis. Fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. A study from a team of Harvard scientists has found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer in male children. • Today, according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 32% of all American children have been overexposed to fluoride and are now impacted with some form of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is damage to the enamel involving discoloration; white flecks or brown patches, and/or mottling. This is caused by overexposure to fluoride. The fluoride interferes with calcium formation in the tooth’s enamel and actually significantly weakens the long-term strength of the tooth. This is one symptom of overexposure to fluoride. However, many internal effects of fluoride go unrecognized. • There are now 24 international studies that show a relationship between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and reduced IQ in children. Two of these studies suggest that the threshold for damage may be reached at fluoride levels similar to those used in water fluoridation. • The American Dental Association advises that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water. Human breast milk is very low in fluoride. Because of their sole reliance on liquids for their food intake, infants consuming formula made with fluoridated water have the highest exposure to fluoride, by bodyweight, in the population. A bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated area gets up to 250 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. • Fluoride is an endocrine disrupter and is implicated in infertility and other hormonal problems, including hypothyroidism. Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, arthritic symptoms, depression and weight gain. These ailments have become a national epidemic over the past few decades. The research into how fluoride became public policy leads back to the Mellon family, who were the founders of Mellon Bank and then, Mellon Institute, from whence came the modern reinvention of fluoride as a prevention against dental decay. As early as 1940, Dr. Gerald Cox of the Mellon Institute was aggressively promoting the addition of fluoride to public water systems to reduce tooth decay. Known up until then as poison and a hazard of great public concern, this was the “discovery” that literally turned 'garbage into gold'. As it happens, the Mellon family also founded the American Aluminum Company (Alcoa), the largest producer of the waste toxin, sodium fluoride, which up to this point was very costly in terms of safe disposal. For more information, watch the documentary, The Fluoride Deception: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXkCDIcyq6c To find out what’s going on in the U.S. and what communities are doing to stop this, please contact the Fluoride Action Network at www.fluoridealert.org



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Jakenow (3) 8 years ago

Thank you for doing your part to spread junk science. Did you take the time to research this conspiracy-laden material that you posted? If you had done your homework, you would have discovered that:

  1. Citing the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) as a reliable source is a joke. Are you aware that FAN's website promotes research conducted by John Yiamouyiannis, a man who falsely claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS?

  2. Dr. Stephen Barrett, the physician who founded Quackwatch, has identified David Kennedy's organization (he's the one you quoted at the beginning) as a group "we distrust" as a source of sound, scientific dental information. See Dr. Barrett's analysis here: http://www.dentalwatch.org/org/nonrec.html

The fact that you would post this article makes me wonder if you also believe 9/11 was a conspiracy and that the moon-landing was a hoax. What are your scientific credentials? The American Academy of Pediatrics endorses fluoridation, and I will take their word over yours.

[-] 1 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

Your science is as modern as blood letting. The Academy of Pediatrics and the Academy of General Dentistry have also cautioned parents to avoid fluoridated water when making infant foods. And the American Dental Association (ADA) recently joined the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in advising that fluoridated water not be used in infant formula or foods. PS: Quackwatch is the biggest quack. You need to start investigating things for yourself if you want to have an opinion. http://www.fannz.org.nz/pdfs/Baby%20Poster%20for%20NZ.pdf

[-] 1 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

Don't take anyone's word, unless you are a mindless cow. But you might want to consider the experts who have been trying to get the word out, including a union of over 1700 scientists of the EPA, who take this seriously enough to go to congress. Here is the testimony of Dr. William Hirzy, Vice President of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Headquarters Union, speaking on behalf of the EPA's Union of over 1700 Scientists AGAINST FLUORIDE, before the US Senate on June 29, 2000. He suggests a compromised EPA and a cover-up of information: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903910725020792574

[-] 2 points by nyscof (2) 8 years ago

New York City Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr is the lead sponsor of a bill to stop fluoridation in New York City. New Yorkers have got to call, write, email or visit their city Council Members to tell them to sign on to this bill and pass it into law

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

A large amount of the millions of people in NYC are poor with no access to dental care and it is well documented that those of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to take of their teeth. Removing fluoride from NYC's drinking water is going to be a public health crisis for poor New Yorkers, especially children. You will see 25 year olds with complete dentures becoming more and more common among the poor. Middle and upper class will likely not be affected as much because they see a dentist regularly and practice good hygiene.

[-] 2 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

Did you even read this article? Obviously not. Fluoride has actually been found to damage teeth and bones because it interferes with calcium formation.

[-] 3 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I have read dozens of papers on fluoride in the years since I graduated dental school. The only negative effects it has on teeth is a type of staining. The inorganic part of teeth, hydroxyapatite, is demineralized under acid attack. In the prescence of fluoride, it remineralizes to form fluoroapatite which is much more resistant to future acid attack. It is in this process of remineralization that the enamel will pick up staining.

It is true though the affects of fluoride are nearly entirely topical, especially in adults. Unfortunately, millions of Americans do not brush their teeth, especially poor ones, so water fluoridation came along as a way to give these people exposure to fluoride.

I do not necessarily agree with fluoridation of public drinking water, especially in suburban areas where people are more likely to practice good hygiene. In a place like NYC though, it would lead to big time expenses, and big time pain, for those who can least afford it.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I have read them. I know the link to osteosarcoma in little boys. Like I said though, people don't need it systemically. Water fluoridation can be done away with but unless it is accompanied by a good public health campaign to educate people about how to practice good oral hygiene a lot of poor people are going to have huge problems.

Food for thought though. Water fluoridation ranges between 0.7 and 1.2 ppm. OTC toothpaste in the US has about 1100 ppm and it is closer to 1450 ppm in most of Europe. People who truly want to avoid fluoride should not use normal toothpaste because you inadvertently swallow large amounts fluoride when you brush twice a day than what you would be drinking, regardless of how good you rinse.

Tom's of Maine makes a fluoride free toothpaste, and I'm sure plenty of others do too. Switching to one of those would really decrease one's fluoride consumption, likely much more so than drinking non-fluorodated water. Just make sure you have a good dentist or denturist lined up.

[-] 0 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

There is clear evidence that small amounts of fluoride, at or near levels added to U.S. water supplies, present potential risks to the thyroid gland, according to the National Research Council's (NRC) first-ever published review of the fluoride/thyroid literature. Perhaps this is why thyroid disorders in this country are practically epidemic. "Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with iodine deficiency," says Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, co-author of the government-sponsored NRC report. "The recent decline in iodine intake in the U.S could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals," says Thiessen.Common thyroid symptoms include fatigue, weight gain, constipation, fuzzy thinking, low blood pressure, fluid retention, depression, body pain, slow reflexes, and more. It's estimated that 59 million Americans have thyroid conditions

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

Again, if you truly believe fluoride is so dangerous, and it is fine if you do, then I highly suggest you concentrate your efforts on OTC toothpastes because they have over 1000x more fluoride. And lots of little kids just swallow it after they brush cause it tastes good. Or they just eat it right out of the tube.

[-] 0 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

This is not about me and it is not a belief. You are challenged with uncomfortable facts, I realize, but it is your responsibility as a health care practitioner to keep an on-going open mind and carefully consider all new data on the therapies and modalities you are using- even when it is already so entrenched in the status quo. Remember that as the body of scientific knowledge grows, many treatments will go the way of leaching and blood letting- once considered the cure-all by respected doctors everywhere.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I have a very open mind and I try my best to keep up with all the literature. The facts are not uncomfortable whatsoever. I have evaluated it pretty extensively from both sides and in 99% of my patients I have no problem highly recommending responsible fluoride use as a means to prevent caries. And that is even though it is in my best financial interest if none of my patients ever get any fluoride exposure. I don't recommend children under 12 (or small teens) get high levels or people with kidney problems.

This does not necessarily mean that I think there should be fluoridation of public drinking water, however, I am just saying a place like NYC would see a massive increase in caries, especially early childhood caries. That is something they will need to be prepared for, either through public health campaigns to teach prevention (ideally) or more dental coverage to fix problems after they occur.

Believe it or not, I like patients like you who are strong in your convictions. Not just about fluoride but about other decisions like porcelain vs gold, root canal vs implant, etc. People who are informed and make their own decisions, regardless if I agree with them, make the best patients because they are actually sharing responsibility for the health decisions.

[-] 0 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

Exposure to fluoride may lower children's intelligence says a study pre-published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (online December 17, 2010). The study authors write: "In this study we found a significant dose-response relation between fluoride level in serum and children's IQ."

In addition to this study, and the 23 other IQ studies, there have been over 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage (all the IQ and animal brain studies are available online at http://fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride.appendices.html).

[-] 1 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

I am an adult who was overexposed to fluoride in the in-utero and primary years. As a result, I suffer from fluorosis. In addition to the discolored and mottled appearance of the molars, there is a lack of integrity to the enamel which has left these teeth much more brittle and prone to both cavities and cracking than the teeth that came at a later age (thank goodness!). This condition has invariably been recognized by countless dentists throughout my life.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

too long

use double line breaks for paragraph formatting

[-] 0 points by Jakenow (3) 8 years ago

Mooks, that's an excellent point. NYSCOF is obsessed with the fluoride issue and doesn't seem to care very much about the terrible consequences that would result by ending fluoridation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has praised fluoridation as one of "10 great health achievements of the 20th century." Why would we want to end such a practice? It's good for our health.

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 8 years ago

whether fluoridation is good or bad, the question is...

Why should the government medicate me?? and why do we keep such wasting TAX PAYER MONEY OVER THIS??

[-] 1 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

I think as Occupi, we need to be willing to reconsider things we have always taken for granted. This is especially true when it comes to examining corporate interests working through our goverment, and this is the case in the adoption of the policy of water fluoridation. Then (1940s), just as now, big banks were enormously influential. And the Mellon Institute, funded by the Bank of Mellon and owned by the same family that also founded the American Aluminum Company (Alcoa), the largest producer of the waste toxin, sodium fluoride. So, we must investigate into the source of this policy of water fluoridation in order to understand how something so bizarre became normal. One of the scientists who was key in this propaganda was Harold Hodge. He was chosen to head the United States Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) Division of Pharmacology and Toxicology for the Manhattan Project, where he studied the effects of the inhalation of uranium. Hodge's reputation was damaged by the publication of Eileen Welsome's book The Plutonium Files, for which she won a Pulitzer Prize. It documented chilling human experiments in which the subjects did not know they were being tested to find the safety limits of uranium and were injected with the poison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hodge

[-] 1 points by Jakenow (3) 8 years ago

You are entitled to believe in these massive conspiracy theories, but your fears should not deprive millions of children from having access to fluoridated water -- a practice that is proven to be safe and effective.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

guess this point is moot as most people drink bottled water now. who drinks from the tap?

[-] 1 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

Water stored in plastic is full of xeno-estrogens, which are hormone disruptors linked to infertility, breast cancer, and more. Not everyone can afford bottled water, anyway. We have a right to uncontaminated water.

[-] 1 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

Thank you for that. Awful. We don't have a chance, do we? All you need to know here is who is in charge, as written in the order: Implementation by the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

yes we do have a chance.. there just has to be enough people willing to do what it takes to force changes in policy . not getting hung up on distractions like whats in the water as compared to having any water at all. thats the reason the politicians get away with this stuff. as long as people have water.. they dont care.. when the water runs out.. they will already have the process in place to control that resource. and all those people that are willing to fight will have lost the chance..

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 8 years ago

Yes, yes - but what are you going to do about? Probably nothing. When you get tired of getting your butts kicked join a real revolution. Their is a better way to fight back.

Don't be Afraid!


U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( Http://www.revolution2.osixs.org )

Non U.S. Citizens Read “The OsiXs Plan” at ( Http://www.SaveTheWorldNow.osixs.org )

"Spread the News"

How else can I say this? "We Are Free!" http://WeAreFree.osixs.org

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

I followed the link ad got

Sorry, the website wearefree.osixs cannot be found

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

nice curves

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I am actually a dentist and I can assure that from a purely financial standpoint it is in my interest to tell people not to use fluoride. I have about 10 patients who have lived most of their life making a point to have zero fluoride exposure and literally every one of them have paid me large sums of money for things like root canals, crowns, and implants.

If fluoride was completely done away with, I could have a yacht by this time next year with the amount of implants I would be placing at $4500 per tooth. So I always wonder what the people think the ADA's motive is for promoting fluoride use. It is certainly not financial.

Anyone who has ever taken a toxicology class will tell you that the basic principle of toxicology is that every substance is toxic at the appropriate dose. Even water.

You mention a lot of effects but not much about dosage. I would love to see the sound scientific research that shows all of these effects to be true at the levels of fluoride in drinking water. Most people inadvertently swallow much more fluoride when brushing their teeth than in their drinking water.

Ultimately, I don't really care what my patients do in regards to fluoride. When they ask, I give them the facts and my opinion on it and let them decide. In some people who are at high risk for decay though it is the difference between keeping your teeth or having dentures by the time you are 30.

[-] 1 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

Firstly, all these studies can be easily confirmed by a quick Google search. You might want to take the time to check for yourself. Because of constraints of space,for the most part I did not list the individual studies because there are literally hundreds.

[-] 1 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago

So, how do you explain the fact that the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water? (according to the World Health Organization) Or that according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, fluoride works best when applied topically and not via the systemic exposure of ingestion. In fact, a recent study found no relationship between the amounts of fluoride ingested and level of tooth decay? Also, you are a dentist and not a doctor. You are looking at the teeth and not the patient. Do you ask your patients about their health conditions? Lastly, as far as the dosage is concerned, the point is that everyone receives an uncontrolled dose regardless of age, body mass, existing health conditions, and individual sensitivity. What kind of medicine is that???

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

Read my above post. I don't necessarily agree with water fluoridation because the effects are all topical. The problem being that far too many people don't brush their teeth. These are disproportionally poor people who can least afford the subsequent dental care.

And yes, my patients answer all kinds of questions and I spend several minutes discussing patients medical conditions at their biannual exams. And before I Rx high strength fluoride I always ensure they have no kidney problems so that excretion is not affected.

[-] 1 points by eyeopen (20) from Burkeville, VA 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 8 years ago

Good point. This bothers me to no end. Between the chlorine & the fluoride and the fact that I pay for the water and have no choice in the matter makes me want this change to happen in least my lifetime.