|
|
|
|
Water Fluoridation |
|
Fluoridation |
|
Fact: Fluoride is so toxic that only one
milligram constitutes a prescription dose. In spite of this, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) allows up to this amount in a single glass of drinking water. Fact: Virtually every country in Fact: Persons who have grown up with
fluoridated water have, on the average, only 1/2 of one filling less per
lifetime than people who did not drink fluoridated water (Chemical and
Engineering News, May 8, 1989). Fluoride naturally
and properly occurs mostly in bones and teeth. In extremely small
amounts, it contributes to their hardness. Excess fluoride may be
excreted in the urine... or retained in the body. Overdose is both
well known and widespread. Fluoride overdose (fluorosis)
is characterized by mottling of the tooth enamel. This overdose
condition is so common in Artificial
fluoridation of water has also caused fluorosis in
widespread communities in our country. Curiously, fluoridation of
public water supplies is rarely seen as the rather imprecise
supplementation... or mass medication... program that it is.
Nutritionists who are repelled at the fact that now half of all Americans
take vitamin C supplements almost always endorse mass fluoridation of
everyone's water. Excess fluoride is
vastly more dangerous than most minerals. Even pro-fluoride textbooks
such as Nutrition and Diet Therapy, 6th edition (p. 305) indicate that
"the range of safe intake is not wide." There is absolutely no way to control the
dose of fluoride once it is in the drinking water, for different people
and different ages drink radically different amounts of water each day. The alleged
decay-preventing properties of fluoride are not as clearly established by
scientific means as fluoridationists would have you
believe. Federal, state and local politics... and the American Dental
Association... have been biased. At least! Some evidence of this is
provided by an article in the Canadian Whig-Standard, Monday January
27, 1992: Dr. Richard Foulkes, who had once urged
water fluoridation for the entire The authoritative Physician's
Desk Reference lists adverse reactions to fluoride as low as one-quarter
part per million. Some communities,
such as the one I live in ( In an age of
fluoride toothpastes, fluoride mouthwashes and even fluoridated children's
vitamins, it is very difficult to justify the very real danger of mandating
still more fluoride in everyone's drinking water. Please remember
that your Grandma and spouse may be getting fluoride that even an Fluoride (in vitamins or
water) interferes with magnesium metabolism in the body according to Dr.
John R. Marier, of the Division of Biological
Sciences at the Canadian National Research Council, Ottawa, in a paper
published in The Proceedings of the Finnish Dental Society, vol. 76,
1980, pages 82-102. This is significant because fluoride toxicity is
increased when magnesium levels are low. Magnesium deficiency is
widespread in the Did you know that young children swallow
as much as one third of their toothpaste? Kids have been consuming
so much excess fluoride that the US Public Health Service has urged parents
to see that kids brush with only a "pea-sized portion" of fluoride
toothpaste... and rinse carefully afterwards. (Daily News,
Wednesday February 20, 1991, page 26) Fluoride DOES accumulate in bone
"regardless of the level of intake." (text,
p. 305). The Environmental Protection Agency responded to all these red
flags by increasing the allowed fluoride levels for drinking water. Now
4 parts per million (ppm) is allowed. At only
1 ppm, four glasses of fluoridated water,
equals a 1 mg prescription fluoride tablet. (one mg in one liter is 1 ppm) This literally means that in parts of the Dissenting EPA
scientists, such as Robert Carton (http://www.doctoryourself.com/carton.html)
and William Marcus, are subject to being fired, and Dr. Marcus was. EPA's own
work on rats fails to demonstrate the safety of fluoride. Marcus and
others think that the cancer danger is being played down. Fluoride
appears to cause osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in lab
animals. Marcus also cites
numerous studies, up to and including 1991 JAMA
articles "demonstrating adverse effects to bone caused by fluoride
at levels to which the majority of the It gets even more
dramatic: both the National Toxicology Program (January 22, 1990 Fact Sheet)
and the National Cancer Institute found a fluoride-related increase in osteosarcoma
(a bone cancer) in young males ("Review of Fluoride Benefits and
Risks," U.S. Public Health Service, February, 1991.) "There
is no evidence that fluoride is an essential nutrient for humans." (Physicians'
Desk Reference) http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/flu_0109.shtml Fluoride is not approved by the older adults. A lengthy and remarkably
unbiased review of the detrimental effects of "Fluoridation of
Water" appeared in Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 66, August
1, 1988, pp 26-42. This is the most important single reference on the
fluoride controversy you will ever read, or not read, as the case may be. The National Parent-Teachers Association withdrew its
support for water fluoridation on April 17, 1991. Does your community
fluoridate your water? Is that what you want? Whose decision was
it? THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION by Christopher Bryson Reviewed by Andrew W. Saul "One of the best book reviews I have ever
read."
Abram Hoffer, M.D. It was an era of
thalidomide and plutonium; school segregation and human experimentation;
24-hour SAC bomber patrols and classroom "duck and cover" drills;
atmospheric H-bomb testing and DDT. The Red Scare dominated the news and
physicians endorsed their favorite cigarette on TV. The "Atomic Genie"
was out of the bottle and radium treatment was in vogue. And, of course,
there was the latest of modern wonders, water fluoridation. Scientists of
post WW II America promised us the world. And, as with 3-D movies and the Edsel, the promise was far beyond what would be
delivered. Fluoridated water was
idealized as the ultimate form of 1950's failsafe social engineering. What
could be more appealing than to be able to have your children virtually drink
away dental decay? Yet like vaccination, municipal water fluoridation has
never been satisfactorily tested with double-blind, placebo controls. But it
hardly mattered to those in power. Like the lure of a quick war, with the
troops all to be home by Christmas, dental publicists promised 75% or even
90% reductions in dental caries. Today, most of the strongest fluoridation
proponents rarely offer expected benefits of over 35%. The real numbers are
almost certainly far lower. There is little or no difference in decay rates
between sister cities' caries incidence regardless whether they are
fluoridated or not. And this, says Christopher Bryson, author of The
Fluoride Deception, has been the case from the start. When Fluoride pollution, much
of it a byproduct of WW II nuclear weapons manufacturing, had opened industry
and government to lawsuits. Fluoridated water was engineered to be an
antidote to liability as much as to dental decay. Fluoridation rode a wave
of politicized science, the dark side of which was the nuclear arms race.
According to Bryson's publisher, "Documents discovered in the files of
the Manhattan Project connect the atomic bomb program with the 1945 public
experiment compared the teeth and health of the children of Newburgh with
that of fluoride-free neighboring Kingston. It was the most significant of
the early water fluoridation trials, purporting to demonstrate fluoride's
safety in low doses. The top scientist who oversaw
the Blanket and blatant
reassurances about safety is nothing new to the military. If you have ever
viewed the documentary movie entitled The Atomic Café, you have seen
actual U.S. Army film footage showing soldiers, shielded only by their cotton
uniforms and a G.I. helmet, walking straight towards a still-rising mushroom
cloud from an atomic detonation just a few miles away. It hardly ended there;
from 1942 until the 1980’s, uranium was added to the materials in dentures.
No doubt this was to help Grandpa see them in the dark when he craved a
midnight snack. Sounds pretty odd, doesn't it. Uranium in dentures. How very
silly, we now say. Yet to this day, the American Dental Association, the FDA,
and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control all maintain that mercury, a toxic
heavy metal, is perfectly safe to have drilled into your living teeth. (1, 2,
3) Not surprisingly, they
also all support fluoridation of water. History is stranger than
fiction, and just as subject to revision. For decades, fluoridationists
declared that teeth were strengthened from within by fluoride; it was
supposedly a systemic, nutritional benefit. It is not. Fluoride weakens bone,
increases incidence of bone cancer, and increases fracture rates. (http://www.doctoryourself.com/osteoporosis.html) Today the
"authorities" have quietly flip-flopped, and now claim that dilute
fluoride has a topical, perhaps bactericidal effect. Think about that for a
moment. If fluoride has that kind of killing power at just a few parts per
million, what are doctors doing wasting their time writing antibiotic
prescriptions? Forget the Cipro: Why not just tell
patients to drink more tap water? If fluoride is that powerful, imagine the
effect on the rest of the body. Indeed, fluoride is the most chemically
reactive of all naturally-occurring elements. When Linus Pauling originated
the four-point electronegative scale, fluorine was and remains the one and
only top scorer with a perfect 4. All other elements are weaker. And this is
the element you drink, without prescription, in doses that vary with how
thirsty you may be on a given day. Most of the "The addition of fluoride to water supplies
violates modern pharmacological principles," writes Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize for
Medicine laureate.
"It is my sincere hope that Christopher Bryson's apparently thorough
and comprehensive perusal of the scientific literature on the biological
actions of fluoride and the ensuing debates through the years will receive
the attention it deserves and that its implications will be seriously considered."
Dr. Carlsson, by the way, is the scientist
"who helped lead the successful campaign to stop water fluoridation in
Sweden (and) argued that public water supplies were not an appropriate
vehicle with which to deliver 'pharmacologically active' drugs to the entire
population. According to Carlsson: 'I am quite
convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be
consigned to medical history. . . The addition of drugs to the drinking water
means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy. Not only in that the
dose cannot be adapted to individual requirements: it is, in addition, based
on a completely irrelevant factor, namely consumption of drinking water,
which varies greatly between individuals and is, moreover, very poorly surveyed.'"
(http://www.fluoridealert.org/basel.htm) Since the 1950's, we have
learned a few things. Everyone now knows that nuclear radiation is dangerous;
most know that heavy metals are poisonous. Although dentists still implant
mercury into teeth, at least lead is no longer added to gasoline. You'll like
this one: in his book, Bryson shows that "the man who reassured the
nation as to the safety of lead in gasoline, Robert Kehoe, Director of the
Kettering Laboratory at the What a story, and it's
just one of many more to be found in The Fluoride Deception.
Christopher Bryson's narrative has captured the feel of the
progress-patriotism-and-profit postwar years with his comprehensive,
interview-based history of fluoridation. The Fluoride Deception is
genuinely interesting, impeccably referenced, and scary. For those who still
believe that fluoridation is the public's passive panacea for tooth decay,
here's the book that may finally set them straight. (This review reprinted
with permission from The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.) The Fluoride Deception,
by Christopher Bryson. NY: Seven Stories Press, 2004. (ISBN: 1-58-322526-9) Doctor Yourself’s Andrew W. Saul
Interviews CHRISTOPHER BRYSON, author of The Fluoride Deception: DY: So, Mr. Bryson: How
do you get along with your dentist? Christopher Bryson: Very
well. He has no idea I am the author of The Fluoride Deception. I
cannot abide those one sided so-called "conversations" in the
chair, talking with a mouthful of metal. DY: Questioning
fluoridation is the kiss of death for many a scientist. Almost all of the
over 5,000 fluoride-related scientific papers indexed on Medline are openly in
favor of the practice. A search for "fluoride dangers" brings up
only two papers; "fluoride toxicity" gets you a handful more. Where
has there ever been any fair and reasonable discussion of fluoridation, pro
and con? Bryson: Perhaps the most
balanced review I came across was a long article in Chemical and Engineering
News, from August 1, 1988, by Bette Hileman. (Vol.
66, p 26-42.) DY: Agreed. That article
that showed that fluoridated water reduces dental caries by about 1/2 filling
per person per lifetime. It is not indexed on Medline. There has also been
what I consider to be a very good article on the cancer risk of fluoridated
water published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, also posted at http://www.doctoryourself.com/fluoride_cancer.html . That is not on Medline, either. Now for a standard
question: how did you come to write this book? Bryson: I was a BBC radio
reporter in DY: You researched and
developed this into a major portion of your book. To shift gears: Is your
community’s water fluoridated? Bryson: Yes, DY: What steps have you
taken, personally, to limit fluoride intake for your family? Bryson: I do not use
fluoridated toothpaste, and have a fluoride filter for drinking water. DY: In your book, one
cannot help but notice how many personal interviews you conducted with your
sources. What can you tell me about interviewees who did not wish to go on
the record? Bryson: Most everyone
went on the record. Some of them, I’m sure, had no idea that my book would be
as critical of fluoridation. Director Jack Hein of the Forsyth Dental Center
was reluctant to a formal interview, but was drawn out in a telephone
conversation, and ended up telling me a great deal. Attorney Pete Johnson who
represented the Reynolds Metals Company in the 2000 Hurricane Creek lawsuit
did not return my phone call. Arnold Kramish of the
Manhattan Project also declined a request for an interview. DY: Your book, with its
very commendable 110 pages of notes, might be well described as sort of a
"Fahrenheit FL." What facts, what parts of your book are your
critics specifically attacking you over? Bryson: I don’t know that
I have any critics. If they exist, they have been profoundly silent, well
aware that any attack would be good publicity for the book. DY: I think your book is
so tightly documented that they haven't a leg to stand on if they try. I
noticed that there was an advertisement for your book in the NY Times,
but am unaware that the Times ever reviewed it. Where may we find and
read major media reviews of The Fluoride Deception? Bryson: Thus far, there
has not been a single mention of the book in the DY News: The Publisher's
Weekly notice (May 2004) was favorable, saying in part:
"Investigative reporter Bryson revisits the decades-long controversy,
drawing on mountains of scientific studies, some unearthed from secret
archives of government and corporate laboratories, to question the effects of
fluoride and the motives of its leading advocates. . . Fluoride in its many
forms may be one of the most toxic of industrial pollutants, and Bryson cites
scientific analyses linking fluoridated drinking water to bone deformities,
hyperactivity and a host of other complaints." Thank you for getting the
word out. Bryson: Thanks for your
interest in the book. MERCURY AMALGAM Quotes
and Notes, referred to in the above review: 1. "Dental amalgam
(silver filling) is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that
has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. . .The
ADA’s Council on Scientific Affairs’ 1998 report (J Am Dent Assoc. 1998 Apr;129(4):494-503.)
on its review of the recent scientific literature on
amalgam states: 'The Council concludes that, based on available scientific
information, amalgam continues to be a safe and effective restorative
material.' The Council’s report also states, 'There currently appears to be
no justification for discontinuing the use of dental amalgam.' . . . (T)he 2. "No valid
scientific evidence has shown that amalgams cause harm to patients with
dental restorations, except in the rare case of allergy." U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html, accessed July 31, 2004) 3. "The U.S. Public
Health Service believes it is inappropriate at this time to recommend any
restrictions on the use of dental amalgam . . . (C)urrent
scientific evidence does not show that exposure to mercury from amalgam
restorations poses a serious health risk in humans." (CDC/National
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Oral Health
Resources. http://www.cdc.gov/OralHealth/factsheets/amalgam.htm, accessed July 31, 2004) (Editor's note: I
disagree with all mercury apologists, and predict, in time, that each of
these organizations will eat their words.) Andrew Saul is the author
of the books FIRE YOUR DOCTOR! How to be
Independently Healthy (reader reviews at http://www.doctoryourself.com/review.html
) and DOCTOR YOURSELF: Natural Healing that Works. (reviewed at http://www.doctoryourself.com/saulbooks.html
) For ordering information, Click Here .
|
|
|
AN IMPORTANT NOTE: This page is not in any way offered as prescription, diagnosis nor treatment for any disease, illness, infirmity or physical condition. Any form of self-treatment or alternative health program necessarily must involve an individual's acceptance of some risk, and no one should assume otherwise. Persons needing medical care should obtain it from a physician. Consult your doctor before making any health decision. Neither the author nor the webmaster has authorized the use of their names or the use of any material contained within in connection with the sale, promotion or advertising of any product or apparatus. Single-copy reproduction for individual, non-commercial use is permitted providing no alterations of content are made, and credit is given. |
|
|
|
|
| Home | Order my Books | About the Author | Contact Us | Webmaster | |
