|
More on Fluoride in water.from http://www.FluorideAction.net. Officials in both Juneau, Alaska and Martin County, Florida have stood firm BELOW IS AN ARTICLE SENT IN BY JOHN PETRIE AN EXPERT ON THE SUBJECT OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF FLOURIDATION Tom Petrie is a graduate of Cornell University with a degree in Nutrition and Biochemistry. He was Nutritionist with the Pritikin Longevity Center in Santa Monica, CA and Nutritionist for the Total Health Foundation in Albany, NY. He has been a guest on WABC radio and local TV. He currently works with The Healing Clinic in Spring Valley (www.healingclinic.net) and at a pilates health center in Hartsdale, New York. He is currently working on a book for adults interested in overcoming ADHD and an e-book on enhancing one's immune system. He lectures frequently in Westchester, Rockland Counties and occasionally in the Bronx. He is an avid distance runner, race-walker, bicyclist and disc golfer. Private Consultations and evening appointments are available at either location. Insurance coverage varies. Phone number is 914-643-7333 Fluoridation is the process by which fluoride is artificially added to a community’s drinking water supply to reduce tooth decay. Two compounds are usually used: sodium fluoride or hydrofluosilicic acid (or its sodium salt). Sixty percent of the drinking water in America is fluoridated at this time. The measure is highly controversial. WE WILL OFFER A FEW OF THE 20 PAGE ARTICLE . THE REST IS AVAILABLE BY CALLING PETRIE DIRECT Phone number is 914-643-7333
SOME BASIC DEFINITIONS
CURRENT TOTAL INTAKE OF FLUORIDE FROM ALL SOURCES The intake of water can vary tremendously from person to person. Some people drink very little water, others have an excess water intake. Most filters do NOT remove fluoride and, unlike chlorine, which evaporates upon boiling, fluorine concentrates. In addition to large potential variations in individual water intake, blood levels can vary tremendously with just small variations in intake. In 1976, for example, scientists at Sweden’s Karonlinska Institute developed a simple and reliable way of measuring levels of ionic fluoride in the blood. They found even very small dosages of fluoride to cause ‘normal’ blood fluoride levels to surge to potentially harmful values.
Even if one milligram were a useful and safe dose, the total intake of fluoride from all sources already exceeds the recommended dose—whether one lives in a fluoridated or a non-fluoridated community. The total intake in a non-fluoridated community ranges from 1.4 to 3.9 milligrams per day. The total intake in a fluoridated community ranges from 2.1 to 7.05 milligrams per day! Thus, even without fluoridated water, people around the country are getting up to 340 percent more than the ‘recommended’ amount. Sources of fluoride (besides artificially fluoridated water) include air pollution, (it is one of our top ten air pollutants), prescription vitamins, (Poly-Vi-Flurâ), fluoride toothpaste, mouth rinses (both commercial and in school fluoride mouth rinse programs), pesticide residues in foods, (especially heavily sprayed crops like coffee) and various drugs, tobacco (up to 3.0 mgs per pack!), and lastly, a huge variety of foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas. The later could include soda, beer, soups and cereals. For example, a 60 gm portion of canned sardines could contribute 0.96 mg. fluoride and many heavy tea drinkers can get an additional one milligram from tea alone. (Black tea is very high in fluoride.) If one is to believe that one milligram per day is the ‘safe and effective dose’ of this drug, then one must conclude that our children are already getting more than this recommended dose WITHOUT fluoridated water.Authorities from around the world have spoken of ‘fluoride overkill.’ In support of the evidence that total fluoride intake is excessive, intelligent dental authorities are recommending no fluoride for babies under six months of age—regardless of whether or not the water is fluoridated. This change was prompted by the disturbing rise in total fluoride intake and negative health effects, such as ‘dental fluorosis’ caused by fluoride.
FLUORIDE, THE AIR POLLUTANT In some areas around the country, fluoride is a serious air pollutant. It is readily absorbed into the lungs, (bypassing the intestinal tract, where fluoride absorption is inhibited to some extent). Fluoride is listed as two of the top ten ‘greenhouse gases,’ (sulfur-hexafluoride and chlorofluorocarbons), proposed to be regulated in the Kyoto accords. (These are the 1997 accords on global climate change that the U.S.A refused to sign.) Still, its contribution to global warming is relatively minor at this point. A greater concern is the ever increasing poisoning of our environment by fluoride in waste-water around America, a problem that has been almost totally ignored. (See www.fluoridealert.org for more details.)
The chemicals used in ninety percent of U.S. water fluoridation programs are industrial-grade hazardous wastes captured in the pollution-control scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. (See Fluorine recovery in the fertilizer industry, a review, Phosphorus and Potassium, no. 103, Sept/Oct, 1979). More recent proof of an industry association to the promotion of fluoridation comes from a statement made by the then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water of the United States E.P.A., dated March 30, 1983:
“In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.” Between June 6th and 8th, 1951, at a meeting in Washington, D.C. of fifty State Dental Directors, Francis Bull, D.D.S. had this to say about the importance of ‘scientific’ study of fluoridation:’ (p 19): “Why do we do a ‘pre-fluoridation survey’? Is it to show that fluoride works? No, we have already told the public that fluoridation works, so we can’t go back on that.” (Note, this was in the middle of the ten-year ‘demonstrations’ previously set up in Newburgh, New York and Grand Rapids, Michigan.
On the question of toxicity, this is what Bull had to say: “Lay off it altogether; just pass it over.” On the question of ‘experiments’ we don’t use this word, we use ‘demonstrations.’ We don’t call it ‘artificial fluoridation,’ but ‘controlled’ fluoridation.’ We don’t add fluoride, we ‘adjust’ it. And as it is, such abuse of language with regards to fluoride is still with us today. George Orwell would be impressed with the ability and willingness of the pro-fluoridationists to abuse and adjust the English language to support their purposes! In 1961, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Health published a booklet entitled, “How to Appeal to the People on Fluoridation.” (Guide #5). Among other things, it gave the following advice:“Fluoridation is no longer a debatable point. There are not two sides. When you permit the opposition to argue the case with a proponent in public debate, you are giving credence to the idea that fluoridation is debatable” (!) “Never let the antis state something against fluoridation and then catch yourself answering them. Keep them on the defensive. Ridicule them. Try to get the people to laugh at the antis.” It implied that sound scientific evidence unfavorable to fluoridation should be disregarded. And thus, some forty years later, through these and other politically deceptive ‘guidelines’ we find ourselves in such a huge mess today! Repeating over and over and over that “Fluoridation is safe and effective and never harmed anyone” or that “fluoridation is simply an ‘adjustment’ of the concentration of fluoride to the ‘optimum’ level” is not a scientific statement. A brief study of the subject will explain why. The worldwide literature will show thousands of reasons fluoridation is not safe and no rationale—that could pass a minimum level of scientific scrutiny—would lead one to unconditionally support the measure. Even the ‘calcium fluoride,’ found in natural high fluoride waters, is twenty-five times less toxic than the silicofluorides or sodium fluoride added in artificial fluoridation programs. In addition, the presence of calcium fluoride, (with very few exceptions nationwide), is buffered with the presence of other beneficial minerals. Thus, claims that fluoride added just ‘adjusts’ the level to ‘optimum’ level may sound good to the uninformed, but on closer examination, are meaningless. Regarding the importance of ‘avoiding debate,’ this is not unlike the advice given in the July 1965 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, in which similar advice was given: “The question of the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation is no longer considered debatable in the scientific community.” If you were a dentist at this time, would YOU speak against fluoridation? Not if it meant censure, loss of status, income, prestige, etc.! These points are not being brought up to be negative however, one needs to be aware of our history of the subject! This history goes far to explain how so much negative information has been and continues to be kept from the American people on such a dangerous chemical. Not surprisingly, the constant unjust ridicule opponents almost always receive when making a case against fluoridation, has resulted in very few persons (dentists or not) with the courage and guts to speak out. It has also resulted in a media that has scarcely tried to do any original investigative reporting on its own, relying instead, on the broad sweeping pronouncements of proponent individuals and organizations. Of course, if virtually all negative data on a subject are ridiculed or ignored, it can scarcely be said that a climate conducive to open and lively discussions of all sides can comfortably exist! Another tool with which fluoridation has been kept alive is the power of endorsements.
Endorsements have helped keep fluoridation alive, yet most are from organizations that have done no original research of their own. In fact, many can be seen as simply ‘favors’ given at the request of powerful, national groups. Many examples could be cited but will not be because of space considerations. [See Fluoridation, the Great Dilemma, (Chapter 16, Endorsements, and Chapter 18, Why the Ignorance?), by George L. Waldbott, M.D., in collaboration with Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D., H. Lewis McKinney, Ph.D., Coronado Press, 197
No discussion of fluoridation would be complete without reference to the role of fluoride in tooth decay reduction! Many readers may feel that at least this is an area in which fluoridation has a ‘proven benefit.’ It certainly seems plausible and, a reader believing in this stance would certainly have a lot of company. Unfortunately, this is company that is wrong! The ways in which the thesis that fluoride reduces tooth decay can be disproved may be broken into four categories. (1) Human epidemiological studies, (2) Careful analysis of the flaws of earlier ‘pro-fluoridation’ studies, (3) patterns of dental practice in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated towns and cities and, of course, (4) animal studies. It also helps to know whether or not the ‘researchers’ are trying to prove whether or not fluoride reduces tooth decay or are carrying out ‘demonstration projects’ to prove a forgone conclusion that it works! STUDIES SHOW FLUORIDATION In 1946, Ottawa Kansas began a fluoridation program only to see tooth decay increase by 100 percent over the next three years. [Charles Scrivener, “Unfavorable Report from a Kansas Community Using Artificial Fluoridation of City Water Supply for a Three Year Period,” Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 30, no. 4, p. 465, 1951.] This may have been due, at least in part, to a certain ‘complacency’ amongst the general population regarding the continuation of good oral care because of the presence of fluoride in their drinking water! In 1953, Gallagan compared the tooth decay rates of 26,000 children from Arizona with varying concentrations of fluoride in their drinking water. His findings were that there was no correlation between fluoride levels in the water and tooth decay rates. [David Galagan, “Climate and Controlled Fluoridation,” JADA, Vol. 47, pp. 159-170, 1953.] In 1955, Zimmerman compared the tooth decay rates in Bartlett, Texas (8.0 ppm fluoride) to Cameron, Texas, (0.4 ppm fluoride). His finding was that there was no difference in the incidence of tooth decay in the high v. low fluoride communities. Still, the death rate in high fluoride Bartlett was over twice as high as it was in Cameron! Indeed, due to the health problems caused by the high levels of fluoride in the town of Bartlett, they had to install de-fluoridation equipment in the late 50’s. [Eugene Zimmerman, “Oral Aspects of Excessive Fluorides in a Water Supply,” JADA, vol. 50, pp. 272-277, 1955.] A Tokyo study published in 1972 involving over 20,000 children showed that there was moretooth decay with increasing concentrations of fluoride in the drinking water. [Yoshitsugu Imai, “Relation Between Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water and Dental Caries in Japan,” Koku Eisei Gakkai Zasshi, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 144-196, 1972. This study was quoted in Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride, the Aging Factor, pg. 101.] A 1988 study involving 39,207 American children divided into 84 regions of the country, found that ‘decayed, missing and filled’ (DMF) scores to be identical in those consuming versus those not consuming fluoridated water (2.0 v. 2.0). For those consuming partially fluoridated water there was a slight, though insignificant difference. The author of the study had to go through the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ to get the data because the National Institutes for Dental Research would not release the data despite having received several requests for it
Two New Zealand studies show no reduction of tooth decay from fluoridated water. In fact, Colquhoun’s data shows a slight increase in tooth decay after fluoridation started. [John Colquhoun, “Fluoridation in New Zealand: New Evidence, Part One,” American Laboratory, Vol. 17, pp. 66-72, 1985.]
A 1987 study published in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, then dental director of the province of British Columbia, Dr. A. S. Gray, wrote: “School districts reporting the highest caries free rates (e.g., no tooth decay) in the province, were totally unfluoridated. That various state health departments around America are ‘selling’ fluoride as the only effective way of reducing tooth decay is clearly a misguided procedure. It simply does not work.”Newspapers around the country have reported ‘super bad teeth’ ‘serious dental problems’ ‘poor need more dentists’ in towns that have been fluoridated for ten, twenty and more years. Unfortunately, Medicaid reimbursement for Dentists is minimal and Dentist’s don’t like to work for little money. [“City to launch battle against dental ‘crisis’,” by Dolores Kong, Boston Globe, 11/27/99; “U.S. Is Doubling Dentists To Treat the Poor in (New York) City”, 1/5/80. Note, New York City has been fluoridated since 1965.]
Three of the cities fluoridated for the over thirty years (New York City, Newburgh, NY and Grand Rapids, Michigan), have tooth decay rates that are identical to the national average. [Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride, the Aging Factor, @1986, Phone number is 914-643-7333
please refer to Petrie for the rest of his article - Phone number is 914-643-733 daliya call1 800 968 9355for a fluoride filterFluoride. kdf and carbon and ceramic .4 micron $349
|
||||
|
|||||