Fluoridation - Everybody is Safe - NOT!

True or false —The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services holds that, in terms of fluoridation, everybody is equally safe.

False — In 1993, in their “Toxicological Profile on Fluoride” (TP91/17), they warned, “Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems…. Postmenopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at increased risk of fractures.”

Those individuals who have severe allergic reactions to penicillin, poison ivy, or peanuts, for example, are able to largely avoid these substances.  Unlike these items, and unlike any other medicinal compound in history, over 60 percent of Americans, those who live in fluoridated communities, are unable to avoid fluoride.  That's a shame because some people are allergic to fluoride in the water.

Forcing everyone to drink and bathe in fluoridated water is tantamount to being a crime. Water is chlorinated to save lives; in contrast, the rationale behind fluoridation is to reduce cavities which is a medical condition and one that can be met more effectively and with less expense on an individual basis. Mass medication where there is no freedom of choice and where “one dose fits all” runs counter to the many variables in the human condition.

Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, past president of the American Medical Association, said, “I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long-range basis. Any attempt to use water in this way is deplorable.”

Question: When the American Dental Association and the U.S. Public Health Service advocate water fluoridation, they are saying, “one size fits all .” What evidence do they endorse that runs counter to this?

Recent directives from the Canadian and American Dental Associations recommend to the dentists that they study each child/person's need, size, and fluoride intake from all sources; and also the benefit/risk factors (risk of teeth mottling). Recent directives say that infants up to six months should have no fluoride.

People have different perspiration levels and, therefore, different thirst levels, which would cause a variable intake of fluoride in areas of fluoridated water.

The fluoride (SiF) used in over 90 percent of the water systems that are fluoridated is a contaminated industrial waste product—contaminated with trace amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury, etc; it is so injurious that the EPA won't permit it to be dumped on the ground or in the ocean; it is used in rat poison and in insecticides; it is now obvious that it slowly accumulates in the body. As a result of recent research the EPA water safety scientists have unanimously voted against water fluoridation.

All of this plus the EPA heads admit they have NO long term, chronic-type studies on the safety of this water additive (SiF). The short-term tests used to demonstrate fluoridation safety were done with NaF, that is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not SiF. It is hard to overstate the level of scientific corruption this manifests—from both the standpoint of time and substance—NaF being a different compound altogether.

SiF is an industrial waste product. Because of the toxic nature of this compound, the SIF being added to drinking water would otherwise have to be disposed of by the industry that created it, and it would have to be disposed of according to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HAZMAT). Disposal of toxic substances under HAZMAT regulations is expensive.

This costly disposal dilemma was expertly summed up in a 1983 letter written by the EPA's Rebecca Hanmer, (formerly the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water), who stated that adding SiF to drinking water provides “…an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluorosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride…” (1)

Confused?

• Does fluoridated water reduce cavities? NO! Check out the research in the references given.

• Is the pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride in toothpaste dangerous? YES! Check the warning on the back of the label.

• Why do the “public health officials” continue their support of water fluoridation? See Fluoridation, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

---------------------------------------------------

(1)  Hirzy, PhD, J. William, Vice President of EPA Scientist Union, Testimony before Senate subcommittee. June 2000. (12/2003) http://www.fluoridealert.org/testimony.htm

Abundant  Living

Information Services