Cary G Dean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl Methyl Phosphoryl FLUoride).
And the stuff that's put in your water supply for you all to drink (HexaFLUrosilic Acid)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------by Paul Connett, PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617And Finally 10 More Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
(1)
Despite the fact that we are exposed to far more fluoride today than we were in 1945 (when fluoridation began), the "optimal" fluoridation level is still 1 part per million, the same level deemed optimal in 1945! (Marier & Rose 1977; Levy 1999;Rozier 1999 and Fomon 2000).
(2)
The chemicals used to fluoridate water are not pharmaceutical grade.
Instead, they come from the wet scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer industry.
These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities.
Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these chemicals are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000).
The chemicals used to fluoridate water are not pharmaceutical grade.
Instead, they come from the wet scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer industry.
These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities.
Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these chemicals are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000).
(3)
These hazardous wastes have not been tested comprehensively.
The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid.
The assumption being made is that by the time this waste product has been diluted, all the fluorosilicic acid will have been converted into free fluoride ion, and the other toxics and radioactive isotopes will be so dilute that they will not cause any harm, even with lifetime exposure.
These assumptions have not been examined carefully by scientists, independent of the fluoridation program.
These hazardous wastes have not been tested comprehensively.
The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid.
The assumption being made is that by the time this waste product has been diluted, all the fluorosilicic acid will have been converted into free fluoride ion, and the other toxics and radioactive isotopes will be so dilute that they will not cause any harm, even with lifetime exposure.
These assumptions have not been examined carefully by scientists, independent of the fluoridation program.
(4)
Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children's blood.
Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the child’s developing brain, this is a very serious finding yet it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries.
Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children's blood.
Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the child’s developing brain, this is a very serious finding yet it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries.
(5)
Sodium fluoride is an extremely toxic substance -- just 200 mg of fluoride ion is enough to kill a young child, and just 3-5 grams (e.g. a teaspoon) is enough to kill an adult.
Both children (swallowing tablets/gels) and adults (accidents involving fluoridation equipment and filters on dialysis machines) have died from excess exposure.
Sodium fluoride is an extremely toxic substance -- just 200 mg of fluoride ion is enough to kill a young child, and just 3-5 grams (e.g. a teaspoon) is enough to kill an adult.
Both children (swallowing tablets/gels) and adults (accidents involving fluoridation equipment and filters on dialysis machines) have died from excess exposure.
(6)
Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation.
Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation.
(7)
The recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2000), was one of the leading opponents of fluoridation in Sweden, and part of the panel that recommended that the Swedish government reject the practice, which they did in 1971. According to Carlsson:
The recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2000), was one of the leading opponents of fluoridation in Sweden, and part of the panel that recommended that the Swedish government reject the practice, which they did in 1971. According to Carlsson:
"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history.
Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs.
The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy" (Carlsson 1978).
Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs.
The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy" (Carlsson 1978).
(8)
While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they cannot defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the US Environmental Protection Agency (Bryson 2004).
According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, "Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view".
While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they cannot defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the US Environmental Protection Agency (Bryson 2004).
According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, "Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view".
In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that.
"The political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues" (Martin 1991).
"The political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues" (Martin 1991).
(9)
Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991).
Most recently, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain.
And Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004).
Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.
Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991).
Most recently, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain.
And Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004).
Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.
(10)
The Union representing the scientists at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC is now on record as opposing water fluoridation (Hirzy 1999).
According to the Union’s Senior Vice President, Dr. William Hirzy:
The Union representing the scientists at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC is now on record as opposing water fluoridation (Hirzy 1999).
According to the Union’s Senior Vice President, Dr. William Hirzy:
Conclusion
If in doubt leave it out.
This is what most European countries have done and their children's teeth have not suffered, while their public's trust has been strengthened.
For those who would call for further studies, I say fine.
Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want.
This folly must end without further delay.
Fluoride the Aging Factor
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0913571008/o/qid
=902214011/sr=2-3/002-9761417-6701215
If in doubt leave it out.
This is what most European countries have done and their children's teeth have not suffered, while their public's trust has been strengthened.
Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child's mouth?
For those who would call for further studies, I say fine.
Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want.
This folly must end without further delay.
Fluoride the Aging Factor
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0913571008/o/qid
=902214011/sr=2-3/002-9761417-6701215
About the Author:
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Connett, PhD
------------------------------------------------------------Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617
No comments:
Post a Comment