Odd that nobody has brought this up. Flouride is not a single thing, not found alone in nature, any basic chemist would know this; there is calcium flouride, lead flouride, aluminum flouride, sodium flouride, etc. The research on this is carried out with very pure water and a very pure grade of sodium flouride. (The natural flouridation found in water in some regions is calcium flouride.) The "flouridation compound" which is put into public drinking and bathing water supplies varies, but in most cases begins with sodium flouride and the mix is what is sometimes referred to as "silicofluorides" (hexafluorsilicic acid). These are also a toxic waste product (as one source puts it, from phosphate fertilizer pollution scrubbers). Hexafluorsilicic acid is also said to contain other toxic substances such as arsenic, beryllium, mercury, lead and more. (Arsenic causes prostate, bladder, kidney, skin and lung cancers (there is no safe level).)
The question is not, "is flouride safe?" but rather, (a) What KIND of flouride is safe? (b) How MUCH flouride is safe? (c) Is this when applied topically or ingested through skin and as drinking water? (d) What else is in the "flouride cocktail" (especially the more 'economical' ones) being considered for the community?
As long as people go around talking about 'flouride' as if it is a single, simple thing--not something that comes in many forms, can be researched and experienced in many ways, and is usually implemented in a mix containing many other compounds--no intelligent discussion can really be had about it.
In 1954, Charles Elliot Perkins, scientist and author stated: "The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistence of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty' and 'I can say this in all earnestness and sincerity as a scientist who has spent nearly twenty years research into the chemistry, bio-chemistry, physiology, and pathology of fluorine; any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically." Ref. at http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/manipulation/index.htm
See also: http://goodteeth.tripod.com/summation.htm
Beware of corporate tyranny y'all.Updated: 2004-11-17 04:53:29
Dear f.a.n (Fluoride Action Network),
What is truly tragic is that people with an agenda use half truths to promote their position. You have misrepresented the findings in the study that is sited in your posting and on your web site.
Don’t take my word for it. The conclusion from the study, Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, done by a group of scientists for the Centers for Disease control is listed below.
This is the article that you sighted in your posting claiming it supports you anti-fluoridation position. It is clearly does not support your position. Both systemic and topical fluoride are necessary to help reduce tooth decay. I urge everyone to read the conclusion or better yet follow the link to read the complete report. Don’t let opponents or proponents deceive you with half truths.
When used appropriately, fluoride is a safe and effective agent that can be used to prevent and control dental caries. Fluoride has contributed profoundly to the improved dental health of persons in the United States and other countries. Fluoride is needed regularly throughout life to protect teeth against tooth decay. To ensure additional gains in oral health, water fluoridation should be extended to additional communities, and fluoride toothpaste should be used widely. Adoption of these and other recommendations in this report could lead to considerable savings in public and private resources without compromising fluoride's substantial benefit of improved dental health.
There's a sort of tragic sadness at play when well-meaning proponents of fluoridation speak so confidently about a policy they know so little about. Such is the case with the recent comment titled "the uniformed", which I imagine is supposed to be "the uninformed."
It just so happens that the main point of this comment is demonstrably incorrect. Namely, that ingested fluoride - and the subsequent accumulation of F in teeth - makes teeth more resistant to decay.
Of course, this is what the dental community assured us for about 50 years. But, over the past decade, leading researchers in dental science have reached almost universal agreement that fluoride's primary benefits to teeth come from TOPICAL application of fluoride (to the outside of teeth), and NOT from systemic ingestion (and accumulation within). Even the Centers for Disease Control - which long ignored this fact - conceded it to be true in both 1999 and 2001.
As stated last year by leading US dental researchers Stephen Levy and John Warren:
“Current evidence strongly suggests that fluorides work primarily by topical means through direct action on the teeth and dental plaque. Thus ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries prevention."
The logical implication for consumers of fluoride is obvious: If fluoride's main benefit is topical (direct application to the outside of teeth), than there is no need to swallow this bioaccumulative, toxic substance, and certainly no imperative for governments to force people to ingest it on a daily basis via the water supply.
For people who actually want to use fluoride, they can simply apply it to their teeth in the form of fluoride toothpaste (which is both cheap and very readily available).
Finally, for people out there who don't believe that fluoride's main benefit is topical, not systemic, you can see the references and quotes for yourself at:
Your question that asks who does the does the studies that support the fluoridation of public water supplies. I refer you PubMed witch is the public search engine for the Nation Library of Medicine. If your search for articles on fluoridation of public water supplies you will find articles
that are peer reviewed, meaning articles that have been reviewed by scientists that are specialists in their field of study. The idea of peer review is to make sure that the materials and methods of the studies and the results that are being reported in the articles that are valid. Far and away you will find studies that support the efficacy of the use of fluoride systemically to reduce the incidence of tooth decay without any detrimental effects to the public.
The beneficial effects of fluoride of in the water supply aren't from "swishing water". When fluoride at optimal levels is ingested during tooth developement the mineral structure of tooth enamel is changed without any unwanted side effects. The result is the teeth that are more resistant to decay. This is what happens when is added fluoride to the public water supply.
Mr. Ford read and beome more informed before you write. If you have philosophical or political objection to the use of the public water supply to to provide a supplement that will reduce the incidence of tooth decay for children say so and don't cloud the issue with ill informed comments.
Home | Login | Contact Us | Forum
© 2001-2016 Joplin Independent