{"id":10291,"date":"2017-02-02T08:58:45","date_gmt":"2017-02-01T19:58:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/?p=10291"},"modified":"2022-05-01T20:35:43","modified_gmt":"2022-05-01T08:35:43","slug":"fluoride-killing-us-softly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wapf\/fluoride-killing-us-softly\/","title":{"rendered":"Fluoride: Killing Us Softly"},"content":{"rendered":"

Fluoride: Killing Us Softly<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\u00a0There\u2019s nothing like a glass of cool, clear water to quench one\u2019s thirst. But the next time you reach for one, you might want to question whether that water is in fact, too toxic to drink. If your water is fluoridated, the answer may well be yes.<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

For decades, we have been told a lie, a lie that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and the weakening of the immune systems of tens of millions more. This lie is called fluoridation. A process we were led to believe was a safe and effective method of protecting teeth from decay is in fact a fraud. For decades it\u2019s been shown that fluoridation is neither essential for good health nor protective of teeth. What it does is poison the body. We should all at this point be asking how and why public health policy and the American media continue to live with and perpetuate this scientific sham.<\/p>\n

The Latest in Fluoride News<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today more than ever, evidence of fluoride\u2019s toxicity is entering the public sphere.\u00a0The summer of 2012 saw the publication of a systematic review and meta-analysis by researchers at Harvard University that explored the link between exposure to fluoride and neurological and cognitive function among children. The report pooled data from over 27 studies- many of them from China- carried out over the course of 22 years. The results, which were published in the journal Environmental Health Sciences showed a strong connection between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and decreased IQ scores in children. The team concluded that<\/p>\n

\u201cthe results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults.\u201d<\/a>[1]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The newest scientific data suggest that the damaging effects of fluoride extend to reproductive health as well. A 2013 study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology showed a link between fluoride exposure and male infertility in mice. The study\u2019s findings suggest that sodium fluoride impairs the ability of sperm cells in mice to normally fertilize the egg through a process known as chemotaxis.\u00a0<\/a>[2]\u00a0This is the latest in more than 60 scientific studies on animals that have identified an association between male infertility and fluoride exposure.<\/a>[3]<\/p>\n

Adding more fuel to the fluoride controversy is a recent investigative report by NaturalNews exposing how the chemicals used to fluoridate United States\u2019 water systems today are commonly purchased from Chinese chemical plants looking to discard surplus stores of this form of industrial waste. Disturbingly, the report details that some Chinese vendors of fluoride advertise on their website that their product can be used as an \u201cadhesive preservative\u201d, an \u201cinsecticide\u201d as well as a\u201d flux for soldering and welding\u201d.<\/a>[4]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0One Chinese manufacturer,\u00a0Shanghai Polymet Commodities Ltd,.\u00a0which produces fluoride destined for municipal water reserves\u00a0in the United States,\u00a0 notes on their website that their fluoride is \u201chighly corrosive to human skin and harmful to people\u2019s respiratory organs\u201d.\u00a0<\/a>[5]<\/p>\n

The Fluoride Phase Out at Home and Abroad<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are many signs in recent years that indicate growing skepticism over fluoridation. The New York Times reported in October 2011 that in the previous four years, about 200 jurisdictions across the USA moved to cease water fluoridation. A panel composed of scientists and health professionals in Fairbanks, Alaska recently recommended ceasing fluoridation of the county water supply after concluding that the addition of fluoride to already naturally-fluoridated reserves could pose health risks to 700,000 residents. The move to end fluoridation would save the county an estimated $205,000 annually.\u00a0<\/a>[6]<\/p>\n

The city of Portland made headlines in 2013 when it voted down a measure to fluoridate its water supply. The citizens of Portland have rejected introducing the chemical to drinking water on three separate occasions since the 1950\u2019s.\u00a0 Portland remains the largest city in the United States to shun fluoridation.<\/a>[7]<\/p>\n

The movement against fluoridation has gained traction overseas as well. In 2013, Israel\u2019s Ministry of Health committed to a countrywide phase-out of fluoridation. The decision came after Israel\u2019s Supreme Court deemed the existing health regulations requiring fluoridation to be based on science that is \u201coutdated\u201d and \u201cno longer widely accepted.\u201d<\/a>[8]<\/p>\n

Also this year, the government of the Australian state of Queensland eliminated $14 million in funding for its state-wide fluoridation campaign. The decision, which was executed by the Liberal National Party (LNP) government, forced local councils to vote on whether or not to introduce fluoride to their water supplies. Less than two months after the decision came down, several communities including the town of Cairns halted fluoridation. As a result, nearly 200,000 Australians will no longer be exposed to fluoride in their drinking water.<\/a>[9]<\/p>\n

An ever-growing number of institutions and individuals are questioning the wisdom of fluoridation. At the fore of the movement are thousands of scientific authorities and health care professionals who are speaking out about the hazards of this damaging additive. As of November 2013, a group of over 4549 professionals including 361 dentists and 562 medical doctors have added their names to a petition aimed at ending fluoridation started by the Fluoride Action Network.\u00a0\u00a0Among the prominent signatories are Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson and William Marcus, PhD who served as the chief toxicologist of the EPA Water Division.<\/a>[10]<\/p>\n

The above sampling of recent news items on fluoride brings into sharp focus just how urgent it is to carry out a critical reassessment of the mass fluoridation campaign that currently affects hundreds of millions of Americans. In order to better understand the massive deception surrounding this toxic chemical, we must look back to the sordid history of how fluoride was first introduced.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

How to Market a Toxic Waste<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWe would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[11]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These words of Dr. John Yiamouyiannis may come as a shock to you because, if you\u2019re like most Americans, you have positive associations with fluoride. You may envision tooth protection, strong bones, and a\u00a0government<\/a>\u00a0that cares about your dental needs. What you\u2019ve probably never been told is that the fluoride added to drinking water and toothpaste is a crude industrial waste product of the aluminum and fertilizer industries, and a substance toxic enough to be used as rat poison. How is it that Americans have learned to love an environmental hazard? This phenomenon can be attributed to a carefully planned marketing program begun even before Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first community to officially fluoridate its drinking water in 1945.\u00a0<\/a>[12]\u00a0\u00a0As a result of this ongoing campaign, nearly two-thirds of the nation has enthusiastically followed Grand Rapids\u2019 example. But this push for fluoridation has less to do with a concern for America\u2019s health than with industry\u2019s penchant to expand at the expense of our nation\u2019s well-being.<\/p>\n

The first thing you have to understand about fluoride is that it\u2019s the problem child of industry. Its toxicity was recognized at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when, in the 1850s iron and copper factories discharged it into the air and poisoned plants, animals, and people.<\/a>[13]\u00a0\u00a0 The problem was exacerbated in the 1920s when rapid industrial growth meant massive pollution. Medical writer Joel Griffiths explains that \u201cit was abundantly clear to both industry and\u00a0government<\/a>\u00a0that spectacular U.S. industrial expansion \u2013 and the economic and military power and vast profits it promised \u2013 would necessitate releasing millions of tons of waste fluoride into the\u00a0environment<\/a>.\u201d<\/a>[14]\u00a0 Their biggest fear was that \u201cif serious injury to people were established, lawsuits alone could prove devastating to companies, while public outcry could force industry-wide government regulations, billions in pollution-control costs, and even mandatory changes in high-fluoride raw materials and profitable technologies.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[15]<\/p>\n

At first, industry could dispose of fluoride legally only in small amounts by selling it to insecticide and rat poison manufacturers.\u00a0<\/a>[16]\u00a0\u00a0 Then a commercial outlet was devised in the 1930s when a connection was made between water supplies bearing traces of fluoride and lower rates of tooth decay. Griffiths writes that this was not a scientific breakthrough, but rather part of a \u201cpublic disinformation campaign\u201d by the aluminum industry \u201cto convince the public that fluoride was safe and good.\u201d Industry\u2019s need prompted Alcoa-funded scientist Gerald J. Cox to announce that \u201cThe present trend toward complete removal of fluoride from water may need some reversal.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[17]\u00a0\u00a0 Griffiths writes:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe big news in Cox\u2019s announcement was that this \u2018apparently worthless by-product\u2019 had not only been proved safe (in low doses), but actually beneficial; it might reduce cavities in children. A proposal was in the air to add fluoride to the entire nation\u2019s drinking water. While the dose to each individual would be low, \u2018fluoridation\u2019 on a national scale would require the annual addition of hundreds of thousands of tons of fluoride to the country\u2019s drinking water.<\/p>\n

\u201cGovernment and industry \u2013 especially Alcoa \u2013 strongly supported intentional water fluoridation\u2026 [it] made possible a master public relations stroke \u2013 one that could keep scientists and the public off fluoride\u2019s case for years to come. If the leaders of dentistry, medicine, and public health could be persuaded to endorse fluoride in the public\u2019s drinking water, proclaiming to the nation that there was a \u2018wide margin of safety,\u2019 how were they going to turn around later and say industry\u2019s fluoride pollution was dangerous?<\/p>\n

\u201cAs for the public, if fluoride could be introduced as a health enhancing substance that should be added to the\u00a0environment<\/a>\u00a0for the children\u2019s sake, those opposing it would look like quacks and lunatics\u2026.<\/p>\n

\u201cBack at the Mellon Institute, Alcoa\u2019s Pittsburgh Industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. Alcoa-sponsored biochemist Gerald J. Cox immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that<\/p>\n

\u2018The case should be regarded as proved.\u2019 In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made \u2013 not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[18]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Once the plan was put into action, industry was buoyant. They had finally found the channel for fluoride that they were looking for, and they were even cheered on by dentists, government agencies, and the public. Chemical Week, a publication for the chemical industry, described the tenor of the times:<\/p>\n

\u201cAll over the country, slide rules are getting warm as waterworks engineers figure the cost of adding fluoride to their water supplies.\u201d They are riding a trend urged upon them, by the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, the State Dental Health Directors, various state and local health bodies, and vocal women\u2019s clubs from coast to coast. It adds up to a nice piece of business on all sides and many firms are cheering the PHS and similar groups as they plump for increasing adoption of fluoridation.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[19]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Such overwhelming acceptance allowed government and industry to proceed hastily, albeit irresponsibly. The Grand Rapids experiment was supposed to take 15 years, during which time health benefits and hazards were to be studied. In 1946, however, just one year into the experiment, six more U.S. cities adopted the process. By 1947, 87 more communities were treated; popular demand was the official reason for this unscientific haste.<\/p>\n

The general public and its leaders did support the cause, but only after a massive government public relations campaign spearheaded by Edward L. Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays, a public relations pioneer who has been called \u201cthe original spin doctor,\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[20]\u00a0 was a masterful PR strategist. As a result of his influence, Griffiths writes,<\/p>\n

\u201cAlmost overnight\u2026the popular image of fluoride \u2013 which at the time was being widely sold as rat and bug poison \u2013 became that of a beneficial provider of gleaming smiles, absolutely safe, and good for children, bestowed by a benevolent paternal government. Its opponents were permanently engraved on the public mind as crackpots and right-wing loonies.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[21]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Griffiths explains that while opposition to fluoridation is usually associated with right-wingers, this picture is not totally accurate. He provides an interesting historical perspective on the anti-fluoridation stance:<\/p>\n

\u201cFluoridation attracted opponents from every point on the continuum of politics and sanity. The prospect of the government mass-medicating the water supplies with a well-known rat poison to prevent a nonlethal disease flipped the switches of delusionals across the country \u2013 as well as generating concern among responsible scientists, doctors, and citizens.<\/p>\n

\u201cMoreover, by a fortuitous twist of circumstances, fluoride\u2019s natural opponents on the left were alienated from the rest of the opposition. Oscar Ewing, a Federal Security Agency administrator, was a Truman \u201cfair dealer\u201d who pushed many progressive programs such as nationalized medicine. Fluoridation was lumped with his proposals. Inevitably, it was attacked by conservatives as a manifestation of \u201ccreeping socialism,\u201d while the left rallied to its support. Later during the McCarthy era, the left was further alienated from the opposition when extreme right-wing groups, including the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan, raved that fluoridation was a plot by the Soviet Union and\/or communists in the government to poison America\u2019s brain cells.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was a simple task for promoters, under the guidance of the \u2018original spin doctor,\u2019 to paint all opponents as deranged \u2013 and they played this angle to the hilt\u2026.<\/p>\n

\u201cActually, many of the strongest opponents originally started out as proponents, but changed their minds after a close look at the evidence. And many opponents came to view fluoridation not as a communist plot, but simply as a capitalist-style con job of epic proportions. Some could be termed early environmentalists, such as the physicians George L. Waldbott and Frederick B. Exner, who first documented government-industry complicity in hiding the hazards of fluoride pollution from the public. Waldbott and Exner risked their careers in a clash with fluoride defenders, only to see their cause buried in toothpaste ads.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[22]<\/p>\n

By 1950, fluoridation\u2019s image was a sterling one, and there was not much\u00a0science<\/a>\u00a0could do at this point. The Public Health Service was fluoridation\u2019s main source of funding as well as its promoter, and therefore caught in a fundamental conflict of interest.\u00a012\u00a0\u00a0 If fluoridation were found to be unsafe and ineffective, and laws were repealed, the organization feared a loss of face, since scientists, politicians, dental groups, and physicians unanimously supported it.\u00a0<\/a>[23]\u00a0 For this reason, studies concerning its effects were not undertaken. The Oakland Tribune noted this when it stated that \u201cpublic health officials have often suppressed scientific doubts\u201d about fluoridation.<\/a>[24]\u00a0Waldbott sums up the situation when he says that from the beginning, the controversy over fluoridating water supplies was \u201ca political, not a scientific health issue.\u201d<\/a>[25]<\/p>\n

The marketing of fluoride continues. In a 1983 letter from the\u00a0Environmental Protection Agency<\/a>, then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hammer, writes that the\u00a0EPA<\/a>\u00a0\u201cregards [fluoridation] 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.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[26]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0A 1992 policy statement from the Department of Health and Human Services says, \u201cA recent comprehensive PHS review of the benefits and potential health risks of fluoride has concluded that the practice of fluoridating community water supplies is safe and effective.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[27]<\/p>\n

According to the\u00a0CDC<\/a>\u00a0website, about 200 million Americans in 16,500 communities are exposed to fluoridated water. Out of the 50 largest cities in the US, 43 have fluoridated water.\u00a0<\/a>[28]<\/p>\n

To help celebrate fluoride\u2019s widespread use, the media recently reported on the 50th anniversary of fluoridation in Grand Rapids. Newspaper articles titled \u201cFluoridation: a shining public health success\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[29]\u00a0 and \u201cAfter 50 years, fluoride still works with a smile\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/a>[30]\u00a0 painted glowing pictures of the practice. Had investigators looked more closely, though, they might have learned that children in Muskegon, Michigan, an unfluoridated \u201ccontrol\u201d city, had equal drops in dental decay. They might also have learned of the other studies that dispute the supposed wonders of fluoride.<\/p>\n

The Fluoride Myth Doesn\u2019t Hold Water<\/strong><\/p>\n

The big hope for fluoride was its ability to immunize children\u2019s developing teeth against cavities. Rates of dental caries were supposed to plummet in areas where water was treated. Yet decades of experience and worldwide research have contradicted this expectation numerous times. Here are just a few examples:<\/p>\n

In British Columbia, only 11% of the population drinks fluoridated water, as opposed to 40-70% in other Canadian regions. Yet British Columbia has the lowest rate of tooth decay in Canada. In addition, the lowest rates of dental caries within the province are found in areas that do not have their water supplies fluoridated.\u00a0<\/a>[31]<\/p>\n

According to a\u00a0Sierra Club<\/a>\u00a0study, people in unfluoridated developing nations have fewer dental caries than those living in industrialized nations. As a result, they conclude that \u201cfluoride is not essential to dental health.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[32]<\/p>\n

In 1986-87, the largest study on fluoridation and tooth decay ever was performed. The subjects were 39,000 school children between 5 and 17 living in 84 areas around the country. A third of the places were fluoridated, a third were partially fluoridated, and a third were not. Results indicate no statistically significant differences in dental decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated cities.\u00a0<\/a>[33]<\/p>\n

A World Health Organization survey reports a decline of dental decay in western Europe, which is 98% unfluoridated. They state that western Europe\u2019s declining dental decay rates are equal to and sometimes better than those in the U.S.\u00a0<\/a>[34]<\/p>\n

A 1992 University of Arizona study yielded surprising results when they found that\u201cthe more fluoride a child drinks, the more cavities appear in the teeth.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[35]<\/p>\n

Although all Native American reservations are fluoridated, children living there have much higher incidences of dental decay and other oral health problems than do children living in other U.S. communities.\u00a0<\/a>[36]<\/p>\n

In light of all the evidence, fluoride proponents now make more modest claims. For example, in 1988, the ADA professed that a 40- to 60% cavity reduction could be achieved with the help of fluoride. Now they claim an 18- to 25% reduction. Other promoters mention a 12% decline in tooth decay.<\/p>\n

And some former supporters are even beginning to question the need for fluoridation altogether. In 1990, a National Institute for Dental Research report stated that \u201cit is likely that if caries in children remain at low levels or decline further, the necessity of continuing the current variety and extent of fluoride-based prevention programs will be questioned.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[37]<\/p>\n

Most government agencies, however, continue to ignore the scientific evidence and to market fluoridation by making fictional claims about its benefits and pushing for its expansion. For instance, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,<\/p>\n

\u201cNational surveys of oral health dating back several decades document continuing decreases in tooth decay in children, adults and senior citizens. Nevertheless, there are parts of the country and particular populations that remain without protection. For these reasons, the U.S. PHS \u2026 has set a national goal for the year 2000 that 75% of persons served by community water systems will have access to optimally fluoridated drinking water; currently this figure is just about 60%. The year 2000 target goal is both desirable and yet challenging, based on past progress and continuing evidence of effectiveness and safety of this public health measure.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[38]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This statement is flawed on several accounts. First, as we\u2019ve seen, research does not support the effectiveness of fluoridation for preventing tooth disease. Second, purported benefits are supposedly for children, not adults and senior citizens. At about age 13, any advantage fluoridation might offer comes to an end, and less than 1% of the fluoridated water supply reaches this population.\u00a0\u00a0And third, fluoridation has never been proven safe. On the contrary, several studies directly link fluoridation to skeletal fluorosis, dental fluorosis, and several rare forms of cancer. This alone should frighten us away from its use.<\/p>\n

Biological Safety Concerns<\/strong><\/p>\n

Only a small margin separates supposedly beneficial fluoride levels from amounts that are known to cause adverse effects. Dr. James Patrick, a former antibiotics research scientist at the National Institutes of Health, describes the predicament:<\/p>\n

\u201c[There is] a very low margin of safety involved in fluoridating water. A concentration of about 1 ppm is recommended\u2026in several countries, severe fluorosis has been documented from water supplies containing only 2 or 3 ppm. In the development of drugs\u2026we generally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) of the order of 100; a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that is what has been proposed for public water supplies.\u201d<\/a>[39]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Other countries argue that even 1 ppm is not a safe concentration. Canadian studies, for example, imply that children under three should have no fluoride whatsoever. The Journal of the Canadian Dental Association states that \u201cFluoride supplements should not be recommended for children less than 3 years old.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[40]\u00a0\u00a0 Since these supplements contain the same amount of fluoride as water does, they are basically saying that children under the age of three shouldn\u2019t be drinking fluoridated water at all, under any circumstances. Japan has reduced the amount of fluoride in their drinking water to one-eighth of what is recommended in the U.S. Instead of 1 milligram per liter, they use less than 15 hundredths of a milligram per liter as the upper limit allowed.\u00a0<\/a>[41]<\/p>\n

Even supposing that low concentrations are safe, there is no way to control how much fluoride different people consume, as some take in a lot more than others. For example, laborers, athletes, diabetics, and those living in hot or dry regions can all be expected to drink more water, and therefore more fluoride (in fluoridated areas) than others.\u00a0<\/a>[42]\u00a0\u00a0 Due to such wide variations in water consumption, it is impossible to scientifically control what dosage of fluoride a person receives via the water supply.<\/a>[43]<\/p>\n

Another concern is that fluoride is not found only in drinking water; it is everywhere. Fluoride is found in foods that are processed with it, which, in the United States, include nearly all bottled drinks and canned foods.\u00a0<\/a>[44]\u00a0 Researchers writing in The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry have found that fruit juices, in particular, contain significant amounts of fluoride. In one study, a variety of popular juices and juice blends were analyzed and it was discovered that 42% of the samples examined had more than l ppm of fluoride, with some brands of grape juice containing much higher levels \u2013 up to 6.8 ppm! The authors cite the common practice of using fluoride-containing insecticide in growing grapes as a factor in these high levels, and they suggest that the fluoride content of beverages be printed on their labels, as is other nutritional information.\u00a0<\/a>[45]\u00a0 Considering how much juice some children ingest, and the fact that youngsters often insist on particular brands that they consume day after day, labeling seems like a prudent idea. But beyond this is the larger issue that this study brings up: Is it wise to subject children and others who are heavy juice drinkers to additional fluoride in their water?<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a little-publicized reality: Cooking can greatly increase a food\u2019s fluoride content. Peas, for example, contain 12 micrograms of fluoride when raw and 1500 micrograms after they are cooked in fluoridated water, which is a tremendous difference. Also, we should keep in mind that fluoride is an ingredient in pharmaceuticals, aerosols, insecticides, and pesticides.<\/p>\n

And of course, toothpastes. It\u2019s interesting to note that in the 1950s, fluoridated toothpastes were required to carry warnings on their labels saying that they were not to be used in areas where water was already fluoridated. Crest toothpaste went so far as to write: \u201cCaution: Children under 6 should not use Crest.\u201d These regulations were dropped in 1958, although no new research was available to prove that the overdose hazard no longer existed.\u00a0<\/a>[46]<\/p>\n

Today, common fluoride levels in toothpaste are 1000 ppm. Research chemist Woodfun Ligon notes that swallowing a small amount adds substantially to fluoride intake.\u00a0<\/a>[47]\u00a0Dentists say that children commonly ingest up to 0.5 mg of fluoride a day from toothpaste.\u00a0<\/a>[48]<\/p>\n

This inevitably raises another issue: How safe is all this fluoride? According to scientists and informed doctors, such as Dr. John Lee, it is not safe at all. Dr. Lee first took an anti-fluoridation stance back in 1972, when as chairman of an environmental health committee for a local medical society, he was asked to state their position on the subject. He stated that after investigating the references given by both pro- and anti-fluoridationists, the group discovered three important things:<\/p>\n

\u201cOne, the claims of benefit of fluoride, the 60% reduction of cavities, was not established by any of these studies. Two, we found that the investigations into the toxic side effects of fluoride have not been done in any way that was acceptable. And three, we discovered that the estimate of the amount of fluoride in the food chain, in the total daily fluoride intake, had been measured in 1943, and not since then. By adding the amount of fluoride that we now have in the food chain, which comes from food processing with fluoridated water, plus all the fluoridated toothpaste that was not present in 1943, we found that the daily intake of fluoride was far in excess of what was considered optimal.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[49]<\/p>\n

What happens when fluoride intake exceeds the optimal? The inescapable fact is that this substance has been associated with severe health problems, ranging from skeletal and dental fluorosis to bone fractures, to fluoride poisoning, and even to cancer.<\/p>\n

Skeletal Fluorosis<\/strong><\/p>\n

When fluoride is ingested, approximately 93% of it is absorbed into the bloodstream. A good part of the material is excreted, but the rest is deposited in the bones and teeth,\u00a0and is capable of causing a crippling skeletal fluorosis. This is a condition that can damage the musculoskeletal and nervous systems and result in muscle wasting, limited joint motion, spine deformities, and calcification of the ligaments, as well as neurological deficits.<\/p>\n

Large numbers of people in Japan, China, India, the Middle East, and Africa have been diagnosed with skeletal fluorosis from drinking naturally fluoridated water. In India alone, nearly a million people suffer from the affliction.\u00a039\u00a0\u00a0 While only a dozen cases of skeletal fluorosis have been reported in the United States, Chemical and Engineering News states that \u201ccritics of the\u00a0EPA<\/a>\u00a0standard speculate that there probably have been many more cases of fluorosis \u2013 even crippling fluorosis \u2013 than the few reported in the literature because most doctors in the U.S. have not studied the disease and do not know how to diagnose it.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[50]<\/p>\n

Radiologic changes in bone occur when fluoride exposure is 5 mg\/day, according to the late Dr. George Waldbott, author of Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. While this 5 mg\/day level is the amount of fluoride ingested by most people living in fluoridated areas,\u00a0<\/a>[51]\u00a0\u00a0 the number increases for diabetics and laborers, who can ingest up to 20 mg of fluoride daily. In addition, a survey conducted by the Department of Agriculture shows that 3% of the U.S. population drinks 4 liters or more of water every day. If these individuals live in areas where the water contains a fluoride level of 4 ppm, allowed by the EPA, they are ingesting 16 mg\/day from the consumption of water alone, and are thus at greater risk for getting skeletal fluorosis.\u00a0<\/a>[52]<\/p>\n

\u00a0Dental Fluorosis<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to a 1989 National Institute for Dental Research study, 1-2% of children living in areas fluoridated at 1 ppm develop dental fluorosis, that is, permanently stained, brown mottled teeth. Up to 23% of children living in areas naturally fluoridated at 4 ppm develop severe dental fluorosis.\u00a0<\/a>[53]\u00a0 Other research gives higher figures. The publication Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, put out by the National Academy of Sciences, reports that in areas with optimally fluoridated water (1 ppm, either natural or added), dental fluorosis levels in recent years ranged from 8 to 51%. Recently, a prevalence of slightly over 80% was reported in children 12-14 years old in Augusta, Georgia.<\/p>\n

Fluoride is a noteworthy chemical additive in that its officially acknowledged benefit and damage levels are about the same. Writing in The Progressive,\u00a0science<\/a>\u00a0journalist Daniel Grossman elucidates this point:<\/p>\n

\u201cThough many beneficial\u00a0chemicals<\/a>\u00a0are dangerous when consumed at excessive levels, fluoride is unique because the amount that dentists recommend to prevent cavities is about the same as the amount that causes dental fluorosis.\u201d\u00a0[54]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Although the American Dental Association and the government consider dental fluorosis only a cosmetic problem, the American Journal of Public Health says that \u201c\u2026brittleness of moderately and severely mottled teeth may be associated with elevated caries levels.\u201d\u00a045\u00a0\u00a0 In other words, in these cases the fluoride is causing the exact problem that it\u2019s supposed to prevent. Yiamouyiannis adds, \u201cIn highly naturally-fluoridated areas, the teeth actually crumble as a result. These are the first visible symptoms of fluoride poisoning.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[55]<\/p>\n

Also, when considering dental fluorosis, there are factors beyond the physical that you can\u2019t ignore \u2013 the negative psychological effects of having moderately to severely mottled teeth. These were recognized in a 1984 National Institute of Mental Health panel that looked into this problem.<\/p>\n

A telling trend is that TV commercials for toothpaste, and toothpaste tubes themselves, are now downplaying fluoride content as a virtue. This was noted in an article in the Sarasota\/Florida ECO Report,\u00a0<\/a>[56]\u00a0whose author, George Glasser, feels that manufacturers are distancing themselves from the additive because of fears of lawsuits. The climate is ripe for these, and Glasser points out that such a class action suit has already been filed in England against the manufacturers of fluoride-containing products on behalf of children suffering from dental fluorosis.<\/p>\n

Bone Fractures<\/strong><\/p>\n

At one time, fluoride therapy was recommended for building denser bones and preventing fractures associated with osteoporosis. Now several articles in peer-reviewed journals suggest that fluoride actually causes more harm than good, as it is associated with bone breakage. Three studies reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association showed links between hip fractures and fluoride.\u00a0<\/a>[57]<\/a>[58]<\/a>[59]\u00a0Findings here were, for instance, that there is \u201ca small but significant increase in the risk of hip fractures in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation at 1 ppm.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 In addition, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that people given fluoride to cure their osteoporosis actually wound up with an increased nonvertebral fracture rate.\u00a0<\/a>[60]\u00a0 Austrian researchers have also found that fluoride tablets make bones more susceptible to fractures.<\/a>[61]\u00a0The U.S. National Research Council states that the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world.\u00a0<\/a>[62]<\/p>\n

Louis V. Avioli, professor at the Washington University School of Medicine, says in a 1987 review of the subject: \u201cSodium fluoride therapy is accompanied by so many medical complications and side effects that it is hardly worth exploring in depth as a therapeutic mode for postmenopausal osteoporosis, since it fails to decrease the propensity for hip fractures and increases the incidence of stress fractures in the extremities.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[63]<\/p>\n

\u00a0Fluoride Poisoning<\/strong><\/p>\n

In May 1992, 260 people were poisoned, and one man died, in Hooper Bay, Alaska, after drinking water contaminated with 150 ppm of fluoride. The accident was attributed to poor equipment and an unqualified operator.\u00a055\u00a0\u00a0 Was this a fluke? Not at all. Over the years, the\u00a0CDC<\/a>\u00a0has recorded several incidents of excessive fluoride permeating the water supply and sickening or killing people. We don\u2019t usually hear about these occurrences in news reports, but interested citizens have learned the truth from data obtained under the\u00a0Freedom<\/a>\u00a0of Information Act. Here is a partial list of toxic spills we have not been told about:<\/p>\n

July 1993 \u2013 Chicago, Illinois: Three dialysis patients died and five experienced toxic reactions to the fluoridated water used in the treatment process. The CDC was asked to investigate, but to date there have been no press releases.<\/p>\n

May 1993 \u2013 Kodiak, Alaska (Old Harbor): The population was warned not to consume water due to high fluoride levels. They were also cautioned against boiling the water, since this concentrates the substance and worsens the danger. Although equipment appeared to be functioning normally, 22-24 ppm of fluoride was found in a sample.<\/p>\n

July 1992 \u2013 Marin County, California: A pump malfunction allowed too much fluoride into the Bon Tempe treatment plant. Two million gallons of fluoridated water were diverted to Phoenix Lake, elevating the lake surface by more than two inches and forcing some water over the spillway.<\/p>\n

December 1991 \u2013 Benton Harbor, Michigan: A faulty pump allowed approximately 900 gallons of hydrofluosilicic acid to leak into a chemical storage building at the water plant. City engineer Roland Klockow stated, \u201cThe concentrated hydrofluosilicic acid was so corrosive that it ate through more than two inches of concrete in the storage building.\u201d This water did not reach water consumers, but fluoridation was stopped until June 1993. The original equipment was only two years old.<\/p>\n

July 1991 \u2013 Porgate, Michigan: After a fluoride injector pump failed, fluoride levels reached 92 ppm and resulted in approximately 40 children developing abdominal pains, sickness, vomiting, and diarrhea at a school arts and crafts show.<\/p>\n

November 1979 \u2013 Annapolis, Maryland: One patient died and eight became ill after renal dialysis treatment. Symptoms included cardiac arrest (resuscitated), hypotension, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and a whole gamut of intestinal problems. Patients not on dialysis also reported nausea, headaches, cramps, diarrhea, and dizziness. The fluoride level was later found to be 35 ppm; the problem was traced to a valve at a water plant that had been left open all night.\u00a0<\/a>[64]<\/p>\n

Instead of addressing fluoridation\u2019s problematic safety record, officials have chosen to cover it up. For example, the ADA says in one booklet distributed to health agencies that \u201cFluoride feeders are designed to stop operating when a malfunction occurs\u2026 so prolonged over-fluoridation becomes a mechanical impossibility.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In addition, the information that does reach the population after an accident is woefully inaccurate. A spill in Annapolis, Maryland, placed thousands at risk, but official reports reduced the number to eight.\u00a0<\/a>[65]\u00a0 Perhaps officials are afraid they will invite more lawsuits like the one for $480 million by the wife of a dialysis patient who became brain-injured as the result of fluoride poisoning.<\/p>\n

Not all fluoride poisoning is accidental. For decades, industry has knowingly released massive quantities of fluoride into the air and water. Disenfranchised communities, with people least able to fight back, are often the victims. Medical writer Joel Griffiths relays this description of what industrial pollution can do, in this case to a devastatingly poisoned Indian reservation:<\/p>\n

\u201cCows crawled around the pasture on their bellies, inching along like giant snails. So crippled by bone disease they could not stand up, this was the only way they could graze. Some died kneeling, after giving birth to stunted calves. Others kept on crawling until, no longer able to chew because their teeth had crumbled down to the nerves, they began to starve\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n

They were the cattle of the Mohawk Indians on the New York-Canadian St. Regis Reservation during the period 1960-1975, when industrial pollution devastated the herd \u2013 and along with it, the Mohawks\u2019 way of life\u2026.Mohawk children, too, have shown signs of damage to bones and teeth.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[66]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Mohawks filed suit against the Reynolds Metals Company and the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) in 1960, but ended up settling out of court, where they received $650,000 for their cows.\u00a0<\/a>[67]<\/p>\n

Fluoride is one of industry\u2019s major pollutants, and no one remains immune to its effects. In 1989, 155,000 tons were being released annually into the air,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 and 500,000 tons a year were disposed of in our lakes, rivers, and oceans.\u00a0<\/a>[68]<\/p>\n

Cancer<\/strong><\/p>\n

Numerous studies demonstrate links between fluoridation and cancer; however, agencies promoting fluoride consistently refute or cover up these findings.<\/p>\n

In 1977, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis and Dr. Dean Burk, former chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute, released a study that linked fluoridation to 10,000 cancer deaths per year in the U.S. Their inquiry, which compared cancer deaths in the ten largest fluoridated American cities to those in the ten largest unfluoridated cities between 1940 and 1950, discovered a 5% greater rate in the fluoridated areas.\u00a0<\/a>[69]\u00a0 The NCI disputed these findings, since an earlier analysis of theirs apparently failed to pick up these extra deaths. Federal authorities claimed that Yiamouyiannis and Burk were in error, and that any increase was caused by statistical changes over the years in age, gender, and racial composition.\u00a0<\/a>[70]<\/p>\n

In order to settle the question of whether or not fluoride is a carcinogen, a Congressional subcommittee instructed the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to perform another investigation.\u00a0<\/a>[71]\u00a0 That study, due in 1980, was not released until 1990. However, in 1986, while the study was delayed, the EPA raised the standard fluoride level in drinking water from 2.4 to 4 ppm.\u00a0<\/a>[72]\u00a0\u00a0 After this step, some of the government\u2019s own employees in NFFE Local 2050 took what the Oakland Tribune termed the \u201cremarkable step of denouncing that action as political.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[73]<\/p>\n

When the NTP study results became known in early 1990, union president Dr. Robert Carton, who works in the EPA\u2019s Toxic Substances Division, published a statement. It read, in part: \u201cFour years ago, NFFE Local 2050, which represents all 1100 professionals at EPA headquarters, alerted then Administrator Lee Thomas to the fact that the scientific support documents for the fluoride in drinking water standard were fatally flawed. The fluoride juggernaut proceeded as it apparently had for the last 40 years \u2013 without any regard for the facts or concern for public health.<\/p>\n

\u201cEPA raised the allowed level of fluoride before the results of the rat\/mouse study ordered by Congress in 1977 was complete. Today, we find out how irresponsible that decision was. The results reported by NTP, and explained today by Dr. Yiamouyiannis, are, as he notes, not surprising considering the vast amount of data that caused the animal study to be conducted in the first place. The results are not surprising to NFFE Local 2050 either. Four years ago we realized that the claim that there was no evidence that fluoride could cause genetic effects or cancer could not be supported by the shoddy document thrown together by the EPA contractor.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was apparent to us that EPA bowed to political pressure without having done an in-depth, independent analysis, using in-house experts, of the currently existing data that show fluoride causes genetic effects, promotes the growth of cancerous tissue, and is likely to cause cancer in humans. If EPA had done so, it would have been readily apparent \u2013 as it was to Congress in 1977 \u2013 that there were serious reasons to believe in a cancer threat.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe behavior by EPA in this affair raises questions about the integrity of science at EPA and the role of professional scientists, lawyers and engineers who provide the interpretation of the available data and the judgements necessary to protect the public health and the environment. Are scientists at EPA there to arrange facts to fit preconceived conclusions? Does the Agency have a responsibility to develop world-class experts in the risks posed by\u00a0chemicals<\/a>\u00a0we are exposed to every day, or is it permissible for EPA to cynically shop around for contractors who will provide them the \u2018correct\u2019 answers?\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[74]<\/p>\n

What were the NTP study results? Out of 130 male rats that ingested 45 to 79 ppm of fluoride, 5 developed osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. There were cases, in both males and females at those doses, of squamous cell carcinoma in the mouth.\u00a0<\/a>[75]\u00a0 Both rats and mice had dose-related fluorosis of the teeth, and female rats suffered osteosclerosis of the long bones.<\/a>[76]<\/p>\n

When Yiamouyiannis analyzed the same data, he found mice with a particularly rare form of liver cancer, known as hepatocholangiocarcinoma. This cancer is so rare, according to Yiamouyiannis, that the odds of its appearance in this study by chance are 1 in 2 million in male mice and l in 100,000 in female mice.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 He also found precancerous changes in oral squamous cells, an increase in squamous cell tumors and cancers, and thyroid follicular cell tumors as a result of increasing levels of fluoride in drinking water.\u00a0<\/a>[77]<\/p>\n

A March 13, 1990, New York Times article commented on the NTP findings: \u201cPrevious animal tests suggesting that water fluoridation might pose risks to humans have been widely discounted as technically flawed, but the latest investigation carefully weeded out sources of experimental or statistical error, many scientists say, and cannot be discounted.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[78]\u00a0 In the same article, biologist Dr. Edward Groth notes: \u201cThe importance of this study\u2026is that it is the first fluoride bioassay giving positive results in which the latest state-of-the-art procedures have been rigorously applied. It has to be taken seriously.\u201d\u00a071<\/p>\n

On February 22, 1990, the Medical Tribune, an international medical news weekly received by 125,000 doctors, offered the opinion of a federal scientist who preferred to remain anonymous:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is difficult to see how EPA can fail to regulate fluoride as a carcinogen in light of what NTP has found. Osteosarcomas are an extremely unusual result in rat carcinogenicity tests. Toxicologists tell me that the only other substance that has produced this is radium\u2026.The fact that this is a highly atypical form of cancer implicates fluoride as the cause. Also, the osteosarcomas appeared to be dose-related, and did not occur in controls, making it a clean study.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[79]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Public health officials were quick to assure a concerned public that there was nothing to worry about! The ADA said the occurrence of cancers in the lab may not be relevant to humans since the level of fluoridation in the experimental animals\u2019 water was so high.\u00a0<\/a>[80]\u00a0\u00a0 But the Federal Register, which is the handbook of government practices, disagrees:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe high exposure of experimental animals to toxic agents is a necessary and valid method of discovering possible carcinogenic hazards in man. To disavow the findings of this test would be to disavow those of all such tests, since they are all conducted according to this standard.\u201d\u00a073<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As a February 5, 1990, Newsweek article pointed out, \u201csuch megadosing is standard toxicological practice. It\u2019s the only way to detect an effect without using an impossibly large number of test animals to stand in for the humans exposed to the substance.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[81]\u00a0And as the Safer Water Foundation explains, higher doses are generally administered to test animals to compensate for the animals\u2019 shorter life span and because humans are generally more vulnerable than test animals on a body-weight basis.\u00a0<\/a>[82]<\/p>\n

Several other studies link fluoride to genetic damage and cancer. An article in Mutation Research says that a study by Proctor and Gamble, the very company that makes Crest toothpaste, did research showing that 1 ppm fluoride causes genetic damage.<\/a>[83]\u00a0Results were never published but Proctor and Gamble called them \u201cclean,\u201d meaning animals were supposedly free of malignant tumors. Not so, according to scientists who believe some of the changes observed in test animals could be interpreted as precancerous.\u00a0<\/a>[84]\u00a0\u00a0 Yiamouyiannis says the Public Health Service sat on the data, which were finally released via a\u00a0Freedom<\/a>\u00a0of Information Act request in 1989. \u201cSince they are biased, they have tried to cover up harmful effects,\u201d he says. \u201cBut the data speaks for itself. Half the amount of fluoride that is found in the New York City drinking water causes genetic damage.\u201d\u00a046<\/p>\n

A National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences publication, Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, also linked fluoride to genetic toxicity when it stated that \u201cin cultured human and rodent cells, the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that fluoride exposure results in increased chromosome aberrations.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[85]\u00a0The result of this is not only birth defects but the mutation of normal cells into cancer cells. The Journal of Carcinogenesis further states that \u201cfluoride not only has the ability to transform normal cells into cancer cells but also to enhance the cancer-causing properties of other chemicals.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[86]<\/p>\n

Surprisingly, the PHS put out a report called Review of fluoride: benefits and risks, in which they showed a substantially higher incidence of bone cancer in young men exposed to fluoridated water compared to those who were not. The New Jersey Department of Health also found that the risk of bone cancer was about three times as high in fluoridated areas as in nonfluoridated areas.\u00a0<\/a>[87]<\/p>\n

Despite cover-up attempts, the light of knowledge is filtering through to some enlightened scientists. Regarding animal test results, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, James Huff, does say that \u201cthe reason these animals got a few osteosarcomas was because they were given fluoride\u2026Bone is the target organ for fluoride.\u201d\u00a0 Toxicologist William Marcus adds that \u201cfluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity, and other effects.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[88]<\/p>\n

\u00a0The Challenge of Eliminating Fluoride<\/strong><\/p>\n

Given all the scientific challenges to the idea of the safety of fluoride, why does it remain a protected contaminant? As Susan Pare of the Center for Health Action asks, \u201c\u2026even if fluoride in the water did reduce tooth decay, which it does not, how can the EPA allow a substance more toxic than Alar, red dye #3, and vinyl chloride to be injected purposely into drinking water?\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[89]<\/p>\n

This is certainly a logical question and, with all the good science that seems to exist on the subject, you would think that there would be a great deal of interest in getting fluoride out of our water supply. Unfortunately, that hasn\u2019t been the case. As Dr. William Marcus, a senior science advisor in the EPA\u2019s Office of Drinking Water, has found, the top governmental priority has been to sweep the facts under the rug and, if need be, to suppress truth-tellers. Marcus explains\u00a0<\/a>[90]\u00a0 that fluoride is one of the chemicals the EPA specifically regulates, and that he was following the data coming in on fluoride very carefully when a determination was going to be made on whether the levels should be changed. He discovered that the data were not being heeded. But that was only the beginning of the story for him. Marcus recounts what happened:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe studies that were done by Botel Northwest showed that there was an increased level of bone cancer and other types of cancer in animals\u2026.in that same study, there were very rare liver cancers, according to the board-certified veterinary pathologists at the contractor, Botel. Those really were very upsetting because they were hepatocholangeal carcinomas, very rare liver cancers\u2026.Then there were several other kinds of cancers that were found in the jaw and other places.<\/p>\n

\u201cI felt at that time that the reports were alarming. They showed that the levels of fluoride that can cause cancers in animals are actually lower than those levels ingested in people (who take lower amounts but for longer periods of time).<\/p>\n

\u201cI went to a meeting that was held in Research Triangle Park, in April 1990, in which the National Toxicology Program was presenting their review of the study. I went with several colleagues of mine, one of whom was a board-certified veterinary pathologist who originally reported hepatocholangeal carcinoma as a separate entity in rats and mice. I asked him if he would look at the slides to see if that really was a tumor or if the pathologists at Botel had made an error. He told me after looking at the slides that, in fact, it was correct.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt the meeting, every one of the cancers reported by the contractor had been downgraded by the National Toxicology Program. I have been in the toxicology business looking at studies of this nature for nearly 25 years and I have never before seen every single cancer endpoint downgraded\u2026. I found that very suspicious and went to see an investigator in the Congress at the suggestion of my friend, Bob Carton. This gentleman and his staff investigated very thoroughly and found out that the scientists at the National Toxicology Program down at Research Triangle Park had been coerced by their superiors to change their findings.\u201d<\/a>[91]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Once Dr. Marcus acted on his findings, something ominous started to happen in his life: \u201c\u2026I wrote an internal memorandum and gave it to my supervisors. I waited for a month without hearing anything. Usually, you get a feedback in a week or so. I wrote another memorandum to a person who was my second-line supervisor explaining that if there was even a slight chance of increased cancer in the general population, since 140 million people were potentially ingesting this material, that the deaths could be in the many thousands. Then I gave a copy of the memorandum to the Fluoride Work Group, who waited some time and then released it to the press.<\/p>\n

\u201cOnce it got into the press all sorts of things started happening at EPA. I was getting disciplinary threats, being isolated, and all kinds of things which ultimately resulted in them firing me on March 15, 1992.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In order to be reinstated at work, Dr. Marcus took his case to court. In the process, he learned that the government had engaged in various illegal activities, including 70 felony counts, in order to get him fired. At the same time, those who committed perjury were not held accountable for it. In fact, they were rewarded for their efforts:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen we finally got the EPA to the courtroom\u2026they admitted to doing several things to get me fired. We had notes of a meeting\u2026that showed that fluoride was one of the main topics discussed and that it was agreed that they would fire me with the help of the Inspector General. When we got them on the stand and showed them the memoranda, they finally remembered and said, oh yes, we lied about that in our previous statements.<\/p>\n

\u201cThen\u2026they admitted to shredding more than 70 documents that they had in hand \u2013 Freedom of Information requests. That\u2019s a felony\u2026. In addition, they charged me with stealing time from the government. They\u2026tried to show\u2026that I had been doing private work on government time and getting paid for it. When we came to court, I was able to show that the time cards they produced were forged, and forged by the Inspector General\u2019s staff\u2026.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For all his efforts, Dr. Marcus was rehired, but nothing else has changed: \u201cThe EPA was ordered to rehire me, which they did. They were given a whole series of requirements to be met, such as paying me my back pay, restoring my leave, privileges, and sick leave and annual leave. The only thing they\u2019ve done is put me back to work. They haven\u2019t given me any of those things that they were required to do.\u201d<\/a>[92]<\/p>\n

What is at the core of such ruthless tactics? John Yiamouyiannis feels that the central concern of government is to protect industry, and that the motivating force behind fluoride use is the need of certain businesses to dump their toxic waste products somewhere. They try to be inconspicuous in the disposal process and not make waves. \u201cAs is normal, the solution to pollution is dilution. You poison everyone a little bit rather than poison a few people a lot. This way, people don\u2019t know what\u2019s going on.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since the Public Health Service has promoted the fluoride myth for over 50 years, they\u2019re concerned about protecting their reputation. So scientists like Dr. Marcus, who know about the dangers, are intimidated into keeping silent. Otherwise, they jeopardize their careers. Dr. John Lee elaborates:<\/p>\n

\u201cBack in 1943, the PHS staked their professional careers on the benefits and safety of fluoride. It has since become bureaucratized. Any public health official who criticizes fluoride, or even hints that perhaps it was an unwise decision, is at risk of losing his career entirely. This has happened time and time again. Public health officials such as Dr. Gray in British Columbia and Dr. Colquhoun in New Zealand found no benefit from fluoridation. When they reported these results, they immediately lost their careers\u2026. This is what happens \u2013 the public health officials who speak out against fluoride are at great risk of losing their careers on the spot.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yiamouyiannis adds that for the authorities to admit that they\u2019re wrong would be devastating.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would show that their reputations really don\u2019t mean that much\u2026. They don\u2019t have the scientific background. As\u00a0Ralph Nader<\/a>\u00a0once said, if they admit they\u2019re wrong on fluoridation, people would ask, and legitimately so, what else have they not told us right?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Accompanying a loss in status would be a tremendous loss in revenue. Yiamouyiannis points out that \u201cthe indiscriminate careless handling of fluoride has a lot of companies, such as Exxon, U.S. Steel, and Alcoa, making tens of billions of dollars in extra profits at our expense\u2026. For them to go ahead now and admit that this is bad, this presents a problem, a threat, would mean tens of billions of dollars in lost profit because they would have to handle fluoride properly. Fluoride is present in everything from phosphate fertilizers to cracking agents for the petroleum industry.\u201d<\/p>\n

Fluoride could only be legally disposed of at a great cost to industry. As Dr. Bill Marcus explains,<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are prescribed methods for disposal and they\u2019re very expensive. Fluoride is a very potent poison. It\u2019s a registered pesticide, used for killing rats or mice\u2026. If it were to be disposed of, it would require a class-one landfill. That would cost the people who are producing aluminum or fertilizer about $7000+ per 5000- to 6000-gallon truckload to dispose of it. It\u2019s highly corrosive.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Another problem is that the U.S. judicial system, even when convinced of the dangers, is powerless to change policy. Yiamouyiannis tells of his involvement in court cases in Pennsylvania and Texas in which, while the judges were convinced that fluoride was a health hazard, they did not have the jurisdiction to grant relief from fluoridation. That would have to be done, it was ultimately found, through the legislative process.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Interestingly, the judiciary seems to have more power to effect change in other countries. Yiamouyiannis states that when he presented the same technical evidence in Scotland, the Scottish court outlawed fluoridation based on the evidence.<\/p>\n

Indeed, most of Western Europe has rejected fluoridation on the grounds that it is unsafe. In 1971, after 11 years of testing, Sweden\u2019s Nobel Medical Institute recommended against fluoridation, and the process was banned.<\/a>[93]\u00a0The Netherlands outlawed the practice in 1976, after 23 years of tests. France decided against it after consulting with its Pasteur Institute64\u00a0\u00a0 and West Germany, now Germany, rejected the practice because the recommended dosage of 1 ppm was \u201ctoo close to the dose at which long-term damage to the human body is to be expected.\u201d\u00a084Dr. Lee sums it up:<\/p>\n

\u201cAll of western Europe, except one or two test towns in Spain, has abandoned fluoride as a public health plan. It is not put in the water anywhere. They all established test cities and found that the benefits did not occur and the toxicity was evident.\u201d<\/a>[94]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Isn\u2019t it time the United States followed Western Europe\u2019s example? While the answer is obvious, it is also apparent that government policy is unlikely to change without public support. We therefore must communicate with legislators, and insist on one of our most precious resources \u2013 pure, unadulterated drinking water. Yiamouyiannis urges all American people to do so, pointing out that public pressure has gotten fluoride out of the water in places like Los Angeles; Newark and Jersey City in New Jersey; and\u00a0<\/a>[95]Bedford, Massachusetts.\u00a046\u00a0He emphasizes the immediacy of the problem:<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is no question with regard to fluoridation of public water supplies. It is absolutely unsafe\u2026and should be stopped immediately. This is causing more destruction to human health than any other single substance added purposely or inadvertently to the water supply. We\u2019re talking about 35,000 excess deaths a year\u202610,000 cancer deaths a year\u2026130 million people who are being chronically poisoned. We\u2019re not talking about dropping dead after drinking a glass of fluoridated water\u2026. It takes its toll on human health and life, glass after glass.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[96]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is also a moral issue in the debate that has largely escaped notice. According to columnist James Kilpatrick, it is \u201cthe right of each person to control the drugs he or she takes.\u201d Kilpatrick calls fluoridation compulsory mass medication, a procedure that violates the principles of medical ethics.\u00a0<\/a>[97]\u00a0\u00a0 A New York Times editorial agrees:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn light of the uncertainty, critics [of fluoridation] argue that administrative bodies are unjustified in imposing fluoridation on communities without obtaining public consent\u2026. The real issue here is not just the scientific debate. The question is whether any establishment has the right to decide that benefits outweigh risks and impose involuntary medication on an entire population. In the case of fluoridation, the dental establishment has made opposition to fluoridation seem intellectually disreputable. Some people regard that as tyranny.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[98]<\/p>\n

By\u00a0Dr. Gary Null<\/a>,\u00a0Global Research<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
\n

[1]\u00a0Brooks, Megan. \u201cFluoride May Be Neurotoxic in Kids.\u201d\u00a0Medscape.com. N.p., 23 Aug. 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http:\/\/www.scoop.it\/t\/family-centred-care-practice\/p\/2524572531\/medscape-fluoride-may-be-neurotoxic-in-kids<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>[2]\u00a0Lu, Z, et al. \u201cIn vivo influence of sodium fluoride on sperm chemotaxis in male mice..\u201d\u00a0Archives of Toxicology\u00a0Jul 24 (2013). In vivo influence of sodium fluoride on sperm chemotaxis in male mice. (accessed November 20, 2013).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[3]\u00a0\u201cMALE FERTILITY.\u201d Fluoride Action Network.\u00a0http:\/\/fluoridealert.org\/issues\/health\/fertility\/<\/a>\u00a0(accessed November 22, 2013).<\/p>\n

[4]\u00a0Adams, Mike. \u201cPROOF: Chinese Industrial Fluoride Suppliers Openly List Sodium Fluoride as \u2018insecticide\u2019 and \u2018adhesive Preservative\u2019 in Addition to Water Treatment Chemical.\u201dPROOF: Chinese Industrial Fluoride Suppliers Openly List Sodium Fluoride as \u2018insecticide\u2019 and \u2018adhesive Preservative\u2019 in Addition to Water Treatment Chemical. NaturalNews.com, 31 Aug. 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http:\/\/www.naturalnews.com\/037024_sodium_fluoride_insecticide_proof.html<\/a>>9<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[5]\u00a0Ibid<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[6]Alvarez, Lizette. \u201cLooking to Save Money, More Places Decide to Stop Fluoridating the Water \u2013 NYTimes.com.\u201d The New York Times . N.p., 13 Oct. 2011. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. <http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2011\/10\/14\/us\/more-places-change-course-on-fluoride-in-water.html?pagewanted=all>.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[7]\u00a0Diep, Francie. \u201cPortland, Oregon, Says No To Fluoridation.\u201d Popular Science. http:\/\/www.popsci.com\/science\/article\/2013-05\/fluoridation-defeated-portland-oregon (accessed November 21, 2013).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[8]\u00a0Huff, Ethan. \u201cIsrael commits to ending water fluoridation by 2014, citing major health concerns.\u201d NaturalNews.http:\/\/www.naturalnews.com\/042079_water_fluoridation_Israel_health_concerns.html<\/a>\u00a0(accessed November 21, 2013).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[9]\u00a0Huff, Ethan. \u201cHuge victory against fluoride in Australia.\u201d NaturalNews. http:\/\/www.naturalnews.com\/038984_Australia_fluoride_involuntary_medication.html (accessed November 22, 2013).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[10]\u201cStatement on Water Fluoridation.\u201d NIDCR Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.http:\/\/www.fluoridealert.org\/professionals-statement.aspx<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[11]Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, in interview with Gary Null, 3\/10\/95. His statement is referenced in the Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, Fifth Ed., Williams and Wilkins.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[12]Joel Griffiths, \u201cFluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy,\u201d Covert Action, Fall 1992, Vol. 42, p. 30.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[13]Ibid., p. 27.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[14]Ibid., p. 28.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[15]Ibid.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[16]McNeil, The Fight for Fluoridation, 1957, p. 37.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[17]Griffiths, op. cit., p. 28.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[18]Griffiths, op. cit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[19]G.L. Waldbott et al., Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma, Lawrence, XS, Coronado Press, 1978, p. 295.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[20]Paul Farhi, Washington Post, 11\/23\/91.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[21]Griffiths, op. cit., p. 63.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[22]Longevity Magazine, pp. 7-89.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[23]The Morning Call, 2\/7\/90<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[24]Science, 1\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[25]Waldbott, op. cit., p. 255.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[26]Letter, Rebecca Hammer, 3\/83<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[27]U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, \u201cPolicy statement on community water fluoridation,\u201d July 22, 1992, Washington, D.C.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[28]\u201cStatement on Water Fluoridation.\u201d NIDCR Home. http:\/\/www.nidcr.nih.gov\/OralHealth\/Topics\/Fluoride\/StatementWaterFluoridation.htm<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[29]Los Angeles Times. 1\/ 26\/95..<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[30]The Chicago Tribune, 1\/26\/95.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[31]A.S. Gray, Canadian Dental Association Journal, October 1987, pp. 763.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[32]Letter,\u00a0Sierra Club<\/a>\u00a0to Wm. K. Reilly, EPA, 7\/21\/89.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[33]John Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride, 1990, Vol. 23, pp. 55-67.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[34]Center for Health Action, 3\/30\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[35]Clinical Pediatrics, Nov. 1991.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[36]ADA News, 10\/17\/94.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[37]Chemical and Engineering News, 8\/1\/88, p.31.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[38]Waldbott, op. cit., p. xvii.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[39]Statement by Dr. James Patrick before Congressional Subcommittee, 8\/4\/82.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[40]Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, Vol. 59, Apr. 1993, p. 334.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[41]Gary Null interview with Dr. John Lee, 3\/10\/95.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[42]F. Exner and G. Waldbott, The American fluoridation experiment, 1957, p. 43.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[43]Federal Register, 12\/24\/75.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[44]Chemical and Engineering News, 8\/1\/88, p. 33.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[45]Jan G. Stannard et al., \u201cFluoride levels and fluoride\u00a0contamination<\/a>\u00a0of fruit juices,\u201d The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1991, pp. 38-40.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[46]Waldbott, op. cit., pp. 307-308.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[47]Chemical and Engineering News, 8\/1\/88, p. 49.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[48]New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, release, 11\/89.<\/p>\n

[49]Gary Null interview with Dr. John Yiamouyiannis 4\/28\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[50]Chemical and Engineering News, 8\/1\/88, p. 36.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[51]Waldbott, op. cit., p. 38.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[52]F. Exner and G. Waldbott, op. cit., pp. 42-43.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[53]Schenectady Gazette Star, 8\/5\/89.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[54]Daniel Grossman, \u201cFluoride\u2019s Revenge,\u201d The Progressive,<\/p>\n

Dec. 1990, pp. 29-31.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[55]Gary Null interview with Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, 3\/10\/95.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[56]George Glasser, \u201cDental Fluorosis \u2013 A Legal Time Bomb!\u201d\u00a0Sarasota\/Florida ECO Report, Vol. 5, No. 2, Feb. 1995, pp. 1-5.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[57]JAMA, Vol. 264, July 25, 1990, pp. 500<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[58]Cooper et al., JAMA, Vol. 266, July 24, 1991, pp. 513-14.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[59]Christa Danielson et al., \u201cHip fractures and fluoridation in Utah\u2019s elderly population,\u201d JAMA, Vol. 268, Aug. 12, 1992, pp. 746-48.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[60]New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 322, pp. 802-809<\/p>\n

[61]\u00a0Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 11\/94.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[62]U.S. National Research Council, Diet and Health, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1989, p. 121.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[63]\u201cMiddletown, Maryland latest city to receive toxic spill of fluoride in their drinking water,\u201d report by Truth About Fluoride, Inc., in Townsend Letter for Doctors, 10\/15\/94, p. 1124.<\/p>\n

[64]Reprinted by M. Bevis, \u201cMorbidity associated with ingestion\/dialysis of community water fluoride,\u201d CDC, Dental Div., 6\/11\/92, distributed by Safe Water Foundation of Texas.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[65]Townsend Letter for Doctors, 10\/94, p. 1125.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[66]Janet Raloff, \u201cThe St. Regis Syndrome,\u201d Science News, July 19, 1980, pp. 42-43; reprinted in Griffiths, op. cit., p. 26.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[67]Robert Tomalin, \u201cDumping grounds,\u201d Wall Street Journal, Nov. 29, 1990; reprinted in Griffiths, op. cit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[68]\u00a0\u201cSummary review of health effects associated with hydrogen fluoride acid related compounds,\u201d EPA Report Number 600\/8-29\/002F, Dec. 1988,<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[69]John Yiamouyiannis, Lifesaver\u2019s Guide to Fluoridation, Delaware, Ohio, Safe Water Foundation, 1983, p. 1<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[70]John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burk, \u201cFluoridation of public water systems and cancer death rates in humans,\u201d presented at the 57th annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists, and published in Fluoride, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1977, pp. 102-103.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[71]New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[72]Newsday, 2\/27\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[73]Oakland Tribune, 2\/16\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[74]NFFE Local 2050, 3\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[75]Washington Post, 2\/20\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[76]The Lancet, 2\/3\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[77]Center for Health Action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[78]M.W. Browne, The New York Times, 3\/13\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[79]Medical Tribune, 2\/22\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[80]New York State Medical News, 3\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[81]S. Begley, Newsweek, 2\/5\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[82]Safe Water Foundation, 3\/4\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[83]Mutation Research, Vol. 223, pp. 191-203.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[84]Joel Griffiths, Medical Tribune, 2\/22\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[85]Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, Vol. 21, pp. 309-318.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[86]Journal of Carcinogenesis, Vol. 9, pp. 2279-2284.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[87]Mark Lowey, \u201cScientists question health risks of fluoride,\u201d Calgary Herald, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Feb. 28, 1992; in Griffiths, op. cit., p. 66.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[88]Gary Null interview with Dr. William Marcus, 3\/10\/95.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[89]Center for Health Action, 3\/90.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[90]Longevity Magazine, 7\/89.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[91]Gary Null interview with Dr. William Marcus, 3\/10\/95.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[92]\u00a0Ibid<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[93]\u00a0Yiamouyiannis J. Interview. Mar 10, 1995.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[94]\u00a0\u00a0Longevity. July 1989.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[95]Ibid<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[96]\u00a0Fluoride Action Network.\u00a0http:\/\/www.fluoridealert.org<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>[97]\u00a0Yiamouyiannis J. Interview. Mar 10, 1995.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[98]\u00a0Browne, Malcolm. \u201cRat Study Reignites Dispute On Fluoride.\u201d The New York Times.http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1990\/03\/13\/science\/rat-study-reignites-dispute-on-fluoride.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm<\/a>\u00a0(accessed November 25, 2013).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fluoride: Killing Us Softly \u00a0There\u2019s nothing like a glass of cool, clear water to quench one\u2019s thirst. But the next time you reach for one, you might want to question whether that water is in fact, too toxic to drink. If your water is fluoridated, the answer may well be yes. For decades, we have […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":22105,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":""},"categories":[19,52,17,16],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/download-1.jpg","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":7602,"url":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wapf\/12-of-the-most-important-reasons-why-fluoride-should-not-be-added-to-our-water\/","url_meta":{"origin":10291,"position":0},"title":"12 of the most important reasons why fluoride should not be added to our water.","date":"May 27, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"12 of the most important reasons why fluoride should not be added to our water Fluoride does not work by swallowing The 1940s theory that fluoride needed to be incorporated into the tooth enamel by swallowing it, has been thoroughly discredited by both supporters and opponents of fluoridation. It is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "FLUORIDE"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/2022-05-01_203521.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1594,"url":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wapf\/fluoride\/","url_meta":{"origin":10291,"position":1},"title":"FLUORIDE","date":"January 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Fluoride \u2013 our water supply is being poisoned There are so many myths and assumptions surrounding putting fluoride in water that in a heavily fluoridated country like New Zealand, many people go into a state of incredulous disbelief if they are told that our water supply is being poisoned. While\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "FLUORIDE"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/2.fluoride.b.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":10323,"url":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wapf\/submission-opposing-the-nz-fluoridation-of-drinking-water-amendment-bill\/","url_meta":{"origin":10291,"position":2},"title":"Submissions OPPOSING the NZ Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill","date":"February 1, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Submissions OPPOSING the NZ Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill 2017 \u00a0 See more submissions HERE \u00a0 Why I oppose water fluoridation - Submission from Ian Gregson\u00a0 There are only two countries in the world with compulsory water fluoridation. They are Ireland and Singapore. The total percentage globally of people\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "FLUORIDE"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/download-4.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":7107,"url":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wapf\/nz-government-is-having-another-crack-at-mandatory-poisoning\/","url_meta":{"origin":10291,"position":3},"title":"NZ GOVERNMENT IS HAVING ANOTHER CRACK AT MANDATORY POISONING","date":"May 11, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"NZ GOVERNMENT IS HAVING ANOTHER CRACK AT MANDATORY POISONING OF THE ENTIRE NZ WATER SUPPLY New Zealand Threatened With Fluoridation MandateNew Zealand Health Minister Jonathan Coleman will introduce a bill later this year that will shift responsibility and decision making from the local councils to the District Health Boards (DHB\u2019s).\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "CONSPIRACIES"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6803,"url":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wapf\/fluoride-the-toxic-poison-in-our-water-supply\/","url_meta":{"origin":10291,"position":4},"title":"Fluoride - the toxic poison in our water supply","date":"May 3, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Fluoride: Worse than We Thought (It's probably not possible that fluoride could be worse than we thought, but maybe some people thought it was only a bit toxic...) In 1999 the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a glowing report on the fluoridation of public water supplies, citing the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "CONSPIRACIES"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/2.IMG_0792x.cjpg_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":10372,"url":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wapf\/violation-of-consent-fluoridation-and-forced-medication\/","url_meta":{"origin":10291,"position":5},"title":"Violation of Consent: James Corbett on Forced Fluoridation","date":"December 15, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Fluoride - The forced drugging of society As the scientific evidence of the dangers of water fluoridation continues to mount, there is no longer any room for doubt: those who deny that adding hydrofluorosilicic acid to the water supply is in fact causing untold medical harm are simply ignorant of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "CONSPIRACIES"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/421341_201097660042721_1537554057_n.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10291"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10291"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10291\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}