Fluoride and fluoridation of water
#11
It's a mystery why some babies still get tooth decay when fed their daily 7 fruits & vegetables and get tooth required nutrients such as calcium, vitamins A, C, D, K and who don't over-consume  sugar or simple carbohydrates.  But there is no evidence that lack of fluoride causes tooth decay.

In fact, according to the US Centers for Disease Control - up to 48% of school children sport fluoride overdose symptoms - white spotted, yellow, brown or pitted teeth. Yet tooth decay is a growing epidemic.

Mostly because of water fluoridation, there is a glut of fluoride in the food and beverage supply.  Foods made, baked, reconstituted. etc in fluoridated areas usually have fluoride in them.  Unlikely sources of fluoride are chicken baby foods, chicken nuggets, french fries and even M&M's.

Tea and ocean fish have naturally high fluoride levels.

In order to avoid moderate fluorosis (yellow teeth), the National Academies of Science recommends the following daily fluoride dose for each age group:

-- 0.01 mg/day for 0 to  6-month-olds
-- 0.5 mg/day for 7 through 12 months-- 0.7 mg/day for 1 to 3-year-olds Dentists are reporting that many children exceed their daily fluoride dosage simply from brushing their teeth twice a day with fluoridated toothpaste (See:   “Why Do I Have White Spots on My Front Teeth,” by Elvir Dincer, DDS, New York State Dental Journal, January 2008, Page 58 Volume 74, Number 1 http://www.nysdental.org/img/current-pdf...an2008.pdf ) Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for health. Therefore, it is a drug.Lately, people are getting concerned about pharmaceuticals that are finding their way into the water supply.  But they are unaware that the fluoride that's purposely put into the water supply is also a drug.  Like all drugs, fluoride has adverse side effects. Fluoride is backed more by good PR than valid science. In any event, fluoride doesn't need to be in water supplies.  People who believe they or their children will benefit from fluoride are free to get it cheaply at the drug store. Many valid studies have been published in respectable peer-reviewed scientific journals showing that even small amounts of fluoride can damage bones, kidneys, thyroid, the brain and teeth Those of us who believe in freedom of choice should sign the petition asking Congress to stop fluoridation here: http://congress.FluorideAction.Net    

Reply
#12
Those of us who believe in teeth should thank  fluoridation.
Reply
#13

You said, "Those of us who believe in teeth should thank  fluoridation."  So I say:

 

Fluoridation Never Proven Safe or Effective & Possibly Unethical, Reports British Medical Journal

 

New York – October 8 2007 - Researchers reporting in the Oct 6 British Medical Journal (BMJ) indicate that fluoridation, touted as a safe cavity preventive, never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (1)

 

Cavity rates declined equally in fluoridated and non-fluoridated European countries. “This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt,” write Sir Iain Chalmers, editor of the James Lind Library, which was set up to help people understand the evidence base of medicine, KK Cheng, professor of epidemiology at Birmingham University, and Trevor Sheldon, professor and pro-vice-chancellor at York University.

 

In 1999, England’s Department of Health commissioned a systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation on dental health and to look for evidence of harm. (York Review). The reviewers were surprised that fluoridation was long endorsed and promoted with such certainty when 3200 world-wide papers failed to show any good quality evidence of benefit or safety. “Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor,” the BMJ’s researchers write.

 

Sheldon, who was also Chair of the York Review’s advisory committee, as well as co-author of the BMJ article, wrote in a different 2006 report that officials promoting fluoridation may have misrepresented the York Review findings to suit “prior beliefs and policy intent.” (2)

 

Discussing the ethics of informed consent, the BMJ researchers write, “This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit.” Further, they write “In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation,” they write.

 

Many fluoridation supporters “used the York review’s findings selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favor of fluoridation,” they write.

 

Similar problems exist in the U.S. as outlined in the summer 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.  “Artificial fluoridation of drinking water… probably does not reduce tooth decay…Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power.  Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data,” writes JM Kauffman, PhD. (3)

 

On October 2, 2007, Juneau Alaska voters rejected fluoridation, 61% to 39%, despite the American Dental Association’s $150,000 funded political campaign to return fluoride into Juneau’s water supply after the Juneau legislative body voted it out in November 2006.

 

 

Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network says “The BMJ article fails to mention the 2006 National Research Council fluoride review, the most comprehensive overview of the toxicology of fluoride ever written. The crucial message of the NRC’s report is that the highest scientific authority in the US has determined that low levels of fluoride in drinking water may have serious adverse health effects," says Connett.
"Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath about why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” says Connett.

 

Paul Beeber, President and General Counsel, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, says “This British Medical Journal article lends further credence to our efforts to end fluoridation and have Congressional hearings held in the US concerning the ongoing government goal to fluoridate more water supplies without individual consent and without any valid evidence of its safety or effectiveness.”

 

An online petition to end fluoridation and call for a Congressional hearing is here http://congress.FluorideAction.Net


 

Fluoride chemicals are added to 2/3 of U.S. public water supplies which winds up in virtually 100% of the food supply.  The Centers for Disease Control tells us that many US school children are over fluoridated, with up to 48% sporting dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted enamel. Yet cavities are rising in our most fluoridated generation – toddlers.

 

For example, a New York State TV station reported on October 8, 2007 that in Rochester, NY, fluoridated for decades, “40 percent of 162 toddlers [examined] were suffering from baby bottle tooth decay. Most averaged two cavities; some as many as 20…The cost to one community can be as much as $1 million annually to treat children with this oral disease, a tab picked up almost completely by Medicaid…reasons…Many pediatric dentists won’t care for patients as young as one or two and they often won’t accept Medicaid.” (6)

References:

(1) “Adding fluoride to water supplies,” British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007

(2) “Muddy waters: evidence-based policy making, uncertainty and the ‘York review’ on water fluoridation,” Journal Evidence & Policy, Paul Wilson and Trevor Sheldon Vol 2 No 3 2006 pages 321-31

 

(3) “Water Fluoridation: a Review of Recent Research and Actions,” by Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10 Number 2 Summer 2005

 

(4) Topanga Messenger Online, “ Citizens to Zev: Halt Fluoride OPEN LETTER TO SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY”

http://www.topangamessenger.com/Articles.asp?SectionID=1&ArticleID=2715

 

(5) Topanga Messenger Online, “Zev to Citizens ‘No Comment’ Supervisor Approves $20 Grant for Fluoride,” by Lee Michaelson

http://www.topangamessenger.com/Articles.asp?SectionID=1&ArticleID=2716

 

(6) “Screening for ECC in baby teeth,” 10/8/2007, by Diana Palotas

http://news10now.com/content/health/healthy_living/?ArID=122323

 

 

 

Past News Releases: http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu

 

Reply
#14
Good teeth, like good bone structure, have more to do with nutrition and building from the inside out.  A little fluoride is good, but the stuff wasn't meant to be consumed in the amounts it is.
Reply
#15
Ingesting fluoride has no benefit.  A fluoride mouthwash or toothpaste is good, but ingesting it has no possible benefit...there's no reason for it to be in the water we drink.  Well, there may be a reason for it, but it's not dental health.
Reply
#16
Catholicmilkman Wrote:
frerejacques Wrote:She's never taken a bottle to bed with her in her life, and is only has juice when she's got a cold.  She doesn't eat candy.   Whether most people realize it or not, the bacteria which causes tooth decay is contagious.
Yes and why is that? Maybe because (as Japanese research has found out) fluoride atoms cause "cell suicide". It's like chemo (hey, guess what, did you know that many chemo drugs are fluoride molecules!?) it kills the good with the bad. Did you also know that the sugar in juices feed the acid-forming bacteria?
Quote:The use of fluoride helps counteract the damage that it can do.
This is a grotesque lie from aluminum smelters.

I find this interesting.  I thought this scare was over in the 60s.  Fluorine is the most corrosive of all the elements, and, at the right levels, is of benefit to teeth.

 - Dad
Reply
#17
frerejacques Wrote:Are the aluminum smelters part of the Masonic conspiracy? 


Not sure, but they're both grotesque!

The journal article is remarkable, but I fear it's more of "bananas give you cancer," "bananas make you live longer," bananas make you live longer with cancer," "oh no, bananas have no effect on cancer or long life, but they sure do taste good, don't they folks."

This is a money chase, pure and simple.

 - Dad
Reply
#18
Grr...[Image: doh.gif]

Why must trads be conspiracy theorists!?!

Flouride is fine, as are amalgam fillings. It IS a money chase for paranoid hypochondriacs.

I mean...it's uncanny how much it's like the Woo Handbook:
Quote:
Quote:
Remember your homeopathy! For any poisons, including deadly neurotoxins like mercury (see how saying that makes you look scientific?), the harmfulness of the chemical (make sure, in verbal debates, to say "chemical" the same way you might say "horse dung") has nothing to do with the amount. A poison is a poison in any dosage, even just a single quantum molecule of it. In fact, if you're paying attention homeopathically, you know that the quantum molecule is even more poisonous than the larger dose! So, for instance, when a skeptic notes that they took the Thimerosal out of MMR vaccines and autism rates are still rising, remember that there's probably still a little mercury there, and that little mercury is far more potent than the greater amount of Thimerosal from before.
Note: It's not always necessary to bring up homeopathy in these cases, but it's nice if you need to change the subject. Usually claiming "a poison is a poison" or asking "do you want doctors putting dangerous toxins in your children?" is enough.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/...dbook.html
Reply
#19
Catholic777 Wrote:Grr...[Image: doh.gif]

Why must trads be conspiracy theorists!?!

Flouride is fine, as are amalgam fillings. It IS a money chase for paranoid hypochondriacs.

I mean...it's uncanny how much it's like the Woo Handbook:
Quote:
Quote:
Remember your homeopathy! For any poisons, including deadly neurotoxins like mercury (see how saying that makes you look scientific?), the harmfulness of the chemical (make sure, in verbal debates, to say "chemical" the same way you might say "horse dung") has nothing to do with the amount. A poison is a poison in any dosage, even just a single quantum molecule of it. In fact, if you're paying attention homeopathically, you know that the quantum molecule is even more poisonous than the larger dose! So, for instance, when a skeptic notes that they took the Thimerosal out of MMR vaccines and autism rates are still rising, remember that there's probably still a little mercury there, and that little mercury is far more potent than the greater amount of Thimerosal from before.
Note: It's not always necessary to bring up homeopathy in these cases, but it's nice if you need to change the subject. Usually claiming "a poison is a poison" or asking "do you want doctors putting dangerous toxins in your children?" is enough.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/...dbook.html

I'd be careful 777, you know there's a fatal disease going around.  Your going along feeling just fine, posting on the internet, then BAM!  You're dead.

 - Dad
Reply
#20
Catholic777 Wrote:Grr...[Image: doh.gif]

Why must trads be conspiracy theorists!?!

Flouride is fine, as are amalgam fillings. It IS a money chase for paranoid hypochondriacs.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's science:
Quote: How Fluoride Kills Human Cells


Researchers uncovering mechanisms behind fluoride's toxicity
Fluoride, the "Golden Child" of dental professionals around the world, seems to have a "dark side" that few outside a very specialized field of the scientific community are aware of. As disturbing as it may be, fluoride apparently has the ability to cause DNA damage and even "cell death" in human cells.
In a new study, researchers from the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Japan note that
Quote:"Even though fluoride toxicity is increasingly being considered to be important, very little information is available on the mechanism of action of fluoride."
You might think that most everything would be known about a chemical that is being added to our water and prescribed for our children, but regrettably this is not the case.
Researchers decided to investigate the mechanism by which fluoride's is able to kill cells by observing how it affects human leukemia cells. Cancerous cells are often used in research on toxicity because they are more active than normal cells.
They found that the fluoride induced a form of cell death known as "apoptosis" in a dose-dependent and time dependent manner.
Now, if fluoride killing cancerous cells were the "end of the story", this would be a great breakthrough in cancer treatment and would likely save many lives. Unfortunately, things are not quite so simple.
Lead researcher Dr. C.D. Anuradha, in comments to the Optimal Wellness Center, explains that "fluoride in general is harmful to any type of cell. We have seen that fluoride causes cell death in other non-cancerous cells but however the mode of death has been found to be different." Instead of causing apoptosis, in normal cells fluoride seems to kill cells through a different mechanism, known as "necrosis".
Cell Death - Murder or Suicide?
Apoptosis, also known as "programmed cell death" in a process governed by genes in which the cell dies from within upon activation by some stimulating factor. It is a useful phenomenon, which occurs often as part of the normal functioning of the human body, as it gets rid of unwanted cells. The term apoptosis is derived from the Greek word that signifies "the dropping of leaves from the trees." The falling leaves are no longer needed, just as is the case with the unwanted cells, so they are gotten rid of, and recycled back into the earth.
Necrosis, on the other hand, is an externally influenced death, which occurs through some type of local injury (as loss of blood supply, corrosion, burning, or the local lesion of a disease).
A useful analogy between apoptosis and necrosis might be to compare suicide (apoptosis) to murder (necrosis).
Is it Dangerous at Much Lower Doses?
Now many readers may ask the intelligent question of - How does this affect me? Are the much lower concentrations found in fluoridated water and toothpaste a danger to my family and me?
The answer unfortunately is that nobody knows for sure. However, Dr. Anuradha states that, although the concentrations are quite low " ... still we expect some amount of damage even at lower concentrations, since at higher concentrations the results are quite clear that the difference is enormous and significant."
She notes that the issue of therapeutic fluoridation is the subject of much debate. Could this be the reason that Japan does not fluoridate ANY of its water supplies? This can't be said with certainty, but after all, doesn't it make sense to keep a potentially dangerous substance out of the water and not FORCE the entire population to consume it?
In the United States currently about 60% of the population drinks fluoridated water, although if the federal government has its way, that percentage will rise dramatically. This is especially true with states like California MANDATING the fluoridation of the public water supplies over a certain size.
How it Caused Cell-Death
Dr. Anuradha and colleagues found that fluoride caused apoptosis in the human leukemia cells by activating an enzyme called caspase-3, which has been identified as a key mediator of apoptosis of cells in humans and other mammals.
The authors note that "The results clearly suggest that fluoride causes cell death in HL-60 (human leukemia) cells by causing the activation of caspase-3 which in turn cleaves PARP leading to DNA damage and ultimately cell death."

What Type of Fluoride?

Except for readers with strong scientific backgrounds, most people don't realize that there is really no such thing as plain "fluoride". When it said that "fluoride" is added to the water, in reality it is a fluoride-compound such as sodium fluoride (NaF), which is the form used in these toxicity experiments.
While this may be the most well known and well-studied of all the fluoride compounds, it is actually very rarely used for water fluoridation. In over 90% of the fluoridated water in the US, the chemicals used are one of the silicofluorides (either fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride).
However, these chemicals have been shown to act much differently from the much simpler sodium fluoride. In one study, it was shown that these chemicals enhance the cellular uptake of lead (http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-3/313-s25.htm).
Being that there is evidence that silicofluorides may be even more toxic than NaF, it is quite possible that the DNA damage and cell-killing ability might be even greater in the type of fluoride used in the water supplies.
What Can I Do About it? Whether you believe that water fluoridation is a vast conspiracy or simply that it is a possibility that fluoride is a dangerous substance that you would just rather avoid, the question remains the same - what to do about it?
The best advice would be to go to our Fluoride Links Page and get involved.
Upcoming Conference:
For those of you interested in the water fluoridation issue, there is a scheduled debate, which will take place at an upcoming conference sponsored by The Association for Science in the Public Interest, June 1-3, 2001, in Richmond, Virginia.
Paul Connett, PhD, (Fluoride Action Network) and J. William Hirzy, PhD, are scheduled to represent the anti-fluoride camp in the debate, although it seems as though the conference sponsor is having trouble finding anyone willing to debate them. Pretty amazing considering that the American Dental Association is one of fluoridation's biggest champions. You would think they could at least send someone to defend their position.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)