In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency placed fluoride on their list of developmental neurotoxins — a list of chemicals with substantial scientific evidence for the ability to injure the developing brain of fetuses and children.
In 2006, the National Research Council determined fluoride to be an endocrine disruptor, with its most known target being the thyroid gland — the gland that regulates our weight, our fertility, our mood and our energy levels.
A common misconception is that the dose of fluoride in our water is low enough to avoid these toxic effects of fluoride. But in fact, as with lead and arsenic, we know now that even very small doses of toxins over time have the ability to do great harm to our health, particularly to our developing brains, our immune systems and our endocrine systems.
New science tells us at least one way in which fluoride exposure is affecting our children’s brains — by decreasing a child’s IQ. Forty-one percent of U.S. children have dental fluorosis — a white speckling of the permanent teeth — as a result of consuming fluoride. Recent science out of the Harvard School of Public Health shows a direct correlation between the severity of a child’s dental fluorosis and the degree of IQ point loss on standardized IQ tests. This risk of IQ loss disproportionately affects minority children, with 58 percent of African-American children having dental fluorosis, as opposed to 41 percent of Caucasians.
In a time when one in six U.S. children has a neurodevelopmental brain disease, which include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, and learning disabilities, we cannot afford to put a chemical known to increase the risk of developing such diseases in our tap water, our bottled drinks, our soups and our juices that our children drink every day.
In a time when one in eight women will develop thyroid disease, and over 50 percent of us suffer from obesity, we cannot afford to put in our water any dose of a chemical known to impair thyroid gland function.
The Centers for Disease Control tells us that water fluoridation, at best, reduces the rate of cavities in a person by 25 percent. That is three instead of four cavities. Is one less cavity worth risking a child’s long-term brain health or our thyroid health?
― Angela C. Hind, M.D.
www.You-md.com
Asheville
The National Institute of Dental Research conducted a 3.6 million dollar research project to evaluate fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. At best, one half of one tooth surface out of over 100 tooth surfaces fared better with fluoridated. But this difference was so tiny that it was labelled “statistically insignificant”. The most fluoridated state (Kentucky) has the most tooth loss, and the least fluoridated state (Hawaii) has the least tooth loss, according to the CDC. Apparently the more fluoride intake, the greater the tooth loss. The less fluoride, the less tooth loss. Many non-fluoridated European nations have a much better record of oral health than the U.S., according to WHO. official data. Fascinating, why was it that in New Zealand, the Napier-Hastings study discovered that dental health was actually better in NON-FLUORIDATED Napier.? Also interesting that Napier was then dropped from the study, and only Hastings was focused on. The teeth inspection criteria was then changed to make it appear as though there was an improvement in Hastings. Pure fraud. Anybody who still “believes” in the water fluoridation lie is suffering from extreme ignorance. Fluoridation is HHS policy, and the small CDC oral health division of mostly dentists draw their pay checks based primarily on implementing that policy.
Here’s a quote from a dentist Malcolm Naylor, DDS, Lecturer in preventive dentistry,
London: “When a statistical analysis of 1,000 children was conducted in London, and results were not as fluoridation proponents wanted, the study was quickly abandoned.” Tthe analysis of National Research Council scientist Dr.Kathleen Thiessen, whose affidavit is part of a 2015 legal suit in Canada protesting “gross disproportionality,” i.e., that the marginal benefit to some does not justify the risk of harm to others. Dr. Thiessen has said, “The available data, responsibly interpreted,indicate little or no beneficial effect of water fluoridation on oral health.”
as usual the evidence has been edited to suit the required result
The percentage of KY residents on public water systems ranks
in the high 90%-range. KY also has one of the highest rates of
edentulousness, so that antis try to make the claim that it proves that
fluoridation doesn’t work. It is very explainable, but the antis, and
sometimes politicians, don’t care about the facts. Most of the
edentulousness is in a generation of Kentuckians that never had the
benefits of lifetime exposure to fluoridated water. Also, a very large
percentage of Kentuckians aren’t on public water systems, especially in
Eastern KY, so obviously CWF can’t benefit someone on a well.
So now we state the old legal action again Good luck with that, there has never been a case that the anti fluoride/vaccine lot have won
Remember, if the arguments against fluoride were so good , you would think they would stand up to public scrutiny on their own merit, without legal help. Or threats of. If they have to take legal action to pass them, it is obvious they are not.
And also if the arguments against fluoride were so good,The illnesses and associated medical problems that fluoride is supposed to cause, at .7PPM, would have well and truly been investigated in the 70 years of its use, And what do we find as real evidence that will sway the authorities. Nothing
The 2014 Public Health report states
Children in local authorities with water fluoridation schemes (where the level of fluoride is
adjusted to one part per million) have less tooth decay than those in local authorities without
such schemes, says a new report by Public Health England (PHE).
As many as 45% fewer children aged one to four in fluoridated areas are admitted to hospital
for tooth decay – primarily to have decayed teeth extracted under a general anaesthetic –
than in non-fluoridated areas.
The report says there is no evidence of harm to health in fluoridated areas. PHE has found
no differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in their rates of hip fracture,
osteosarcoma (a form of bone cancer), cancers overall, Down’s syndrome births or all-cause
mortality (all recorded causes of death).
Rates of kidney stones and bladder cancer were lower in fluoridated areas than nonfluoridated areas, the report says. PHE cautions that this should not be interpreted as a
‘protective effect’ from fluoridated water, as the lower rates may be due to other factors and
the possibility that they occurred by chance cannot be ruled out.
Professor John Newton, Chief Knowledge Officer at PHE, commented:
“This report provides further reassurance that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public
health measure. Since PHE came into existence in April 2013, this is our first report on the
health of people living in fluoridated areas. We are required by legislation to produce them
every four years on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health. We will use this report as a
basis for discussions with local authorities on the scope and content of further reports and on
the role of fluoridation as a public health measure.”
There are many factors involved in the creation of the fluorosiliscic acid waste (HFA) used for fluoridation. Other chemicals are added such as oil based defoamers (possibly containing dioxins), polymers, petroleum products, naphthalene, sulfides, Synspar and various reagents. During the phosphoric acid concentration processes, these added chemicals and inherent toxic contaminants common in phosphate rock reach boiling point in a partial vacuum at very high temperatures, about 500 degrees F .The vapors from all these chemicals are captured in the pollution control scrubbers along with the fluorine and fluorosilicate gases. The scrubbers capture everything, including pollution from tank farms and other processes. Also the more efficient the scrubbing operation the more pollutants will be concentrated in the scrubber liquor. Phosphoric acid reaction vessels are made of the alloy, Hastelloy G-30. The Hastelloy G 30 vessels only last for about three years…The vessels are corroded beyond use by the presence of fluorides in the phosphoric acid. The metals from Hastelloy G-30 (nickel, beryllium, etc.) are also present in the HFA as metal complexed fluorosilicates. Further review of the literature reveals the following – there are a range of co-contaminants in this waste product including arsenic (carcinogen), lead, mercury and radioactive materials. Some others identified include hexane, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, benzene, toluene, and styrene. Heavy metals such as lead and mercury are present in the phosphate rock. The phosphate rock is mildly radioactive due to the presence of some radionuclides. No emission factors are included for these HAPs (hazardous air pollutants), heavy metals, or radionuclides due to the lack of sufficient data. (EPA Emission Factors 1/95). The Sulphuric acid used for digesting the phosphate rock is usually waste acid from other industries, as it is cheaper. Now this introduces an extra range of pollutants from other industries into the system. Nobody knows what all the contaminants are in this waste product as it is not tested thoroughly. It is then transported, in its raw state to the water treatment plant and slowly bled into the public water supply. If your community is fluoridated, then your water purification plant is also a toxic waste disposal facility for the phosphate fertilizer industry, aluminium smelting and other industries. What people are drinking is a toxic cocktail of untreated air pollution control scrubber liquor.
Some good links to the harmful effects of fluoridated water.
http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/
http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
http://www.waterloowatch.com/ffw%20brochure%202%20references.html
And all you can come up with is activist sites ,No valid proof there
BIG MONEY — BIG MONEY.
As with tobacco, asbestos, vioxx, and other issues, the incorrect science took years to change. Each issue had tradition and big corporate money backing them. Likewise, it will take time to eliminate the toxic fluoride in drinking water.
But progress is occurring.
People all around the he world have learned the truth that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.
Consider this:
In the US, 74 % fluoridated (more than the rest of the world combined).
In Europe, 3%.
In the world, 5%.
Also Israel banned fluoridation last year.
Over 150 communities have voted it out in the last five years.
Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe is as good or better than any fluoridated country. This shows how ineffective swallowing fluoride is for teeth. .
As the CDC admitted in 1999, fluoride toothpaste is sufficient.
> Israel banned fluoridation last year.
‘k well, that settles it!
love the big money link .Hers one for you
.And if you follow the money it leads to the Natural Health Coalition Who,s members include the Fluoride Action Network and Mercola And Natural health
These people support anti vaccine ,Chemtrails and other strange woo. They sell this unregulated or tested products to gullible members of the public and make millions of dollars , with no recourse if the products dont work.
These are the type of people who are the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby
So were is all this proof that fluoride is bad???
In regard to your claim about the “rest of the world”…..the following is an outline of the situation with fluoridation throughout the world taken from a recent issue of the newsletter of the New Zealand National Fluoride Information Service:
Countries with widespread water fluoridation programmes include Australia, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. Countries with limited water fluoridation programmes include Vietnam, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and South Korea.
Several countries are unable to introduce water fluoridation programmes due to technical, financial or sociocultural reasons. As an alternative, both salt and milk have been found to be reliable and convenient vehicles for increasing fluoride intake to an optimal level for hard to reach and low socio-economic communities. Studies have found them to be as effective as community water fluoridation schemes.
Some European, Latin American, and Caribbean countries, including France, Switzerland, Germany, Costa rica, Colombia and Jamaica currently use fluoridated salt schemes. Mexico and most Latin American and Caribbean countries (apart from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and French Guyana) have or have had salt fluoridation programmes.
A smaller number of countries currently have fluoridated milk programmes, including Bulgaria, Chile, China, Peru, Russia, Thailand and the United Kingdom
Some country regions have optimal amounts of naturally occurring fluoride which provides good protection for oral health. examples of countries supplied with naturally fluoridated water at or around the optimum level needed to prevent dental decay include the United Kingdom (estimated 329,000 people), United States of America (estimated 10,078,000 people) Canada (estimated 300,000 people) and Australia (estimated 144,000 people).
It is estimated that 39.5 million people around the world have access to naturally fluoridated water at the optimal level although variations from one community to another over time make it difficult to calculate an accurate total.
CDC has released the latest statistics on community water fluoridation for the nation on its Web site (www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2012stats.htm).
The latest data show that in 2012, 74.6% of the U.S. population on community water systems, or a total of 210.7 million people, had access to optimally fluoridated water. This is significant progress from the Healthy People 2020 baseline of 72.4% (2008) towards the target of 79.6%. Since 2008, an additional 15 million people have received the benefit of fluoridated water. Evidence shows that the prevalence of tooth decay is substantially lower in communities with water fluoridation.
For more information on water fluoridation, visit the CDC Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation. Opps
Israel is in the process of reinstating Fluoride.
uoridation of water supplies, where possible, is the most effective public health measure for the
prevention of dental decay. Water fluoridation is a multi-professional activity in which engineers,
chemists, physicians, nutritionists and dentists all play important roles. The efficiency of fluoridation
programmes, and their acceptability to the communities, depends on the general state of dental
health and whether there is good access and attendance for free dental health care for children and
young people, as well as high standards of diet and oral hygiene.
The consensus among dental experts is that fluoridation is the single most important intervention to
reduce dental caries, not least because water is an essential part of the diet for everyone in the
community, regardless of their motivation to maintain oral hygiene or their willingness to attend or
pay for dental treatment. In some developed countries, the health and economic benefits of
fluoridation may be small, but particularly important in deprived areas, where water fluoridation may
be a key factor in reducing inequalities in dental health. WHO
WOW! How wordy can you be?
One would think that after 70 years with 74% of the whole country drinking fluoridated water we should have great teeth by now and not epidemics of tooth decay in most fluoridated states and cities.
The May 2015 CDC Data reports that 41% of children have enamel damage (dental fluorosis), 90% of all adults have cavities and two-thirds of 40 to 64-year-olds lost one or more teeth due to decay. Tooth loss and untreated cavities are drastically higher in African-Americans and the poor are more cavity-prone.
The Surgeon General’s 2000 report identified oral health as a “silent epidemic.”
The CDC’s own data cannot even show a correlation between fluoridation exposure and better oral health. In fact, some of the most fluoridated states like Georgia (95.8% fluoridated) and Kentucky (99.8%) also have the highest rates of tooth loss among the country.
Fluoride is not a total preventative measure, It helps with the prevention of tooth decay along with the usual other means
Dental fluorosis is not a problem The only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to water fluoridation is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.
Tooth loss and cavities are are higher in the poor and the african/american population because they do not have the money or the opportunity to get regular dental treatment. If they had the dental statistics would be the same as the people on higher income and could afford regular health care. also they have a greater consumption of soft drinks Now Kentucky
The percentage of KY residents on public water systems ranks
in the high 90%-range. KY also has one of the highest rates of
edentulousness, so that antis try to make the claim that it proves that
fluoridation doesn’t work. It is very explainable, but the antis, and
sometimes politicians, don’t care about the facts. Most of the
edentulousness is in a generation of Kentuckians that never had the
benefits of lifetime exposure to fluoridated water. Also, a very large
percentage of Kentuckians aren’t on public water systems, especially in
Eastern KY, so obviously CWF can’t benefit someone on a well.
fluoridation can’t prevent a
hundred percent of caries in a hundred percent of the exposed population,
even though it does put a major dent in caries. Finally, poverty has a
substantial effect on caries susceptibility; KY has a very large percentage
of its population considered impoverished and most of those live in Eastern
Kentucky.
Thanks, you are very informed. However, when the large number of cities and states with fluoridation has a tooth decay record worse than unflroridation areas, there is no reason to risk people’s health by adding the toxic industrial waste, hydrofluosilicic acid , to drinking water.
Everyone should have freedom of choice to decide what drug or chemical to imbibe.
Those who desire fluoride can add it their own glass of water, as much as they wish. Just leave the rest of us out of being forcefully medicated.
As always, you provide nothing but your own unsubstantiated, erroneous, personal opinions on the topic of water fluoridation, an ssue of which you are painfully ignorant of basic facts. If you have any desire for your comments to ever have any credibility, whatsoever, then you need to learn that they are entirely meaningless without proper cites of valid supporting, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence. In the meantime, here are but a few of the countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation:
1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…
Results
Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (0.7 ppm). Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. The odds ratios for higher caries prevalence in areas with negligible fluoride compared with optimal fluoride were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.39) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, respectively.
——Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children’s Dental Disease
Jason Mathew Armfield, PhD
2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…
CONCLUSIONS:
Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.
——Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
Source
Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
3). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…
CONCLUSIONS:
The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method.
—–Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
Source
Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland. joej.mullen@hse.ie
4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…
Abstract
The effectiveness of fluoridation has been documented by observational and interventional studies for over 50 years. Data are available from 113 studies in 23 countries. The modal reduction in DMFT values for primary teeth was 40-49% and 50-59% for permanent teeth. The pattern of caries now occurring in fluoride and low-fluoride areas in 15- to 16-year-old children illustrates the impact of water fluoridation on first and second molars.
—-Caries Res. 1993;27 Suppl 1:2-8.
Efficacy of preventive agents for dental caries. Systemic fluorides: water fluoridation.
Murray JJ.
Source
Department of Child Dental Health, Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
5). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…
CONCLUSIONS:
Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years. General trends indicated that a reduction in DMFT index values occurred over time, that a further reduction in DMFT index values occurred when a municipality fluoridated its water supply, and mean DMFT index values were lower in larger than in smaller municipalities.
—-Int Dent J. 2012 Dec;62(6):308-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2012.00124.x.
Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005.
Lauris JR, da Silva Bastos R, de Magalhaes Bastos JR.
Source
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. jrlauris@fob.usp.br
What happened to all the mainstream comments that supported fluoride?
How about we get down to brass tacks?
1 – WHY should our government put anything remotely questionable in our drinking water? A rhetorical question, really. They shouldn’t! We can take care of our own teeth and don’t need Big Brother forcing consumption of something on us. Deep-pocketed lobbyists at work again.
2- According to my own dentist: people want better, longer-lasting teeth and fewer cavities, etc? STOP EATING SO MUCH SUGAR. It rots teeth.
The brass tacks. You’re welcome.
fluoride is not added it is already there. It just has the levels adjusted to help the prevention of tooth decay.So your dentist is anti fluoride/vaccine. well they are out of step with the other majority of dentists worldwide
Maybe you can name one quality dental or medical institution that does not support fluoride???
Many dentists believe as this prominent dentist, who states:
“There is no doubt in my mind that fluoridation has next to no benefit in terms of reduced dental decay. The modern literature is clear on that. Fluoridation cessation studies fail to show an increase in dental decay.”
“Fluoride added to drinking water has NOT been shown to be safe and effective. In fact, as more and more peer-reviewed studies on fluoride toxicity appear in the literature, it has become clear to me that the pendulum is certainly shifting to “not safe, and no longer effective.’ My professional recommendation is to vote fluoridation out!”
Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS
Professor Emeritus and Former Head of Preventive Dentistry,
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto
Dr. Hardy Limebach is head of Preventive Dentistry at the Faculty of
Dentistry, University of Toronto and is currently President of the Canadian Division of
IADR (a source of embarrassment to many of its members). I would hardly describe him
as Canada’s leading fluoride authority (who would be Prof. Gordon Nikiforuk), in fact
until Dr. Hardy Limebach went public as an avowed anti-fluoridationist, he was hardly
recognized in the field of fluoride research, certainly not internationally.
So really all this is just his opinion . no basis of fact, or quoted research papers Hardly credible arguments
Fluoridation won’t stop your teeth from falling out of your head, if you won’t brush and floss your teeth. THIS is the essential part. Fluoridation is an add-on improvement to dental health. As long as people don’t do the basics, well… forget it.
Thousands of independent Health Professionals, such as our own MD, scientists, toxicologists, dentists, and even the EPA Union, are warning us of the dangers associated with ingesting the industrial waste by-product, Hydrofluorosilicic acid, used in water fluoridation. This fluoride additive is impure and laced with arsenic and other cancer causing chemicals. Individual dosage cannot be controlled as some drink more than others, and it is found in most food and beverages, dental products, food fumigants, pesticides etc. Most countries have never practiced water fluoridation and have the same or better dental health than cities that fluoridate http://fluoridealert.org/content/europe-statements/ There are no known toxicological studies regarding the safety of using fluorosilicic acid to fluoridate water From a legal opinion, it is reckless to expose residents to the risk of serious adverse health effects for the marginal benefit of reduced tooth decay, particularly when it is doubtful fluoridated drinking water is even a significant contributor to reduced tooth decay. The risk of significant harm caused by fluoridation is grossly disproportionate to the speculative benefit of reduced dental caries. http://fluoridealert.org/wp…/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf
In addition: Here is the link re: Legal Arguments Against Artificial Water Fluoridation (Note also the affidavit of Kathleen M. Thiessen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist page 20)
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf