|Posted by ruth.bednar on April 15, 2016 at 8:55 AM||comments (0)|
NZ Research Proves Fluoridation Not Needed
Thursday, 14 April 2016, 5:17 pm
Press Release: Fluoride Free New Zealand
NZ Research Proves Fluoridation Not Needed
A New Zealand study published in Bio Medical Central Oral Health last month shows dental health improved the greatest extent for children in non-fluoridated areas. There is now no difference in dental decay rates between non-Maori children who live in fluoridated areas and non-Maori children who live in non-fluoridated areas, proving that fluoridation is not needed for children to obtain good dental health. There has been an improvement in child dental health over the past ten years right across New Zealand.
Maori children living in all areas had poorer dental health than non-Maori children (both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas). This research shows that fluoridation has not closed the health disparity gap. If health authorities are serious about helping Maori children achieve the same outcomes as non-Maori, they need to look at what is different about the two groups, rather than clinging to a public health policy that they themselves have proved is not the answer.
The study showed Maori children are getting much less dental care in New Zealand. There was a big difference in how often examination rates carried out by the publicly funded, free for everyone, Child Oral Health Service between Maori and non-Maori children. Around 80% of non-Maori children underwent an examination, compared to only 60% of Maori children. Therefore, a programme focused on ensuring all children are seen by a dental health nurse every year should be key to improving the dental health outcomes and closing the health care gap between Maori and non-Maori children.
The study also found that between 2007 and 2014, pre-school enrolments in the Child Oral Health Service rose 73%. This adds more weight to the thought that receiving early childhood dental health care is vital if we want to improve dental health outcomes.
Authors of the study should now be analysing which Maori children received a dental examination. That is perhaps the reason Maori children in non-fluoridated areas have more dental decay. Non-fluoridated areas are generally the smaller towns and rural areas, with less access to services.
Some Health organisations’ dogmatic adherence and promotion of fluoridation is hampering proven successful programmes by diverting money into fluoridation programmes that not only do no good, they put people’s health at risk, potentially causing millions of dollars to be spent on other health problems.
According to the Ministry of Health, 40% of New Zealand children have some form of dental fluorosis. This permanent damage is the first outward sign of fluoride poisoning. Now with this latest research proving that fluoridation is not needed, it is obviously unjustifiable to continue fluoridation. Instead, we need to take serious, immediate action to reduce fluoride exposure, as Auckland council has just done last week. The easiest way to do this is to stop fluoridation immediately completely, across New Zealand.
Claims by the Minister of Health and Dr Beaglehole, spokesperson on fluoridation for the New Zealand Dental Association are completely out of step with the facts and these people should be held to account for misleading the New Zealand public with false claims.
Note: Caries free means no dental decay. dmft = decay, missing or filled teeth.
|Posted by ruth.bednar on February 11, 2016 at 2:00 AM||comments (0)|
New York, N.Y.
February is National Children’s Dental Health Month, making it a great time to look at how families around the country are caring for their children’s teeth. Most parents believe they are doing the right thing by opting for popular brands of toothpaste and colorful products that will catch their child’s attention. Yet what these people are not usually aware of are all the hidden dangers in the mass-marketed products because of the ingredients they are made of.
“Many of the products that parents are buying for their children to use are made with ingredients that they really shouldn’t have,” explains Dr. Bruno Sharp, a fourth-generation dentist who created a line of products called Dr. Sharp Dentistry, and is celebrating their 10th year as a Natural Oral Care provider. “Ideally, you want to use a natural product, so you avoid the ingredients that can be harmful to your child’s health.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 17 percent of children between the ages of 5-19 have untreated dental caries. Furthermore according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HSS) 41 percent of American children have some form of dental fluorosis, a white or brown mottling of the teeth caused by long term ingestion of fluoride during the time the teeth are forming. In addition, the FDA’s warnings on toothpaste read: “keep out of the reach of children less than 6 years of age. In case of accidental ingestion, seek professional assistance or contact poison control center immediately.”
When it comes to avoiding ingredients that can be harmful to a child’s health, fluoride tops the list. Although many people have been led to believe that it’s a good thing, it is actually highly controversial and has been linked to such issues as hypothyroidism, among other adverse affects. Additionally, it’s a good idea to avoid products that contain artificial colors and flavors, and products that come in bottles and tubes that may contain BPA.
Additional harmful ingredients parents should read the label for to avoid include parabens, alcohol, triclosan, DEA, gluten, sodium lauryl sulfate, and products that contain GMOs. It’s also a good idea for parents to look for those products that are cruelty free, so they don’t contain animal products or involve animal testing.
“You want your child to have great oral hygiene habits, but that starts with the quality of the products that they are using each day. When you opt for safe ones, then your routine is off to a great start,” added Dr. Sharp.
Dr. Sharp is also taking National Children’s Dental Health Month to donate 1,000 tubes of their Wild Berry Kids toothpaste to Operation Smile, a Virginia-based global medical non-profit that provides free cleft lip and clef palate surgeries to children around the world. The products will be shipped just in time for Operation Smile’s dental missions in the Philippines and Vietnam, beginning in April.
“Following surgery to heal their lips, we love to be able to help children get their best start with oral hygiene care,” says J. Lindsay Tomberg, Director of Global Philanthropy for Operation Smile. “We are grateful for the donation of these natural products that will help many children create good life-long habits in caring for their teeth.”
Dr. Sharp created a line of oral hygiene products to give people a healthier alternative. His product line includes children’s toothpaste, adult toothpaste, fresh mint mouthwash, and dental tape. All products are safe to use, made in the USA, and are gluten free, have no artificial colors or flavors, are vegan, non-GMO, alcohol free, fluoride free, and cruelty free. Plus, they help whiten teeth and have xylitol, which is a natural sweetener that also helps to fight off cavities. The products are safe for the entire family. The products will be showcased at the Natural Products Expo West in March 2016, in the “hot products” section. To learn more about Dr. Sharp Natural Oral Care products or see where they can be purchased, visit the site at: www.drsharpcare.com.
|Posted by ruth.bednar on January 29, 2016 at 2:05 AM||comments (0)|
By: Roger Belgrave, The Mississauga News, Mississauga, Ontario 28-Jan-2016 –
Peel Regional councillors have agreed to take a deeper look at merits and possible health risks associated with fluoridation of municipal drinking water and conduct broader public consultation on the longstanding practice.
During a regular meeting Thursday, councillors passed a motion to have a committee carry out a broad review of the issue and seek wide public opinion on whether the region should continue water fluoridation.
Councillors heard from experts on both sides of the debate during a special Jan. 21 closed-door meeting organized as an education session for the politicians.
In April 2011, the debate on local water fluoridation was closed when council unanimously voted to continue the practice Peel has been conducting for more than 40 years.
Council heard from a number of health officials, including Ontario’s chief medical officer of health, before concluding water fluoridation is a valuable public health tool in fighting poor oral health and other ailments that can stem from oral illnesses.
A vocal and persistent segment of the community argues exposure to the chemical on such a grand and widespread scale is actually harmful to public health.
Last year, council agreed to form a subcommittee to help educate newly elected councillors on the issue.
After last week’s education session, there came rumblings about growing political support for doing away with water fluoridation in Peel.
“I don’t think that’s doing our due diligence,” remarked Mississauga councillor Jim Tovey, who suggested Thursday that a decision of this magnitude cannot be made after an 80-minute education session and without broad public consultation.
Many other councillors who supported tasking a committee to conduct further review and consultation echoed his position.
Despite the issue being closed years ago, there appears to be some difference of opinion on the current council.
Last Monday, a joint letter signed by the mayors of Brampton, Mississauga and Caledon expressed support for the continued use of fluoride in municipal drinking water as a protective health measure.
Mississauga councillor Carolyn Parrish said she disapproved of Mississauga mayor Bonnie Crombie issuing that public position without consulting the rest of council.
“It really puts us all in an awkward position, particularly those who don’t agree,” Parrish said.
Brampton councillor John Sprovieri, who has been a vocal opponent of fluoridation, questions why municipalities are responsible for water fluoridation instead of the provincial government.
According to Region staff, the municipality spends about $450,000 annually to add fluoride to the drinking water. Last year, Peel bought about 460,000 kilograms of fluoride, staff told council.
|Posted by ruth.bednar on January 27, 2016 at 5:55 PM||comments (0)|
By: Stephannie Johnson, Parry Sound North Star, Parry Sound, Ontario 27-Jan-2016 –
The town (Parry Sound) is done adding fluoride to municipal water – almost.
Last night town council rescinded an earlier resolution approving fluoridation upgrades to the Tony Agnello Water Treatment Plant; the upgrades were necessary to continue fluoridating the municipal water supply.
The upgrade would have cost taxpayers $250,000.
Once again, the council chambers were packed with supporters and members of Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management – the group that has urged the town to drop fluoride treatment.
The motion was brought back by Coun. Paul Borneman, as he was on the prevailing side of the original vote to make the upgrades necessary in order to keep adding fluoride to the water supply.
In a recorded vote, all of council voted in favour of the resolution, except Coun. Bonnie Keith.
If approved by formal bylaw next month, the change must be posted for 21 days for public comment before coming into effect.
See the January 29 edition Beacon Star or parrysound.com for the full story.
|Posted by ruth.bednar on December 18, 2015 at 1:50 AM||comments (0)|
Parry Sound North Star
(Editor’s note: this letter was sent to Parry Sound council and a copy provided to the North Star for publication)
Dear Mayor and Council,
As primary healthcare providers, business owners and parents, we are concerned about the ongoing fluoridation of the town’s water supply. Whether we are all consuming town water or not, the continued practice of adulterating drinking water with a known toxic substance, described as a drug in most other countries, must be halted. The negative effects on health are being revealed consistently. The old adage of “if in doubt, leave it out” must be applied in this case of old science propagating an old practice which has been proven to be less efficacious than first touted and much less safe than first advertised.
Industries stuck with fluoride-containing compounds as industrial waste originally promoted fluoride as a means of reducing tooth decay. The quality of fluoride sources being used today are a significant cause of concern. As with any pharmaceutical compounding or manufacturing, the quality, as in proven potency and purity (free of impurities and additional toxic compounds), of a substance given as a medicine to a patient must be of USP, NF or BP grade. I would be curious to learn what certificate of analysis accompanies the supply of fluoride purchased by our Water Treatment Division. Interestingly, oral doses of Sodium Fluoride U.S.P. were prescribed by physicians in the late 1940’s to help tone down an over active thyroid in their patients. Fluoride essentially poisoned the gland and reduced thyroid output. As of July, 2015, the official definition of a drug, or Active Ingredient, as Health Canada calls it, is this; “An Active Ingredient is any component that has medicinal properties, and supplies pharmacological activity or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body of a human or an animal.” Yet in numerous court cases seeking to have a Federal ruling, as it should be, on this dangerous fluoridation program, the government holds to an older definition that maintains that fluoride is a nutrient and therefore not governed by the laws involving drugs. Confusion at the highest levels? This issue will be taken up with the new Federal Minister of Health in the new year.
For those not clear on what we are discussing, fluoridation involves the addition of Fluoride, a halogen and one of the most reactive substances on the Periodical Table of Elements, at the rate of 0.7-1.0 parts per million (PPM) to our municipal water supply. Early studies involving purified, pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride applied topically showed that the substance helped create somewhat stronger tooth enamel and more recent studies have demonstrated that fluoride in saliva also seems to affect how well bacteria can cling to teeth. Most dentists will agree that topical application of fluoride is the most effective use of the drug to help prevent tooth decay from acids produced when bacteria digest sugars and starches stuck to our teeth. Fluoride is actually more toxic than lead (Pb), and only slightly less toxic than Arsenic (As) and even Procter and Gamble, the makers of Crest, acknowledge this toxicity. Fluoride accumulates in both soft tissues and in bones.
There are many well designed studies that show many negative and very worrying ill effects from ingesting even small amounts of this drug, including a drop in IQ. Fluoride has been defined as a mutagen, which means it changes genetic material and it passes into the fetus through a mother’s blood supply. This alone has alarmed many health officials and most developed nations have never started or have long ago ended fluoridation programs.
There are too many questions, numerous international concerns and unclear studies showing any significant benefit as far as preventing cavities. I would challenge any healthcare provider, policy maker or consumer to come up with a sensible argument that adequately explains why we would continue to systemically dose an entire population with a known toxic substance which has not been shown to be absolutely safe and which studies show is not effective for its intended purpose when ingested wholesale. It is proven to accumulate in the human body, with probably the same accumulation occurring in wildlife and aquatic species as well. We flush a lot more of this stuff down the drain than we ever consume and yet we see diseases directly linked to fluoride in our population. What about the eco-toxic effects?
Another point to be made is in regards to the dose. As with any drug, adequate control over the dosage that any patient ingests is paramount for safety and efficacy. Fluoridation of drinking water does not allow any control of the dose of fluoride anyone receives.
Variables, including daily water intake, body weight and ability to eliminate the drug through the kidneys or the liver, leave a significant level of uncertainty surrounding overall intake of fluoride.
This greatly impacts safety and heightens risks to those with diseases that affect elimination pathways such as diabetics and those with organ transplants, not to mention children and seniors whose functions are undeveloped or compromised and people with poor nutrition.
The reduction in overall number of dental caries/cavities can be more accurately linked to the advent of fluoride in toothpastes, mouthwashes and dental applications initiated in 1970. Comparisons involving cavity counts in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated communities have shown almost zero difference around the world.
Fluoride is found in anything made with municipal water supplies that are fluoridated which means our foods, drinks and even instant coffee contains the drug. That includes Coke and our local micro-brewery products, unless they go to the effort of removing this substance. With this accumulated effect, there should be concerns for all ages.
While no one is going to die from drinking one glass of fluoridated water, just as no one will die from smoking one cigarette, it is the longer-term chronic effects of glass after glass of fluoridated water that will take its toll on human health. Stopping the fluoridation program will have no immediate negative effect whatsoever on tooth decay rates in our town. I understand that the Town has already spent money to have an assessment done on how to upgrade the corroded fluoride dosing system that we currently operate. A malfunction could dose the town water with a potentially toxic amount of fluoride.
Spending a huge sum of taxpayers’ money on a new system that might get pulled in the near future would be unfortunate. The money would be better spent on a fluoride application program local pharmacists and dentists could provide to those who really need it. In an effort to save throwing more good money after bad, we urge you to consider seriously the liabilities involved in continuing a program that, as dominos fall, is being dropped by municipality after municipality across North America. Be on the winning side of this local, national and international debate and please cease any further fluoridation of our water supply.
Kris Phillips B.S.P., R.Ph.
President/Chief Compounding Pharmacist/GMP QA Consultant
OmniVet Pharma Inc.
Hani Jaber – B.Sc.Pharm.
Gordon Lane – B.Sc.Pharm
Lewis Lau, B.Sc.Pharm
Mulin Yang, B.Sc.Pharm
Howard Oldham LLB
Bonnie Oldham, LLB
Bigi (Becky) He, Pharmacist, Shopper’s Drug Mart Parry Sound franchise owner
Gord Cole, Hon BSC, Aqua Cage Fisheries, owner
John Myers BSc, MSc, high school teacher
Fritz Distler, Distler Construction, owner
Sherry Keown, Ryman Titles, owner
Ann L. Moore, BsC pharmacist
|Posted by ruth.bednar on November 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM||comments (0)|
Fluoride is one of the most dangerous health threats in our environment, and its widespread use makes it challenging to avoid. On this website, we regularly discuss the health concerns associated with water fluoridation and believe that the prevalence of fluoride in our water supply is not something to take lightly. Fortunately, many in the health and science fields are working toward change and many of these individuals have voiced their concerns in the new documentary Fluoride: Poison On Tap.
|Posted by ruth.bednar on November 27, 2015 at 9:35 AM||comments (0)|
By: Parry Sound North Star – Opinion, Parry Sound, Ontario 11-Nov-2015 – By now the Town of Parry Sound council might be noticing a pattern establishing itself.
They hold a meeting and the topic of fluoridation of the town water supply comes up from at least one of their residents saying they don’t want the stuff.
They then have another brief discussion on the topic, managing to re-establish that using the chemical is dangerous and costly.
Prepare agenda and repeat.
Fluoride in the drinking water of Parry Sound is not becoming, but has already become an issue running out of the control of the councillors sitting around the table, as well as the Medical Officer of Health Dr. Jim Chirico.
This is no longer about cavities either real or imagined. This is about whether residents, voters, actually have a say in whether or not $250,000 is spent on dispensing a chemical nobody seems to want.
We note that Dr. Chirico was gracious enough to speak with council about the science of fluoridation in drinking water, but that is where his concern with dental health in Parry Sound District ended.
The dental services for children under the age of 17 are still only based in the City of North Bay where the board is about to embark on building a grand new headquarters for the Health Unit.
More important is that the Medical Officer of Health didn’t come to Parry Sound to speak with the people who reside here, but just the council he wants to impose fluoridation. The most important people for Dr. Chirico to speak with are members of the public who most obviously don’t believe, nor trust what he has to say. In only addressing his interest and remarks to council, he has certainly damaged his credibility and with it that of his profession. How does one put a price on this?
Council, however, still has the opportunity at hand to make a decision in the best interest of Parry Sound. By voting not to spend the $250,000 on a safe handling facility for the dangerous chemical, the council would not be signaling in any official way that they believe the drinking water is endangered by adding fluoride at the very small, recommended levels. It is simply acknowledging they can’t afford the required upgrades to keep their staff safe.
Otherwise, it looks like the Town of Parry Sound is headed for a plebiscite on this issue which will not do anything for the advancement of civil discourse, public health, protection of taxpayers’ money, or the betterment of the community.
During the debate in June to continue fluoridation of drinking water the council members were quick to cite the qualifications and science Dr. Chirico brought to the table.
Now would be an appropriate time to acknowledge the tenacity and determination residents are bringing on an issue that has their clear and undivided attention.
|Posted by ruth.bednar on October 20, 2015 at 10:05 AM||comments (0)|
By Dr. Mercola
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC is one of the world's largest phosphate mining and fertilizer companies. ;In October 2015, the company agreed to a $2-billion settlement with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection over a 10-year battle over hazardous waste disposal.
The EPA accused Mosaic of improper storage and disposal of waste from the production of phosphoric and sulfuric acids, key components of fertilizers, at the company's facilities in Louisiana and Florida. The Tampa Bay Times reported:1
"The EPA said it had discovered Mosaic employees were mixing highly corrosive substances from its fertilizer operations with the solid waste and wastewater from mineral processing, in violation of federal and state hazardous waste laws."
The EPA further noted:2
"The 60 billion pounds of hazardous waste addressed in this case is the largest amount ever covered by a federal or state. . . settlement and will ensure that wastewater at Mosaic's facilities is properly managed and does not pose a threat to groundwater resources."
It is ironic that the EPA acknowledges the threat posed to groundwater by Mosaic's hazardous waste disposal because one of the chemicals classified as hazardous waste is fluorosilicic acid, another waste product of their fertilizer production.
Mosaic is one of the largest sellers of fluorosilicic acid, which is widely used by public drinking water systems across the US to fluoridate water supplies. More than 200 million Americans drink these wastes every day, according to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).3
If You Drink Fluoridated Water, You're Likely Drinking Mosaic's Hazardous Fertilizer Waste
While pharmaceutical-grade fluoride is a harmful-enough drug, this is not the type of fluoride being added to drinking water. If it was, at least then it would be a pure, uncontaminated form.
Rather the fluoride that is typically used to fluoridate local water supplies is a frequently contaminated chemical byproduct created during the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process.
It's a concentrated, highly toxic chemical riddled with hazardous impurities, making it extremely expensive to safely dispose of when not sold for profit as a water additive.
Fluoride compounds like fluorosilicic acid are toxic industrial waste products, which can also be contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum, and other industrial contaminants.
In fact, uranium and radium are two known carcinogens found in fluorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation, and radioactive polonium-210 is one of two decay products of uranium.
The now declassified files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission even show that the original motivation for promoting fluoride and water fluoridation in the US was to protect the bomb-, aluminum-, and other fluoride-polluting industries from liability.
Later, they switched to the even more hazardous waste product, fluorosilicic acid, from the phosphate fertilizer industry. But none of the studies on fluoride actually used the far more toxic and contaminated fluorosilicic acid that is presently added to the water supply.
Rather, they use pharmaceutical-grade fluoride, which while harmful, is not quite as bad as what's being used for water fluoridation.
Back in 1983, the Deputy Administrator of the EPA Office of Water, Rebecca Hanmer, summarized and defended the EPA's policy on adding toxic fluoride to drinking water in part because it provides a use for the toxic byproducts of the fertilizer industry:4
"In regard to the use of fluosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use 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." [Emphasis mine]
Fluoride Is One of the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry's Greatest Liabilities
Mosaic Fertilizer is the world's largest phosphate mining company. About three-quarters of the phosphate used in the US (an $85-billion industry) comes from Florida. Phosphate rocks are scooped out of the earth and mixed with clay, sand, and water to create a slurry.
That slurry is pumped to a plant where the phosphate is separated from the sand and clay. Not only does this process create a radioactive byproduct called phosphogypsum, which must be disposed of in 150-tall "gyp stacks," but it's also a major source of fluoride.5 As reported by FAN:6
"Fluoride has been, and remains to this day, one of the largest environmental liabilities of the phosphate industry.
The source of the problem lies in the fact that raw phosphate ore contains high concentrations of fluoride, usually between 20,000 to 40,000 parts per million (equivalent to 2 to 4 percent of the ore).
When this ore is processed into water-soluble phosphate (via the addition of sulfuric acid), the fluoride content of the ore is vaporized into the air, forming highly toxic gaseous compounds (hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride).
In the past, when the industry had little, if any, pollution control, the fluoride gases were frequently emitted in large volumes into surrounding communities, causing serious environmental damage.
… They call them 'wet scrubbers' – the pollution control devices used by the phosphate industry to capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer. In the past, when the industry let these gases escape, vegetation became scorched, crops destroyed, and cattle crippled.
Today, with the development of sophisticated air-pollution control technology, less of the fluoride escapes into the atmosphere, and the type of pollution that threatened the survival of some communities in the 1950s and 60s, is but a thing of the past (at least in the US and other wealthy countries).
However, the impacts of the industry's fluoride emissions are still being felt, although more subtly, by millions of people – people who, for the most part, do not live anywhere near a phosphate plant.
That's because, after being captured in the scrubbers, the fluoride acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid [or fluorosilicic acid]), a classified hazardous waste, is barreled up and sold, unrefined, to communities across the country.
Communities add hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water supplies as the primary fluoride chemical for water fluoridation. Even if you don't live in a community where fluoride is added to water, you'll still be getting a dose of it through cereal, soda, juice, beer, and any other processed food and drink manufactured with fluoridated water."
Dr. William Hirzy from the EPA has pointed out that if this byproduct goes into the air, it's a pollutant. If it goes into the local water, it's pollution. But if the public water utilities buy it and pour it in our drinking water, it's no longer a pollutant. All of a sudden like magic it's a beneficial public health measure.
CDC Continues to Support Water Fluoridation Despite Scientifically Proven Risks
In September 2015, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reportedly worked with organized dentistry to promote legislative and legal strategies that would protect and promote water fluoridation in the US.7
This is despite the fact that science continues to show significant adverse effects, and little to no benefit, from this obsolete practice. Paul Connett, PhD, FAN executive director, noted:8
"Clearly, they are creating a PR stunt hoping to revitalize this Orwellian practice that goes against every principle of modern pharmacology. They are protecting fluoridation policy, reputations, and jobs and not the American public."
Earlier this year, the Cochrane Collaboration released a comprehensive review with points that are nearly impossible to dispute. Fluoride doesn't work to prevent cavities and it's proven to cause harm in the form of dental fluorosis.
The Cochrane Collaboration is considered to be the gold standard in evidence-based reviews, and only three studies conducted since 1975 had enough merit to be included. None showed that swallowing fluoride prevents cavities while it was clear that it causes harm (dental fluorosis). Fluorosis – mottled discolorations on teeth – is not purely aesthetic, either. It's a visible sign that you've been exposed to this known developmental neurotoxin at excessive levels.
Worse still, even the "best" studies were not considered to be high quality and nearly all were flawed, for instance failing to control for other contributing factors, such as dietary sources of fluoride aside from tap water, diet and ethnicity. Just last year, Lancet Neurology released a study, authored by a Harvard doctor, among others, that classified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin.9
The Harvard meta-analysis also clearly showed that children exposed to fluoride in drinking water had lower IQ, by an average of seven points, in areas with raised concentrations.
And the majority of the studies had fluoride levels of less than four milligrams (mg) per liter, which is under the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) allowable level (4 ppm) and offers no adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking fluoridated water in the US.
When you consider all the steps to limit children to exposure to other neurotoxic substances like lead and mercury it borders on lunacy to deliberately add neurotoxic fluoride to the drinking water of millions. The last children that need their IQ lowered are children from low-income families and these are precisely the children targeted by fluoridation programs.
Fluoride Has Failed to Stop Sugar-Caused Tooth Decay
Also revealing, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between developed countries that fluoridate their water and those that do not.10 It's become clear that swallowing fluoride poses little, if any, benefit along with unacceptable risks. FAN further revealed some striking findings about fluoridation released earlier this year:11
Researchers uncovered evidence showing the sugar industry colluded with the National Institutes of Health in the 1960s and 1970s to turn attention away from sugar, a proven cause of tooth decay, in favor of other unproven approaches including fluoride.12
Research published in the Journal of Dental Research showed fluoride hasn't stopped sugar-caused tooth decay. Researchers wrote, "previous preventive measures have clearly failed."13
An American Journal of Public Health article reported fluoridation was adopted prematurely without harms and risks fully explored.14
Fluoride is a cumulative toxin, which means the more exposure you get, and the longer you get it, the worse your symptoms of fluoride poisoning are likely to be (although children are also at an increased risk of harm). Research conducted earlier this year, for instance, linked fluoridated-water consumption to thyroid dysfunction, weight gain, and depression.
Thyroid function was affected starting at a fluoride level of 0.3 mg/L, which is less than half what the US currently recommends, which is a level of 0.7 mg/L. Your pineal gland also tends to accumulate significant amounts of fluoride, which eventually causes it to calcify.
This may lead to ADHD-like symptoms and may also play a role in Alzheimer's and bipolar disease. Considering its effect on neurotransmitters, it's also quite conceivable that it might promote depression and other neurological disorders.15 Further, according to one 500-page scientific review, fluoride is an endocrine disruptor that can also affect your bones, brain, and even your blood sugar levels.16 There are more than 100 published studies illustrating fluoride's harm to the brain alone, plus 45 more that directly link fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children...
see more on this link:
|Posted by ruth.bednar on October 7, 2015 at 9:40 PM||comments (0)|
If you believe that drinking tea is good for your health, you may be right. Tea, especially green tea, has been linked to a lower risk of cancer, stroke, heart failure, and diabetes. But tea can contain large amounts of fluoride and pesticides and be very bad for your health, so bad that it's downright dangerous.
According to a British study published in the journal Food Research International, some teas, especially inexpensive store brand black and green teas, contain so much fluoride that they are putting consumers at a risk of bone loss and other health problems.
The study analyzed 38 brands of tea, and found that store brand teas contained an average of 6 milligrams per liter (about a quart). Guidelines suggest that an adult consume a maximum of 3 to 4 milligrams of fluoride per day.
When other products containing fluoride are considered, the amounts in fluoridated water and fluoridated toothpastes, for example, consumers can easily consume significantly more than the maximum daily amount.
The popular brand Twinings, although not a cheap store brand, had an average of 3.3 milligrams per liter. An American study from Washington University found that Luzianne tea bags (specially blended for iced tea) contained an average of 3.9 milligrams per liter, and a 2003 analysis of Lipton instant tea contained an average of 6.5 milligrams of fluoride.
Experts say that one of the first signs that a person has been poisoned by fluoride is dental fluorosis, which causes white and brown spots on teeth.
Too much fluoride can also cause skeletal fluorosis with its symptoms of bone and joint pain, muscle weakness, and gastrointestinal problems. Too much fluoride has also been linked to osteoporosis, kidney stones, and even cancer.
Tests have also found that tea can also contain residues of pesticides known to cause cancer, and since teas aren't washed before being packaged, you may be drinking a cup filled with pesticides.
Lab tests conducted by the lab Eurofins Scientific found that 91 percent of Celestial Seasonings had residues higher than the limits allowed by U.S. law. Some types of Celestial Seasonings, including some of the herbal varieties, contained the known carcinogens propachlor and propargite.
The expensive Teavana teas were also found to contain pesticides, and one was found to harbor 23 pesticides.
How can you protect yourself? Green tea, in general, contains less fluoride than black tea, and white tea contains even less.
Also, stick to organic teas when possible, since they're not supposed to contain pesticides.
|Posted by ruth.bednar on October 1, 2015 at 9:25 AM||comments (0)|
NEW YORK, Sept. 30, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has delivered a 100-page report to the Environmental Justice Interagency Working Group entitled "Water Fluoridation and Environmental Justice" outlining the dangers posed by this practice to poor families and communities of color.
Since 1962 officials at the U.S. Public Health Service have known that Blacks are disproportionately harmed by fluoride with higher rates of dental fluorosis (permanent damage to the enamel) rates compared to Whites. But for over 40 years they hid this information from communities of color.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, FAN discovered that in 2005, 58% of Blacks had dental fluorosis compared to 32% of Whites.
The heart of the problem is that no Federal agency accepts responsibility for the safety of this program. Instead the Division of Oral Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has become a "rogue elephant" blindly promoting fluoridation, denying any harm and failing miserably to provide any warnings to communities of color of their vulnerabilities. This has prompted Civil Rights leaders to call for Congressional hearings.
According to FAN's director, Paul Connett, PhD, "The situation has become much worse now that it is clear that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor and is neurotoxic. There are 45 studies that fluoride at modest levels lowers IQ in children (www.FluorideAction.net/issues/health/brain)."
In 2015 the Department of Health & Human Services announced a lowering of the fluoride level in fluoridation programs. However, even at the new level of 0.7 ppm, bottle-fed infants in fluoridated communities receive approximately 100 times more fluoride than a breast-fed infant.
FAN is seeking from the multi-agency group support for 5-step community-based plan (along the lines of programs from Scotland and Denmark), which not only protects teeth, but by emphasizing better nutrition –especially lowered sugar intake - fights obesity and improves the overall health and well-being of children from poor families and communities of color, without forcing them to drink fluoridated water.
As a first step FAN urged the multi-agency group to call upon the EPA's Office of Water to determine a safe reference dose for fluoride that would protect all children –including the most vulnerable - from a lowered IQ. Such a determination would make adding fluoride to public water unthinkable.