|Posted by ruth.bednar on February 19, 2019 at 3:55 PM||comments (0)|
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 40 percent of children between the ages of 3 and 6 use potentially dangerous amounts of toothpaste
The CDC and American Dental Association (ADA) recommend using no more than a pea-sized amount for children in this age group, and those younger than 3 should use no more than the size of a rice grain on their toothbrush
Fluoride-containing toothpastes have a warning on their label stating that “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately”
While swallowing toothpaste is recognized as a cause for concern, drinking fluoridated water is said to be not only safe but beneficial for your teeth
Fluoridated water is a far more significant source of fluoride exposure than toothpaste. Recent research shows the prevalence of dental fluorosis among 10- to 12-year-olds in three Ecuadorian provinces is nearly 90 percent; a positive statistical relationship was found between dental fluorosis and consumption of bottled beverages
SEE FULL ARTICLE BELOW:
|Posted by ruth.bednar on November 3, 2018 at 3:50 PM||comments (0)|
The following is an open letter from a cross section of organizations who recognize that the fluoride deception* which has primarily focused on deceiving politicians and the public is also targeting nutritionists. This effort is especially reprehensible in the light of several National Institute of Health sponsored studies published in 2017 and 2018 validating that even low doses consumed by pregnant women, bottle-fed infants, and others in optimally fluoridated communities can result in thyroid disease and subtle but permanent brain damage in many vulnerable consumers.
Dental dogma and authoritative pronouncements aside, fluoride is not a nutrient of any kind - essential, non-essential or micronutrient. Consumption does not provide any dental benefit, and there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency. Fluoride is best characterized as a poison that is used as a drug in a misguided attempt to prevent cavities.
To Professionals, Politicians and Public:
Empirical data and scientific studies from the 21st century have proved beyond doubt that not only does fluoride have no place in the human diet but also that fluoridation policy is a public harm policy.
Major findings from evidence-based science relevant to dietary fluoride confirm:
1. Dental damage from youthful consumption of fluoride
2. Neurological damage from prenatal, youthful and long term exposure to fluoride
3. Biological damage to endocrine, immune, renal, gastrointestinal and other systems
4. Bone damage from long term exposure and exposure during critical growth periods
5. Increased risk of complications during pregnancy affecting both mother and child
6. Disproportionate harm to various vulnerable populations due to ethnicity, age, health conditions, genetics or epigenetics.
We, the undersigned, attest to having done our due diligence in studying the effects of fluoride consumption and/or fluoridation policy on people and planet. We have concluded that there is no ethical or medical justification for including fluoride on any nutritional list nor for dosing municipal water supplies with corrosive and contaminated fluoridation products in order to mass medicate the public.
In the United States where approximately 75% of the population consumes fluoridated tap water, over half of all adolescents have dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is also high and rising in non-fluoridated municipalities due to the ‘halo’ effect from food and beverages prepared with fluoridated water as well as from exposure to fluoridated pesticides in foods and fluoridated dental products. Severe fluorosis includes pitting, misshapen teeth and missing enamel. One in five American teenagers has moderate to severe damage on least two brittle teeth many of which will likely require costly veneers or crowns due to childhood fluoride consumption. Dental fluorosis is correlated with increased cavities, periodontal disease and other dental expenses.
Prenatal and youthful exposure predict increased incidence of learning disabilities in dozens of human and hundreds of laboratory studies. A recent NIH sponsored study validated a doseresponse trend line for lowered IQ in offspring based on maternal dose within the dose range typical in optimally fluoridated communities. Only a handful of studies, each of which has severe limitations, claim not to have found neurological harm. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists fluoride as a water contaminant and as a ‘gold standard developmental neurotoxicant.’ Fluoride binds with heavy metals such as lead and aluminum, as well as enhancing the absorption of those metals into blood and brain. The pineal gland deep in the brain becomes calcified from chronic exposure to fluoride. The pineal gland governs sleep patterns and reproductive hormones. Fluoride is also associated with increased risk of neurodegenerative disease.
Fluoride lowers iodine levels and can disrupt thyroid function. Fluoride is a particular burden to kidneys which in a healthy adult excrete about 50% of intake, the remainder being sequestered in tissue and bone. Fluoride is an adjuvant which intensifies the immune response in the presence of an antigen, i.e. it worsens or causes allergies and symptoms of autoimmune disease. Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and atherosclerosis in the heart are manifestations of fluoride damage. Crohn’s disease and other irritable bowel conditions can be caused or worsened by fluoride. Gastrointestinal cancers in particular have been observed to be higher in fluoridated communities. Fluoridation predicts increased age-related diabetes, as does frequent use of OTC dental rinses, essentially all of which are fluoridated. Dermal absorption contributes to systemic exposure which affects biological systems.
Chronic consumption over years can cause considerable bone damage. Arthritis is a symptom of fluoride intoxication in the bones. Osteoporosis is another. Osteosarcomas in young boys is a small but significant risk from fluoridation. Bony spurs and calcification of ligaments may result from chronic fluoride consumption. Attempts to increase bone density with therapeutic doses of fluoride succeeded in increasing density, but failed in preventing fractures as fluorosed bones, like fluorosed teeth, are more brittle and prone to fracture.
The placenta becomes saturated with fluoride even when water concentration is in the WHO suggested optimal to tolerable range of 0.7 to 1.5 ppm. Modern studies confirm 0.5 ppm fluoride in water impacts thyroid hormones which also increases risk in pregnancy. Increased ER stress from fluoride can lead to preeclampsia and preterm birth. Increased risk of anemia and mortality for both mother and child are associated with fluoride consumption during pregnancy whether the total individual dose is achieved through water, diet, dental products, medication or bathing.
Environmental justice communities are more likely to suffer from dental fluorosis and with worse severity. These same communities also have higher rates of kidney disease, diabetes and high-risk pregnancies. It is biologically plausible that fluoride is contributing to all of the above. The elderly and those with autoimmune disease or other chronic health conditions also are at heightened risk for all of the complications associated with fluoride intoxication.
It is past time to dispatch the malignant medical myth of fluoride as a miraculous mineral to the dustbin of history. Consequently,
➡ We encourage nutrition scientists world wide to go on record with statements condemning fluoride as a poison that has no place in the human diet
➡ We encourage professional organizations to consider their mission statements and openly condemn fluoridation policy as a human rights violation and environmental harm that contributes to chronic illness
➡ We encourage public health officials to challenge pro-fluoride policy in order to fulfill their role of protector of the common welfare
➡ We encourage politicians to order an immediate ban on the immoral medical mandate of artificial water fluoridation.
Finally, we encourage the public to make a loud noise demanding that water and food not be intentionally dosed with aluminum, arsenic and lead contaminated fluoridation chemicals that cause disease, disability and death in consumers.
Dr. Derek Lang, DO on behalf of American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Dr. Charles Adams, MD on behalf of International College of Integrative Medicine
Dr. Dawn Ewing, PhD on behalf of International Academy of Biological Dentists and Medicine
Henry Rodriguez, Texas Chapter Director on behalf of the National League of United Latin American Citizens
Vera Sharav, President on behalf of the Alliance for Human Research Protection
Ronnie Cummins, International Director on behalf of the Organic Consumers Association
Ronald M. Hendrickson, Executive Director on behalf of the International Chiropractors Association
Alice-Anne Simard, Executive Director on behalf of Eau Secours
For reliable information on emerging science, evolving expert opinion, and environmental activism, we recommend these resources:
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, IAOMT.org
American Academy of Environmental Medicine, AAEMonline.org
Fluoride Action Network, FluorideAlert.org
Center for Health, Environment & Justices, CHEJ.org
League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC.org
Eau Secours, eausecours.org
|Posted by ruth.bednar on June 24, 2018 at 10:25 AM||comments (0)|
Buyers beware — have Muskoka consumers lost their freedom of choice?
You have to wonder ARE WE really being warned of all the dangerous products we use and consume
OPINION Jun 22, 2018 by Cheryl Hill - Bracebridge Examiner
MUSKOKA — Laws have been enacted in recent years to give consumers legal rights — legal rights allowing us to know exactly what we are buying, consuming and exposing ourselves to.
Usually this shows up as warning labels or listed ingredients in foods. You also find it in the small print on advertisers' pages — however most often too small or too lengthy for many to read or take notice of. This is why they say “Buyers beware!” and advise us to read everything, especially as it deals with legal contracts.
But are we really being warned of all the dangerous products we use and consume, so we can choose to abstain? Actually, there are still many areas where the system has failed us.
It seems that the only time consumers are able to get the truth of what we use and ingest is from independent and nonbiased studies — studies done by private individuals and professionals who, at their own expense, take on the research. In the meantime, media advertising and highly paid employees of the chemical and pharmaceutical industry continue to expound on the virtues of their products, paying doctors, dentists and even politicians handsomely for their compliance in distributing them.
Think back for a moment. How long was DDT advertised as safe and beneficial before it was found otherwise? How long were cigarettes promoted as safe and harmless — even something that celebrities and politicians were advocating and promoting? And who gave permission for the tobacco companies to add all the harmful chemicals and toxins they did — the real culprits in the ensuing health problems?
It seems that the only time consumers are able to get the truth of what we use and ingest is from independent and unbiased studies — studies done by private individuals and professionals who, at their own expense, take on the research.
Fortunately, legislation now forces the drug industry to list the side effects of their drugs, ones to be aware of before you agree to them. The “Buyers Beware” lesson here is to read all warnings and labels, and if none, only accept unbiased and honest research. Ask yourself often before any judgment: “Who stands to benefit the most from what is being reported?”
It is interesting to note that U.S. consumers were the first to push for the use of warning labels on prescribed drugs that people may consume. Have you ever read the label on a tube of fluoridated toothpaste from the U.S.? It clearly states that if accidentally swallowed to go immediately to your nearest poison control centre. Now why would this be put on toothpaste tubes containing fluoride if the contents were deemed “safe”? With these warnings at least we are able to keep it away from children or purchase an alternative product. Clearly the danger is more in consuming it than using it, and something a family can take steps to avoid. But what if this chemical were put into a community's drinking water without even advising the public?
Several years ago my young daughter was a victim of fluoride poisoning. I can remember the costly and lengthy treatment needed to cure her of her dental fluorosis. Thinking toothpaste and mouthwash were to blame, it was easy to eliminate these; however I never suspected that my community was putting fluoride in the water — a direct cause of her overload. This city has since learned the truth and removed this chemical from its water supply; but many communities still have not.
There is now widespread research leading to a host of health issues associated with its ingestion.
But what of Muskoka? Huntsville was recently able to remove it; however Gravenhurst, Bracebridge, Bala and Port Carling weren't so lucky. These other communities have politicians who have chosen to ignore public interest, threatening the health of their residents.
Did you ever get to talk to a local worker who actually puts fluoride in our water? I just recently had that privilege. They told me that they are forced to wear full plastic suits, boots, masks and gloves — looking more like workers dealing with highly toxic and radioactive materials, decked out solely for their protection against breathing or touching this dangerous substance. Now imagine this when you are grabbing a drink from your kitchen tap, or worse still, adding tap water to your family's stew or your baby's formula.
The greatest insult to injury, is the fact that families, unknowingly exposing themselves to this neurotoxin, are also forced to foot the bill — paying a premium for the water they use!
Individuals and families in all communities have a right to know the truth, and should have a say in any decision affecting the health of their family — especially when forced to pay for this service. We should all know exactly what we are purchasing, as legislation dictates. The advise is sound: “Beware and be aware as buyers.”
|Posted by ruth.bednar on May 22, 2018 at 10:55 AM||comments (0)|
Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is among a coalition of environmental, medical and health groups suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban artificial water fluoridation
FAN has recently won two major legal victories, defeating efforts by the EPA to dismiss the case and limit the evidence that can be considered
Legal experts say the lawsuit will be precedent setting and increase other challenges to EPA chemical rules by environmental watchdog groups
|Posted by ruth.bednar on May 20, 2018 at 10:30 AM||comments (0)|
Over the past 18 years, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has facilitated the removal of fluoride from the water supplies of hundreds of communities in North America, Canada and Europe
FAN has filed an historic lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under a provision in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Under this TSCA statute, the judge may not defer to the EPA but must weigh the evidence brought forth in trial. If the judge finds there’s an unreasonable risk, he has the authority to order EPA to begin proceedings to eliminate the risk of fluoride in drinking water
Earlier this year, EPA tried to limit the scope of what FAN could bring to the court’s attention. Its motion was denied, and FAN will be able to request internal documents, submit interrogatories to EPA and depose EPA experts
|Posted by ruth.bednar on May 5, 2018 at 8:40 PM||comments (0)|
IS OUR COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER REALLY “PERFECTLY SAFE” ?
By Ruth Bednar R.H.P., R.N.C.P., R.O.H.P.
In the May 3rd edition of the Gravenhurst Banner, pg. 17, Marcus Firman, director of water and waste-water operations for the District of Muskoka, in referring to Muskoka’s community drinking water - says “…it’s perfectly safe and better quality than you could possibly imagine”
However, the intentional addition of fluoridation chemicals, HFSA, to purportedly reduce cavities, still continues today in Gravenhurst, Bracebridge, Bala, Port Carling, and MacTier.
Since 2006 epidemiological studies have included fluoride as a developmental neurotoxicant.
Fortunately, Huntsville and Baysville have stopped adding fluoridation chemicals to their community drinking water.
The dose of fluoride cannot be controlled and infants should not be given tap water to reconstitute their formulas. At the level added to our drinking water, 0.7mg fluoride/litre, it is easy to exceed Health Canada’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 2.0, that will cause Fluorosis, just by drinking 3 litres of water per day including reconstituting soups, beverages etc.
Dumping HFSA in the environment is already illegal (per the federal Hazardous Waste and Species At Risk Acts) so how is it OK (without safety studies) to dump truck loads of this industrial waste via our water supply year after year?
The NSF60** certification for this chemical, used to justify the addition of this additive, does NOT have any safety studies for its intended use. Health Canada and FDA do NOT have safety studies for HFSA.
The above violates Ontario's Safe Drinking Water Act of 2002, which states, Dilution is NO defense for adding a contaminant to drinking water.
Approximately 70% of Canada’s drinking water is free from fluoridation chemicals and water fluoridation has been banned, rejected or stopped in 99% of western continental Europe AND according to statistics, their dental health is just as good or even better than fluoridated communities.
The former mayor of Huntsville, Claude Doughty, a retired dentist and former President of Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario thoroughly reviewed the fluoridation program and said “…fluoride’s best-before date had passed and it was time that it should come out of the drinking water.” Municipalities have been “playing doctor” he said, by deciding if fluoride — which he calls a medication — should be added to an entire communitiy’s drinking water.
So I hope, some day soon, our water will be “perfectly safe and better quality than you could possibly imagine”, starting with our local councillors ending this harmful fluoridation program in Gravenhurst, Bracebridge, Bala, Port Carling and MacTier.
|Posted by ruth.bednar on October 5, 2017 at 8:55 AM||comments (5)|
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Oct 04, 2017, 07:18 ET
October is Dental Hygiene Month, but not all dentists will be touting the alleged benefits of fluoride. In fact, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is using this month to raise awareness of the health risks associated with fluoride. This is especially timely because of recent news about a study linking fluoride exposure in utero with lower IQs.
The IAOMT is an organization of over 800 dentists, physicians, and research professionals in more than 14 countries, and the non-profit organization has been dedicated to its mission of protecting public health since it was founded in 1984. Since that time, the group has continually collected, examined, and reviewed studies and research articles about fluoride and other dental materials and practices.
"IAOMT and its members have been independently studying the toxicity of fluoride for decades," Matthew Young, DDS, President of the IAOMT, explains. "For dentistry, as an ethical profession, it is imperative to uphold the concepts of 'do no harm.' Fluoride has traditionally been seen as a panacea for dental disease without the knowledge of its inherent harm to the human body. We need to seek less toxic alternatives and work to improve human health with the safest approach."
|Posted by ruth.bednar on October 1, 2017 at 9:45 AM||comments (0)|
BY WHITNEY WEBB MPN NEWS
Sept. 23, 2017
For decades, many groups have fought against the inclusion of fluoride in publicly supplied water, arguing that the risks of mass fluoride consumption outweigh the purported benefits. Now, a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives has added to the scientific literature that suggests that fluoride negatively impacts human intelligence, especially in children and infants.
The study, surprisingly, was widely reported in the U.S. mainstream media despite the fact that its findings contradict the government’s official position regarding the safety of fluoride.
The study examined nearly 300 sets of mothers and children living in Mexico and tested the children’s cognitive development twice over a 12 year period. A drop in scores on intelligence tests was observed for every 0.5 milligram-per-liter increase in fluoride exposure beyond 0.8 milligrams per liter found in maternal urine. While researchers found a potential connection to prenatal fluoride exposure, they found no significant influence of fluoride exposure on brain development once a child was born.
SEE FULL ARTICLE BELOW:
|Posted by ruth.bednar on September 30, 2017 at 10:35 AM||comments (0)|
Liesa Cianchino wants legal opinion on whether fluoride in tap water violates Charter
By Michael Smee, CBC News Posted: Sep 28, 2017
Liesa Cianchino sued the region three years ago, alleging that by fluoridating drinking water, the region is medicating the public without permission.
That violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, her suit says, as well as the province's Safe Drinking Water Act.
SEE FULL DETAILS BELOW:
|Posted by ruth.bednar on September 20, 2017 at 5:20 PM||comments (0)|
Published Tuesday, September 19, 2017 12:01AM EDT
Staff writer - CTV NEWS
HIGHER LEVELS OF FLUORIDE IN URINE LINKED TO LOWER IQ SCORES CHILDREN
For years, many communities have added fluoride to drinking water to help reduce cavities. But a new study that has found a link between fluoride levels in pregnant women and lower intelligence in their children may provide further ammunition for those who are calling that practice into question.
In the first study of its kind, investigators at the University of Toronto, McGill, the Harvard School of Public Health, and other institutions have found a link between fluoride in the urine of pregnant women and lower measures of intelligence in children.
In the study released Tuesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, the researchers say they looked at 287 pairs of mothers and children in Mexico City at multiple stages of neurodevelopment. The study recruited pregnant women from 1994 to 2005, taking urine samples from the mothers during pregnancy and from their children between six and 12 years of age to assess their exposures to fluoride.
They then analyzed how fluoride in the pregnant mothers’ urine related to measures of intelligence. Those measures included the children’s verbal abilities at age four, as well as their perceptual performance, memory, and motor abilities. They were tested again for the same things between the ages of six and 12.
The researchers found a statistically significant connection between high levels of fluoride in the mothers when they were pregnant and lower scores on these intelligence measures. There was no link between the children’s own urinary fluoride levels and their test scores.
Dr. Howard Hu, the study’s lead investigator, and a professor of environmental health, epidemiology and global health at U of T’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health, says the fact that the fluoride levels in the mothers was most predictive of the drop in test scores may be due to the fact that the brains of babies develop so rapidly while they are in utero.
“This is consistent with a growing appreciation in environmental health that the growing fetal nervous system is more sensitive to exposures than a developed nervous system,” he told CTVNews.ca by phone from Sydney.
Tap water in many communities in Canada has been fluoridated for decades, in a bid to prevent cavities and improve bone health. But in recent years, research has begun to emerge suggesting that fluoride may be a neurotoxin.
“Back when they started that study, no one was worried about fluoride,” Dr. Hu says.
But he says a seminal 2007 book by the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies described the link between the mineral and neurodevelopment.
Dr. Hu says some research has suggested the fluoride may interfere with cell messenger neurotransmitters. Studies on mice suggest it can accumulate in the hippocampus, an area of the brain important to learning and memory.
Dr. Hu notes those studies tested fluoride at much higher doses than humans would receive in fluoridated water. But he says those studies “open the door” to seeing fluoride as a neurotoxicant.
“The levels of exposure are higher. But there is now a rationale for expecting that it may also be toxic at lower levels,” he said.
The researchers adjusted their analyses for other factors that might have impacted the children’s neurodevelopment, such as the children’ birthweight, their gestational age, the mothers’ smoking history, their IQ, lead exposure, and more, but the link they found held.
“There’s always the potential that fluoride really is the proxy of some other real actor that’s playing a role. But I can’t imagine what that would be,” Dr. Hu said.
“We tested for all the things we could think of that could act on neurodevelopment. But we haven’t found anything else that was a potential confounder.”
Dr. Hu and his colleagues acknowledge that fluoridated water and toothpaste have both substantially reduced the incidence of cavities and should be acknowledged “as a public health success story.”
But they say that more research is needed on the potential adverse effects of fluoride, particularly in pregnant women and children.
“We emphasize that this is just one study. It’s a rigorous study but it’s just one study,” Dr. Hu said.