# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Natural Alternative to - PerioMed 0.63% Stannous Fluoride Oral Rinse????

## V4Vendetta

I went to the dentost, first time in awhile and they prescribed  PerioMed 0.63% Stannous Fluoride Oral Rinse, link and picture below.
I told them I try to use natural/ Fluoride free products. I even tried to drink fluoride free water. Of course she kind of rolled her eyes. She said as a adult it doesn't harm you at all. I explained that Harvard Medical school did a study on it and that they proved there were several side effects from using it, which included lower I.Q.
I seriously doubt she believed me... So far I've used one treatment of it, because I had to do something when I got home. So In essence, what other product can I buy and use that will treat and prevent the same things as the PerioMed she prescribed to me?

Below is a Anonymized link to the product:
Anonymize solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-ESPE-NA/dental-professionals/products/espe-catalog/~/PerioMed-0-63-Stannous-Fluoride-Oral-Rinse?N=5144762+3294846473+3294797911&rt=rud

----------


## Working Poor

Brush your teeth with food grade diatomaceous earth andfood grade peroxide. The d e is pure silica and will be to stop teeth from pitting and fill mircoscopic abrasion of the enamle the peroxide will help to kill bacteria over growth and help remove stains.

----------


## presence

Always put your teeth to bed happy!





http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Life-...ds=birch+sugar


I brush my teeth very well once daily before bed with nothing but baking soda. 
 I floss 2x weekly and dental pick every other week. 

*Instead of "conventional flouride" mouth wash, after I brush, I rinse, then...
I suck on about 1/4 teaspoon of birch sugar and go to bed without rinsing. * 


No cavities in our family.


More info:

http://seamist.hubpages.com/hub/Remi...tooth-cavities



I also recommend a mineral supplement if you're having any tooth decay issues.  
I like Solaray mega multi mineral and Natural Vitality Natural Calm w/ Calcium.  
*

Teeth feel happy after birch sugar.*

----------


## Working Poor

Brush your teeth with food grade diatomaceous earth andfood grade 3% hydrogen peroxide. The d e is pure silica and will be to stop teeth from pitting and fill mircoscopic abrasion of the enamle the peroxide will help to kill bacteria over growth and help remove stains.For gosh sakes stop eating and drinking sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and all artifical sweeteners. Eat only fruits if you want something sweet. Your body makes it own dna brand of sugar if you will let. Americans eat way to much sweetener and it needs to be stopped it is causing so much damage to peoples health.

----------


## V4Vendetta

> Brush your teeth with food grade diatomaceous earth andfood grade peroxide. The d e is pure silica and will be to stop teeth from pitting and fill mircoscopic abrasion of the enamle the peroxide will help to kill bacteria over growth and help remove stains.For gosh sakes stop eating and drinking sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and all artifical sweeteners. Eat only fruits if you want something sweet. Your body makes it own dna brand of sugar if you will let. Americans eat way to much sweetener and it needs to be stopped it is causing so much damage to peoples health.


Can you provide a link to the product you are describing?

----------


## eduardo89

> She said as a adult it doesn't harm you at all. I explained that Harvard Medical school did a study on it and that they proved there were several side effects from using it, which included lower I.Q.


I commented on this study in another thread:




> All the data from the report came from studies done in China. If you look at the actual report not just the summary you linked to, you'll see there are many other factors that could account for the lower IQ, such as high levels of pollution from coal power plants, high levels of heavy metals and ofher toxic substances in the water (arsenic, lead, mercury, etc.), fluoride concentrations several times higher than found in properly fluoridated drinking water, and other factors...

----------


## donnay

Sodium Fluoride is a toxic waste--period.  You should not use it.  Don't forget that when you swish your mouth with sodium fluoride you get it in your blood stream much faster when it gets under your tongue--Sublingually.

Lot's of independent studies show that it hurts the pineal gland, thyroid and kidneys.  In other studies it shows it causes bone cancer especially in males.


Sources:
http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/
http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/fluoridation.htm
http://www.whale.to/b/null.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fl...#ixzz24rIgVY5b
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/ntp05/
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/...o-1-cause.html
http://www.zmescience.com/research/s...ers-iq-431434/

----------


## V4Vendetta

Can anyone provide information about a substitute?
If so can you provide a link for said substitute?

----------


## donnay

> Can anyone provide information about a substitute?
> If so can you provide a link for said substitute?


Xylitol products.

Sources:
http://ultimateoralhealthguide.com/2...ting-cavities/
http://www.healingteethnaturally.com...ng-caries.html
http://healthinessbox.com/tag/tooth-enamel/
http://www.xylitolcanada.com/xylitol-health-benefits/


*Xlear Spry Toothpaste without Flouride*
http://www.vitacost.com/xlear-spry-t...permint-4-oz-2

*Xlear Spry Xylitol Dental Defense System® Oral Rinse Clear Sugar Free* 
http://www.vitacost.com/xlear-spry-x...ear-sugar-free

----------


## presence

> Can anyone provide information about a substitute?
> If so can you provide a link for said substitute?





http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Life-...ds=birch+sugar
http://seamist.hubpages.com/hub/Remi...tooth-cavities




> Xylitol is a natural compound that is found in many fruits and  vegetables although it is usually derived from birch/beech trees and  corncobs.
> 
> Numerous studies have shown that xylitol reduces tooth decay.











1/4 teaspoon before bed after brushing teeth.  Don't spit.  Try not to swallow too quick.

----------


## Working Poor

Look uo food grade distomaceous earth

and food grade hydrogen peroxide lots of stuff will come up about it. I buy mine at the health food store.

----------


## eduardo89

> Look uo food grade distomaceous earth
> 
> and food grade hydrogen peroxide lots of stuff will come up about it. I buy mine at the health food store.


The listerine I use has hydrogen peroxide. It also has fluoride.

----------


## donnay

> The listerine I use has hydrogen peroxide. It also has fluoride toxic waste.


FIFY

----------


## eduardo89

> FIFY

----------


## donnay

> 



You work for ALCOA?

There is more than sufficient independent scientific evidence that shows that Sodium Fluoride is a toxic waste.

----------


## V4Vendetta

Cool... Thx for the info!!!

----------


## dannno

I recommend a 50/50 solution of water and hydrogen peroxide and some xylitol mouthwash.

----------


## dannno

I also had a really good experience with oil pulling.

----------


## Fox McCloud

It's just a mouth rinse, you're not consuming it (if you are, then yes, you're going to have issues); rinsing, then spitting it back out; what little is in your mouth provides no harm to you, but does a lot to help reduce the rate at which cavities form.

It's like Hydrogen Peroxide---it's good for particular uses, but consuming it is bad...just a mouth watch, varnish, gel, etc? That's fine; you're not consuming it.

----------


## donnay

> It's just a mouth rinse, you're not consuming it (if you are, then yes, you're going to have issues); rinsing, then spitting it back out; what little is in your mouth provides no harm to you, but does a lot to help reduce the rate at which cavities form.
> 
> It's like Hydrogen Peroxide---it's good for particular uses, but consuming it is bad...just a mouth watch, varnish, gel, etc? That's fine; you're not consuming it.



Look up the term sublingual.

----------


## V4Vendetta

> Look up the term sublingual.


I agree

----------


## presence

> And the Admin needs to fix the title of this thread!!!


I'm not sure of the time limit but if you click "go advanced" when editing the op you can change it yourself in the first 24-72 hours.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Look up the term sublingual.


Even if this was a point (keep in mind, that not everything gets into the blood-stream sublingually very well), it just means that varnish and/or the gum gel would be better options than a mouth rinse.

From what I can gather, flouride isn't very conducive to sublingual absorbtion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2918136

----------


## donnay

> Even if this was a point (keep in mind, that not everything gets into the blood-stream sublingually very well), it just means that varnish and/or the gum gel would be better options than a mouth rinse.
> 
> From what I can gather, flouride isn't very conducive to sublingual absorbtion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2918136



So you stop at one study?  Come to your conclusion--case closed, huh?  It is not naturally occurring fluoride it is a toxic waste!  

Why are we told to brush our teeth twice to three times daily for 3 minutes at a time to get a full dose of the toxic waste called sodium fluoride?  Yet on the toothpaste tube it says call poison control if swallowed more than a dime size.

Makes my head hurt to see all the cognitive dissonance around here.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yet on the toothpaste tube it says call poison control if swallowed more than a dime size.


Since 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required manufacturers to print warning labels on tubes of fluoride toothpaste sold in the U.S.

The warning is put to protect children who are vulnerable to fluoride poisoning. Have you noticed how it says to only use a pea-sized amount when brushing children's teeth? Have you noticed how the poison control warning is right where it talks about children under 6? 

An adult would need to eat more than 5 tubes of regular toothpaste to get intoxicated. Children much less. That is why the warning is there. 

You just love to scaremonger, though.

----------


## presence

> Since 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required manufacturers to print warning labels on tubes of fluoride toothpaste sold in the U.S.
> 
> The warning is put to protect children who are vulnerable to fluoride poisoning. Have you noticed how it says to only use a pea-sized amount when brushing children's teeth? Have you noticed how the poison control warning is right where it talks about children under 6? 
> 
> An adult would need to eat more than 5 tubes of regular toothpaste to get intoxicated. Children much less. That is why the warning is there. 
> 
> You just love to scaremonger, though.




Funny... no warnings on the side of my birch sugar.  

No cavities in my family either.

----------


## AFPVet

Use a birch based xylitol toothpaste/soap. Some dentists are starting to pull sodium fluoride treatments and are using/recommending xylitol in place of fluoride.

----------


## donnay

> Since 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required manufacturers to print warning labels on tubes of fluoride toothpaste sold in the U.S.
> 
> The warning is put to protect children who are vulnerable to fluoride poisoning. Have you noticed how it says to only use a pea-sized amount when brushing children's teeth? Have you noticed how the poison control warning is right where it talks about children under 6? 
> 
> An adult would need to eat more than 5 tubes of regular toothpaste to get intoxicated. Children much less. That is why the warning is there. 
> 
> You just love to scaremonger, though.


So big shot how much are the children getting when they drink six 8 ounce glasses of fluoridated water a day?  How much are the children getting when they eat produce that was watered with fluoridated water?  How much are the children getting when they bathe in the fluoridated water?


Got to post this one more time--to drive the point home:



"*DANGEREOUS POISON - Toxic by Ingesting*"   That's not me saying that!

The list goes on and on...  I am not trying to scare anyone, I am trying to make them aware and help them step out of the box and think for themselves!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Use a birch based xylitol toothpaste/soap. Some dentists are starting to pull sodium fluoride treatments and are using/recommending xylitol in place of fluoride.


Just be careful not to let your pets get into it.

----------


## AFPVet

> Just be careful not to let your pets get into it.


Yep... it's just like cacao to pets... toxic.

----------


## eduardo89

> So big shot how much are the children getting when they drink six 8 ounce glasses of fluoridated water a day?  How much are the children getting when they eat produce that was watered with fluoridated water?  How much are the children getting when they bathe in the fluoridated water?


Fluoridated drinking water contains ~0.5mg/liter. 6x8 ounces = 1.4 liters, so they get about 0.7 milligrams of fluoride a day. The lethal dose for an adult is around 10 grams...which is the equivalent of 20,000 liters per day of fluoridated drinking water. 

And again, sodium flouride is rarely used to fluoridate drinking water in the US.

----------


## presence

> Fluoridated drinking water contains ~0.5g/liter. 6x8 ounces = 1.4 liters, 
> 
> so they get about 0.7 grams of fluoride a day. 
> 
> 
> The lethal dose for an adult is around 10 grams...which is the equivalent of 20,000 liters per day of fluoridated drinking water. 
> 
> And again, sodium flouride is rarely used to fluoridate drinking water in the US.



0.7 grams of flouride daily huh?   You're math is off boss.


Nearly 100% flouride by weight... 3 daily doses of *Prozac* *only* contains 150mg; 0.15 grams.

----------


## eduardo89

> 0.7 grams of flouride daily huh?   You're math is off boss.
> 
> Nearly 100% flouride by weight... 3 daily doses of Prozac only contains 150mg; 0.15 grams.


Yes, you're right. I meant 0.7 *milli*grams, not grams. I was eating while I posted and a bit distracted. 

Fluoridated drinking water contains ~0.5*m*g per liter.

----------


## donnay

> Fluoridated drinking water contains ~0.5g/liter. 6x8 ounces = 1.4 liters, so they get about 0.7 grams of fluoride a day. The lethal dose for an adult is around 10 grams...which is the equivalent of 20,000 liters per day of fluoridated drinking water. 
> 
> And again, sodium flouride is rarely used to fluoridate drinking water in the US.



Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is commonly used for water fluoridation.  This form of fluoride is a toxic liquid by-product, acquired by scrubbing the chimney stacks of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. Other names for it are hexafluorosilicic, hexafluosilicic, hydrofluosilicic, and silicofluoric acid.  The CDC approximates that 95% of our water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid. (http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact...dditives.htm#1)

Source:
http://fluoridedetective.com/types-of-fluoride/


More info on how it does more harm then good:
http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm

----------


## donnay

> 0.7 grams of flouride daily huh?   You're math is off boss.
> 
> 
> Nearly 100% flouride by weight... 3 daily doses of *Prozac* *only* contains 150mg; 0.15 grams.



Good catch.  +rep

----------


## eduardo89

> Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is commonly used for water fluoridation.


*Fluoride Additives Are Not Different From Natural Fluoride*

Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as FSA or sodium fluoride. Two recent scientific studies listed below demonstrate that the same fluoride ion is present in naturally occurring fluoride or fluoride drinking water additives and that no intermediates or other products were observed at pH levels as low as 3.5. In addition, fluoride metabolism is not affected differently by the chemical compounds nor are they affected by whether the fluoride is present naturally or artificially.

The ionic speciation study conducted in 2006 mentioned previously (Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Re-examination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by fluoride NMR and pH measurement. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:8:2572)
The pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride was studied by a 2008 study (G.M. Whitford, F.C. Sampaio, C.S. Pinto, A.G. Maria, V.E.S. Cardoso, M.A.R. Buzalaf, Pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride: Lack of effect of chemical compound, Archives of Oral Biology, 53 (2008) 1037–1041).

----------


## Fox McCloud

> So you stop at one study?  Come to your conclusion--case closed, huh?  It is not naturally occurring fluoride it is a toxic waste!


It's a fairly simple experiment that examines how well its sublingually metabolized---and the study showed that it's not metabolized well, at all, by that action, meaning what little is in the mouthwash and for the duration its there, you're not going to get much, at all. In the example of the mouth wash, it's 0.12% flouride ion...using my fuzzy math and the instructions listed on the bottle, it seems that a single rinsing contains about 4.25 milligrams of flouride...so that comes out to be 0.6375 milligrams possibly metabolized sublingually...so the amounts are infinitesimally small.....though I definitely don't recommend swallowing the stuff =p




> Why are we told to brush our teeth twice to three times daily for 3 minutes at a time to get a full dose of the toxic waste called sodium fluoride?  Yet on the toothpaste tube it says call poison control if swallowed more than a dime size.


Its a way to cover their butts so there's no repercussions; depending on how much toothpaste you use, the amount of flouride ranges from around 0.3mg up to 2.25 mg (pea size up to a full strip). 

The amount of flouride needed to poison yourself or have the beginnings of flourosis is way higher than the few milligrams that would be metabolized sublingually.

Random fact, did you know that there's lot of water that's been naturally flouridated? Not by man or any organization, it just happens that way, and the parts per million or mg rating? 5 (way more than the 0.7-1.2 that cities put in their own water). How many cases of osteoscleros (ultra mild flourosis with no harmful effects) cases were there? 23 in a 170,000 survey. In drinking water with 10 parts per million (wayyyy above recommended guidelines)? Only 5 cases of skeletal flourosis have been reported in the past 35 years due to this amount of intake on a consistent basis.




> Makes my head hurt to see all the cognitive dissonance around here.


How is it cognitive dissonance? I'm not a chemist nor a doctor; I don't have to go far to look up how toxic this stuff is or estimate how much is in drinking water, toothpaste, or flouride treatments---and the amounts just doesn't add up to a level high enough to warrant toxicity or negative side-effects.

----------


## eduardo89

Very good post Fox! +rep

----------


## donnay

> It's a fairly simple experiment that examines how well its sublingually metabolized---and the study showed that it's not metabolized well, at all, by that action, meaning what little is in the mouthwash and for the duration its there, you're not going to get much, at all. In the example of the mouth wash, it's 0.12% flouride ion...using my fuzzy math and the instructions listed on the bottle, it seems that a single rinsing contains about 4.25 milligrams of flouride...so that comes out to be 0.6375 milligrams possibly metabolized sublingually...so the amounts are infinitesimally small.....though I definitely don't recommend swallowing the stuff =p



So you do not recommend swallowing the stuff--yet it is in many people's water supplies in their home.  





> The amount of flouride needed to poison yourself or have the beginnings of flourosis is way higher than the few milligrams that would be metabolized sublingually.


Along with the recommended eight 8 ozs. glasses of water a day, and shower/bathe daily in it too?  That goes for children and adults equally?  The problem I have with this is, if I want *Fluorosilicic acid (a toxic waste)* because I believe it is good for my teeth, like all the junk science tells me, then it should be up to me to put it in my water not the government.





> Random fact, did you know that there's lot of water that's been naturally flouridated? Not by man or any organization, it just happens that way, and the parts per million or mg rating? 5 (way more than the 0.7-1.2 that cities put in their own water). How many cases of osteoscleros (ultra mild flourosis with no harmful effects) cases were there? 23 in a 170,000 survey. In drinking water with 10 parts per million (wayyyy above recommended guidelines)? Only 5 cases of skeletal flourosis have been reported in the past 35 years due to this amount of intake on a consistent basis.


I am very well aware of naturally occurring fluoride--again it is not *Fluorosilicic acid (a toxic waste).*  I have a reverse osmosis because of it.   I had my well tested and it tested quite high in naturally occurring fluoride.  I replace my minerals with plant derived minerals daily.





> Fluorosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry and is heavily contaminated with toxins and heavy metals (including the cancerous arsenic, lead and cadmium) and radioactive materials. This substance is the waste residue from the superphosphate fertilizer industry, and about 70 to 75 percent of this stuff comes from the Cargill fertilizer manufacturing company.
> 
> Dr. J. William Hirzy, EPA scientist, is reported to have said, “If the stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant, if it gets into a lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing!”


Source:
http://energyfanatics.com/2011/02/23...rinking-water/

----------


## eduardo89

> So you do not recommend swallowing the stuff--yet it is in many people's water supplies in their home.


He said he doesn't recommend swallowing mouth wash. 




> Along with the recommended eight 8 ozs. glasses of water a day, and shower/bathe daily in it too?


64 ounces = 1.9 liters. Fluoridated water has around 0.5-0.7 mg/liter,so that would give us 0.95-1.33 mg of fluoride per day, or about 0.0095-0.0133% of the lethal dose of 10mg. 

At such low concentrations fluoride has no adverse effects on health and actually has positive effects on teeth.




> *Fluorosilicic acid (a toxic waste)*


Nice scaremongering.

It is a valuable co-product derived from the production of fertilizer. It is not derived from pesticide, rodenticide or nuclear power production as claimed by anti-fluoride scaremongers.




> is heavily contaminated with toxins and heavy metals (including the cancerous arsenic, lead and cadmium) and radioactive materials.


That is just a flat out lie.

----------


## donnay

> He said he doesn't recommend swallowing mouth wash. 
> 
> 
> 
> 64 ounces = 1.9 liters. Fluoridated water has around 0.5-0.7 mg/liter,so that would give us 0.95-1.33 mg of fluoride per day, or about 0.0095-0.0133% of the lethal dose of 10mg. 
> 
> At such low concentrations fluoride has no adverse effects on health and actually has positive effects on teeth.
> 
> 
> ...




Love how you debate.  "That is a flat out lie." nyah. nyah. nyah.  

*CDC Discusses Fluoridation Chemicals*

*After many months of waiting, Thomas Reeves, the CDC’s water engineer responsible for overseeing the US fluoridation program, has responded to questions about the chemicals used in fluoridating water.

One interesting concession made by Reeves in this letter is that ALL fluoridation chemicals, INCLUDING sodium fluoride, are waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry.*

Here’s Reeves’ letter.

Paul Connett

The Manufacture of Fluoride Chemicals

A number of questions have been raised about the fluoride chemicals used in water fluoridation.

This communication will attempt to respond to those concerns.

All of the fluoride chemicals used in the U.S. for water fluoridation, sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid, are byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The manufacturing process produces two byproducts: (1) a solid, calcium sulfate (sheetrock, CaSo4); and (2) the gases, hydrofluoric acid (HF) and silicon terafluoride (SiF4). A simplified explanation of this manufacturing process follows: Apatite rock, a calcium mineral found in central Florida, is ground up and treated with sulfuric acid, producing phosphoric acid and the two byproducts, calcium sulfate and the two gas emissions. Those gases are captured by product recovery units (scrubbers) and condensed into 23% fluorosilicic acid. Sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate are made from this acid.

The question of toxicity, purity, and risk to humans from the addition of fluoride chemicals to the drinking water sometimes arises. Almost all of over 40 water treatment chemicals that may be used at the water plant are toxic to humans in their concentrated form, e.g., chlorine gas and the fluoride chemicals are no exception. Added to the drinking water in very small amounts, the fluoride chemicals dissociate virtually 100% into their various components (ions) and are very stable, safe, and non-toxic.

Opponents of water fluoridation have argued that the silicofluorides do not completely dissociate under conditions of normal water treatment and thus may cause health problems. To counter these claims, the basic chemistry of this dissociation has been carefully reviewed. Scientists at the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CDC epidemiologists have examined the research that opponents of water fluoridation cite. Both groups have concluded that these charges are not credible.

The claim is sometimes made that no health studies exist on the silicofluoride chemicals used in water fluoridation. That is correct. We, the scientific community, do not study health effects of concentrated chemicals as put into water, we study the health effects of the treated water, i.e., what those chemicals become: fluoride ion, silicates and the hydrogen ion. The health effects of fluoride have been analyzed by literally thousands of studies over 50 years and have been found to be safe and effective in reducing tooth decay. The EPA has not set any Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for the silicates as there is no know health concerns for them at the low concentrations found in drinking water. Of course, the hydrogen ion is merely a measurement of the pH of the water.

Concern has been raised about the impurities in the fluoride chemicals. The American Water Works Association (AWWA), a well-respected water supply industry association, sets standards for all chemicals used in the water treatment plant, including fluoride chemicals. The AWWA standards are ANSI/AWWA B701-99 (sodium fluoride), (ANSI/AWWA B702-99 (sodium fluorosilicate) and ANSI/AWWA B703-00 (fluorosilicic acid). Also, the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) sets standards and does product certification for products used in the water industry, including fluoride chemicals. ANSI/NSF Standard 60 sets standards for purity and provides testing and certification for the fluoride chemicals. Standard 60 was developed by NSF and a consortium of associations, including AWWA and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI),. Standard 60 provides for product quality and safety assurance that aims to prevent the addition of harmful levels of contaminants from water treatment chemicals. More than 40 states have laws or regulations requiring product compliance with Standard 60. NSF tests the fluoride chemicals for the 11 regulated metal compounds that have an EPA MCL. In order for a product [for example, fluorosilicic acid] to meet certification standards, regulated metal contaminants must be present at the tap [in the home] at a concentration of less than the percent of the MCL when added to drinking water at the recommended maximum use level. EPA has not set any MCL for the silicates as there is no know health concerns, but Standard 60 has a Maximum Allowable Level (MAL) of 16 mg/L [for sodium silicates as corrosion control agents] primarily for turbidity reasons. NSF tests have shown the silicates in the water samples to be well below these levels.

Arsenic, according to NSF tests, had an average of 0.43 ug/L (parts per billion) in the drinking water attributable to the fluoride chemical. Opflow, a monthly magazine from the AWWA, has found the arsenic levels in the finished water from the fluorosilicic acid to be 0.245ug/L [Opflow, Vol 26, No. 10, October, 2000]. The NSF Standard 60 has a Maximum Allowable Level (MAL) of 2.5 ug/L and EPA has a MCL of 50 ug/L, although they have proposed to lower their MCL to 5 ug/L. As you can see arsenic is less than 1/10th of even the proposed EPA MCL. Finally, tests by NSF and other independent testing laboratories have shown no detectable levels of radionuclides in product samples of fluoride chemicals. There is no evidence that any of the known impurities in the fluoride chemicals have failed to meet any of these standards.

Opponents of water fluoridation have sometimes charged that “industrial grade fluoride” chemicals are used at the water plant instead of pharmaceutical grade chemicals. All the standards of AWWA, ANSI, and NSF apply to these industrial grade fluoride chemicals to ensure they are safe. Pharmaceutical grade fluoride compounds are not appropriate for water fluoridation, they are used in the formulation of prescription drugs.

Finally, it is sometimes alleged that the fluoride from natural sources, like calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially”, such as from the fluoride chemicals presently used. There is no difference.

There is no reason to change the opinion of CDC that water fluoridation is safe and effective.

Source:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/ifin-230/

----------


## eduardo89

> Love how you debate.  "That is a flat out lie." nyah. nyah. nyah.


Well it is a flat out lie. But I love how you debate, with distortions, faulty science, and scaremongering. Just like in this thread you scaremonger with red font and call fluorosilicic acid a 'toxic waste product' and do it in red lettering, when it actually isn't. It's a co-product of fertilizer production, not a waste product. It is not toxic in the doses used in water fluoridation, nor does it contain radioactive materials.




> *CDC Discusses Fluoridation Chemicals*
> 
> *After many months of waiting, Thomas Reeves, the CDC’s water engineer responsible for overseeing the US fluoridation program, has responded to questions about the chemicals used in fluoridating water.
> 
> One interesting concession made by Reeves in this letter is that ALL fluoridation chemicals, INCLUDING sodium fluoride, are waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry.*
> 
> Here’s Reeves’ letter.
> 
> Paul Connett
> ...



Thank you for finally conceding that water fluoridation poses no health risks.

----------


## donnay

> Well it is a flat out lie. But I love how you debate, with distortions, faulty science, and scaremongering. Just like in this thread you scaremonger with red font and call fluorosilicic acid a 'toxic waste product' and do it in red lettering, when it actually isn't. It's a co-product of fertilizer production, not a waste product. It is not toxic in the doses used in water fluoridation, nor does it contain radioactive materials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally conceding that water fluoridation poses no health risks.



I didn't concede to anything I was just posting a letter from the CDC spewing the same lies they always spew.  It was interesting that CDC admitted to: 




> *All of the fluoride chemicals used in the U.S. for water fluoridation, sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid, are byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry.*



by′-prod`uct(n.)
1.  a secondary or incidental product, as in a process of manufacture.

2.  the result of another action.

Category: Common Vocabulary





> *Those who had visions of sterile white laboratories when they voted for fluoride weren’t thinking of fluorosilicic acid. Improbable as this sounds, much of it is recovered from the scrubbing solution that scours toxins from smokestacks at phosphate fertilizer plants. Water fluoridation has turned a tremendous hazardous-waste disposal expense into a multimillion-dollar profit for fertilizer manufacturers.*


Source:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/whats-in-the-water/




> Fluoride Proponents Never Actually Tested "the Real Thing"
> 
> 
> Part of the difficulty when discussing water fluoridation is that many do not realize that the fluoride you find in drugs, for example, while harmful, is not quite as bad as what's being used for water fluoridation.  The fluoride added to your drinking water is not pharmaceutical grade. 
> 
> It's a toxic industrial waste product.
> 
> Deepening the deception is the fact that none of the studies on fluoride actually used the far more toxic hydrofluorosilicic acid that is added to the water supply. Rather they use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, so the health hazards are likely FAR worse than any study has so far discerned.


Source:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...de-part-1.aspx





Two recent studies show elevated lead in children's blood stream are a concern.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/dartmouth-2001/

----------


## eduardo89

> I didn't concede to anything I was just posting a letter from the CDC spewing the same lies they always spew.  It was interesting that CDC admitted to:
> 
> by′-prod`uct(n.)
> 1.  a secondary or incidental product, as in a process of manufacture.
> 
> 2.  the result of another action.


It's not much of an admission if it's common knowledge.

And by-product doesn't mean it's bad nor does it mean it's waste. Mineral oils are a byproduct of petroleum refining. Does that mean they're bad and waste? No, it means that in the process of creating one product we get other products as well.

----------


## donnay

> It's not much of an admission if it's common knowledge.
> 
> And by-product doesn't mean it's bad nor does it mean it's waste. Mineral oils are a byproduct of petroleum refining. Does that mean they're bad and waste? No, it means that in the process of creating one product we get other products as well.



You keep on going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.  

I personally, avoid mineral oil/petroleum jelly and petroleum by-products as much as possible.  So that is a bad example. They are not healthy for you.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> So you do not recommend swallowing the stuff--yet it is in many people's water supplies in their home.


Don't twist my words, please, if there's any thing I dislike in a debate its this. My statement of not recommending to swallow the "stuff" is in relation to the mouthwash, as Eduardo stated. The reason why is because the flouride concentrations are high in it, enough that just having it in your mouth is fine, but swallowing it whole? Not a good idea.






> Along with the recommended eight 8 ozs. glasses of water a day, and shower/bathe daily in it too?  That goes for children and adults equally?  The problem I have with this is, if I want *Fluorosilicic acid (a toxic waste)* because I believe it is good for my teeth, like all the junk science tells me, then it should be up to me to put it in my water not the government.


Even if we assume the worst case (1.2 mg per liter concentration), then double the amount to factor in your claims of it being in the food supply and exposure to water via other means (I find doubling it to be an awfully liberal estimate), this is only 3.36 mg daily intake. People who regularly consume 5 mg a day exhibit no negative side effects and the vast vast vast vast vast majority of those who consume 10 mg a day have no negative side effects (only 5 cases in the past _35 years_), so  you'll be fine.

I dunno why you call it "junk science" either; this isn't just one organization making these claims or a small handful, it ranges from the CDC, FDA, and EPA to the ADA, AMA, and water treatment organizations.

As for your child fears? That's why they specifically have children's toothpaste and recommend much lower amounts for them and why they make children's flouride mouth washes (with lower flouride parts per million); it's well understood children can't tolerate as much flouride, so when products are made for them, the quantities are adjusted accordingly.

No offense, Donnay, but you're really moving the goal-posts in this argument =/ I know you're concerned about it, but at the same time too, you seem to have no interest in in the validity of any of the articles, data, or arguments made--you just believe that flouride is bad, and anything that runs contrary to this you ignore---then you just divert to it being flourosilicic acid. On that note, what's the big deal about it being a fertilizer creation byproduct? If/when we ever have hydrogen cars, water will be produced from them and it could hypothetically be collected for drinking---saying that it's not safe or toxic or just labelling it as a byproduct and ignoring it because its such is nonsensical--chemically, its still water.

----------


## donnay

> Don't twist my words, please, if there's any thing I dislike in a debate its this. My statement of not recommending to swallow the "stuff" is in relation to the mouthwash, as Eduardo stated. The reason why is because the flouride concentrations are high in it, enough that just having it in your mouth is fine, but swallowing it whole? Not a good idea.


I am not twisting your words.  I simply making the connection that high concentration in mouth wash is bad to swallow but swallowing eight 8 ounces of fluoridated water is okay?  How about bathing in it everyday too?  Okay?  Does the same amounts apply to everyone across the board--like children and adults?  This is the information that seems too sketchy to me.  





> I dunno why you call it "junk science" either; this isn't just one organization making these claims or a small handful, it ranges from the CDC, FDA, and EPA to the ADA, AMA, and water treatment organizations.


Our government has been hijacked, by extension these agencies have been too.  There is an agenda, and if you are not aware of it, I cannot help you, you need to do your own research as I have done.  There is enough documentation on how fluoridation makes people docile.  Fluoridation was used in concentration camps.  Don't believe me, look it up for yourself.

What you're missing is the blanket medication of the masses with an industrial waste.  This toxin once introduced into your body through the mouth, or the skin while bathing, into the lungs by breathing the water vapor while taking a hot shower or steam-bath, is CUMULATIVE.  Over time it builds up, as fluorosis of teeth, and bones, of nerve tissues, muscle, and cartilage tissue...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I am not twisting your words.  I simply making the connection that high concentration in mouth wash is bad to swallow but swallowing eight 8 ounces of fluoridated water is okay?  How about bathing in it everyday too?  Okay?  Does the same amounts apply to everyone across the board--like children and adults?  This is the information that seems too sketchy to me.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our government has been hijacked, by extension these agencies have been too.  There is an agenda, and if you are not aware of it, I cannot help you, you need to do your own research as I have done.  There is enough documentation on how fluoridation makes people docile.  Fluoridation was used in concentration camps.  Don't believe me, look it up for yourself.
> 
> What you're missing is the blanket medication of the masses with an industrial waste.  This toxin once introduced into your body through the mouth, or the skin while bathing, into the lungs by breathing the water vapor while taking a hot shower or steam-bath, is CUMULATIVE.  Over time it builds up, as fluorosis of teeth, and bones, of nerve tissues, muscle, and cartilage tissue...


Flouride only accumulates in the bones and teeth.  Its life in the blood and soft tissues is only about three to ten hours. It does not accumulate in muscles or cartilage or nervous system tissues.  It is not absorbed through the skin and breathing during a shower will have no significant impact on flouride in your body. 

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientifi...n/en/l-3/2.htm



> In humans and animals, ingested fluoride occurs as hydrogen fluoride (HF) in the acidic environment of the stomach and is effectively absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, although there is no proved absorption from the oral cavity. Peak plasma levels are typically seen within 30–60 minutes after ingestion. Highly soluble fluoride compounds, such as NaF present in tablets, aqueous solutions and toothpaste are almost completely absorbed, whereas compounds with lower solubility, such as CaF2, MgF2, and AlF3, are less well absorbed. Ingestion of fluoride with milk or a diet high in calcium will decrease fluoride absorption.
> 
> *Dermal absorption* 
> 
> No experimental data on the extent of dermal absorption of fluoride from dilute aqueous solutions are available. As fluoride is an ion it is expected to have low membrane permeability and *limited absorption through the skin from dilute aqueous solutions at near neutral pH (such as water used for bathing and showering). This exposure pathway is unlikely to contribute to the fluoride body burden.*
> 
> *Inhalation* 
> 
> No systematic experimental data on the absorption of fluoride after inhalation are available. A few older occupational studies have shown uptake of fluoride in heavily exposed workers from fluoride-containing dusts, but* it is unlikely that inhalation exposure will contribute significantly to the body burden of fluoride in the general population.*
> ...

----------


## Fox McCloud

> I am not twisting your words.  I simply making the connection that high concentration in mouth wash is bad to swallow but swallowing eight 8 ounces of fluoridated water is okay?  How about bathing in it everyday too?  Okay?  Does the same amounts apply to everyone across the board--like children and adults?  This is the information that seems too sketchy to me.


Seriously, Donnay, seriously? You either didn't read hardly anything I said, are willfully ignorant, or you are twisting what I said. Swallowing the mouth wash is bad because it contains a high amount of flouride if you swallow it (4.25 mg) again, what little is metabolized sublingually (0.6mg) is so low, it's not worth worry about. I'm not suggesting you go take as much flouride as possible here, I'm just suggesting that that the levels of average daily intake is nothing to worry about. I already covered you hypothetical situation of drinking/consuming 2.8 liters of water per day, and the numbers are still ridiculously low...and, as I suspected (confirmed by Zippy, danke), that is a liberal estimate as oral consumption is the only way it can accumulate. My ultra liberal estimate was 3.36 mg per day...didn't you see the study that said those who regularly consume 5mg per day had zero negative side-effects? And only 5 cases of flourosis were reported in the past 35 years of people who consumed 10 mg per daily?  The amount you consume is well below this under the worst of conditions (1.2 mg/liter 2.8 liters consumed per day).

Didn't you see where I specifically mentioned children and flouride? It's well known they can't handle as much, so the toothpaste recommendations are different and the mouthwashes have lower parts per million. Aside from that, what you get in water is so so so low, it's inconsequential.







> Our government has been hijacked, by extension these agencies have been too.  There is an agenda, and if you are not aware of it, I cannot help you, you need to do your own research as I have done.  There is enough documentation on how fluoridation makes people docile.  Fluoridation was used in concentration camps.  Don't believe me, look it up for yourself.


I have, and its disputed by Holocaust historians and anti-flouride people alike: http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...ude-nazi-myth/ I don't even know where the notion that flouride makes you docile comes from...prozac and some other SSRIs are a flourine compound, but they're not the same as what you put on your teeth (AFAIK).




> What you're missing is the blanket medication of the masses with an industrial waste.  This toxin once introduced into your body through the mouth, or the skin while bathing, into the lungs by breathing the water vapor while taking a hot shower or steam-bath, is CUMULATIVE.  Over time it builds up, as fluorosis of teeth, and bones, of nerve tissues, muscle, and cartilage tissue...


Zippy covered this; Flouride isn't well processed by the body; the vast bulk of it is eliminated by the kidneys; some of it does permeate the stomach wall though, then bind to bones, but that's it; what little you consume is nothing...from what I can gather, they only consider 12 mg or more of daily consumption of flouride to be worth concern, and that's primarily in individuals with poor kidneys....12 mg of day is a LOT of flouride. You could swallow a full strip of toothpaste three times a day and consume 2.8 liters of water (flouridated at the high rate of 1.2 mg/L) and you still wouldn't be over that limit.

----------


## eduardo89

> I am not twisting your words.  I simply making the connection that high concentration in mouth wash is bad to swallow but swallowing eight 8 ounces of fluoridated water is okay?  How about bathing in it everyday too?  Okay?  Does the same amounts apply to everyone across the board--like children and adults?  This is the information that seems too sketchy to me.


A typical mouthwash contains 225ppm of fluoride or 225mg/liter. Mouthwash bottles instruct you to use 20ml (0.02L), so that would mean the total fluoride content of the mouthwash you use is approximately 4.5mg. Even if you swallowed this and assuming it was all absorbed by your body, it would still pose little to no negative health consequences. It is still an incredibly low amount. 

Swallowing 8 8 ounce glasses of fluoridated water contains even less fluoride. As I already posted above, 64 ounces = 1.9 liters. Fluoridated water has around 0.5-0.7 mg/liter, so that would give us 0.95-1.33 mg of fluoride per day. 

Bathing in fluoridated water has no negative health effects. The concentrations in the water are far too low for you body to absorbed any significant amount through the skin.  

And if does not build up in nerve tissue, muscle, or cartilage. And properly fluoridated water has nowhere near the concentration of fluoride to cause fluorosis of the teeth and bones.

----------


## donnay

*Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb*

SOURCE: Waste Not # 414 | September 1997 | By Chris Bryson & Joel Griffiths    


Introduction: The following article was commissioned by the Christian Science Monitor in the spring of 1997. Despite much favorable comment from editors, and full documentation, the story remains unpublished by the Monitor. By any yardstick, this report was an award-winning scoop for any national paper. The report offers a glimpse into the history of fluoride, a bio-accumulative toxic that Americans ingest every day. The authors, Griffiths and Bryson, spent more than a year on research. With the belief that the information should be withheld no longer, the authors gave their report to Waste Not, and others, with a short note: “use as you wish.”

This introduction is taken from Waste Not #414 (September 1997) where the article was first published. The article went on to be nominated as the year’s 18th most censored story in the 1998 Project Censored Series.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb*
 by Chris Bryson & Joel Griffiths

Some fifty years after the United States began adding fluoride to public water supplies to reduce cavities in children’s teeth, declassified government documents are shedding new light on the roots of that still-controversial public health measure, revealing a surprising connection between fluoride and the dawning of the nuclear age.

Today, two thirds of U.S. public drinking water is fluoridated. Many municipalities still resist the practice, disbelieving the government’s assurances of safety.

Since the days of World War II, when this nation prevailed by building the world’s first atomic bomb, U.S. public health leaders have maintained that low doses of fluoride are safe for people, and good for children’s teeth.

That safety verdict should now be re-examined in the light of hundreds of once-secret WWII documents obtained by Griffiths and Bryson –including declassified papers of the Manhattan Project, the U.S. military group that built the atomic bomb.

Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents. Massive quantities of fluoride– millions of tons– were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S atomic bomb program–both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal.

Other revelations include:

* Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide “evidence useful in litigation” against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.

* Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water–conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named “Program F,” they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel.

* The original secret version–obtained by these reporters–of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) –considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies– for reasons of national security.

* The bomb program’s fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester, site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mind-set, in which “national security” was paramount.

* The U.S. government’s conflict of interest–and its motive to prove fluoride “safe” — has not until now been made clear to the general public in the furious debate over water fluoridation since the 1950′s, nor to civilian researchers and health professionals, or journalists.

The declassified documents resonate with a growing body of scientific evidence, and a chorus of questions, about the health effects of fluoride in the environment.

Human exposure to fluoride has mushroomed since World War II, due not only to fluoridated water and toothpaste, but to environmental pollution by major industries from aluminum to pesticides: fluoride is a critical industrial chemical.

The impact can be seen, literally, in the smiles of our children. Large numbers of U.S. young people–up to 80 percent in some cities–now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure, according to the U.S. National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases.)

Less-known to the public is that fluoride also accumulates in bones –”The teeth are windows to what’s happening in the bones,” explains Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University (N.Y.). In recent years, pediatric bone specialists have expressed alarm about an increase in stress fractures among U.S. young people. Connett and other scientists are concerned that fluoride –linked to bone damage by studies since the 1930′s– may be a contributing factor. The declassified documents add urgency: much of the original proof that low-dose fluoride is safe for children’s bones came from U.S. bomb program scientists, according to this investigation.

Now, researchers who have reviewed these declassified documents fear that Cold War national security considerations may have prevented objective scientific evaluation of vital public health questions concerning fluoride.

“Information was buried,” concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990′s indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix’s results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.

During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous U.S. studies of fluoride’s effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), where an NIH panel, she says, flatly told her that “fluoride does not have central nervous system effects.”

Declassified documents of the U.S. atomic-bomb program indicate otherwise. An April 29, 1944 Manhattan Project memo reports: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…. It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor."

The memo --stamped "secret"-- is addressed to the head of the Manhattan Project's Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Colonel Warren is asked to approve a program of animal research on CNS effects: "Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure...This is important not only to protect a given individual, but also to prevent a confused workman from injuring others by improperly performing his duties."

On the same day, Colonel Warren approved the CNS research program. This was in 1944, at the height of the Second World War and the nation's race to build the world's first atomic bomb. For research on fluoride's CNS effects to be approved at such a momentous time, the supporting evidence set forth in the proposal forwarded along with the memo must have been persuasive.

The proposal, however, is missing from the files of the U.S. National Archives. "If you find the memos, but the document they refer to is missing, its probably still classified," said Charles Reeves, chief librarian at the Atlanta branch of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, where the memos were found. Similarly, no results of the Manhattan Project's fluoride CNS research could be found in the files.

After reviewing the memos, Mullenix declared herself "flabbergasted." She went on, "How could I be told by NIH that fluoride has no central nervous system effects when these documents were sitting there all the time?" She reasons that the Manhattan Project did do fluoride CNS studies --"that kind of warning, that fluoride workers might be a danger to the bomb program by improperly performing their duties--I can't imagine that would be ignored"-- but that the results were buried because they might create a difficult legal and public relations problem for the government.

The author of the 1944 CNS research proposal was Dr. Harold C. Hodge, at the time chief of fluoride toxicology studies for the University of Rochester division of the Manhattan Project. Nearly fifty years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Mullenix was introduced to a gently ambling elderly man brought in to serve as a consultant on her CNS research--Harold C. Hodge. By then Hodge had achieved status emeritus as a world authority on fluoride safety. "But even though he was supposed to be helping me," says Mullenix, "he never once mentioned the CNS work he had done for the Manhattan Project."

The "black hole" in fluoride CNS research since the days of the Manhattan Project is unacceptable to Mullenix, who refuses to abandon the issue. "There is so much fluoride exposure now, and we simply do not know what it is doing," she says. "You can't just walk away from this."

Dr. Antonio Noronha, an NIH scientific review advisor familiar with Dr. Mullenix's grant request, says her proposal was rejected by a scientific peer-review group. He terms her claim of institutional bias against fluoride CNS research "farfetched." He adds, "We strive very hard at NIH to make sure politics does not enter the picture."

Fluoride and National Security

The documentary trail begins at the height of WW2, in 1944, when a severe pollution incident occurred downwind of the E.I. du Pont du Nemours Company chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey. The factory was then producing millions of pounds of fluoride for the Manhattan project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to produce the world's first atomic bomb.

The farms downwind in Gloucester and Salem counties were famous for their high-quality produce -- their peaches went directly to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. Their tomatoes were bought up by Campbell's Soup.

But in the summer of 1943, the farmers began to report that their crops were blighted, and that "something is burning up the peach crops around here."

Poultry died after an all-night thunderstorm, they reported. Farm workers who ate the produce they had picked sometimes vomited all night and into the next day. "I remember our horses looked sick and were too stiff to work," these reporters were told by Mildred Giordano, who was a teenager at the time. Some cows were so crippled they could not stand up, and grazed by crawling on their bellies.

The account was confirmed in taped interviews, shortly before he died, with Philip Sadtler of Sadtler Laboratories of Philadelphia, one of the nation's oldest chemical consulting firms. Sadtler had personally conducted the initial investigation of the damage.

Although the farmers did not know it, the attention of the Manhattan Project and the federal government was riveted on the New Jersey incident, according to once-secret documents obtained by these reporters. After the war's end, in a secret Manhattan Project memo dated March 1, 1946, the Project's chief of fluoride toxicology studies, Harold C. Hodge, worriedly wrote to his boss Colonel Stafford L. Warren, Chief of the Medical Division, about "problems associated with the question of fluoride contamination of the atmosphere in a certain section of New Jersey. There seem to be four distinct (though related) problems," continued Hodge;
1.A question of injury of the peach crop in 1944.
2.A report of extraordinary fluoride content of vegetables grown in this area.
3.A report of abnormally high fluoride content in the blood of human individuals residing in this area.
4.A report raising the question of serious poisoning of horses and cattle in this area.

The New Jersey farmers waited until the war was over, then sued du Pont and the Manhattan Project for fluoride damage -- reportedly the first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program.

Although seemingly trivial, the lawsuits shook the government, the secret documents reveal. Under the personal direction of Manhattan Project chief Major General Leslie R.Groves, secret meetings were convened in Washington, with compulsory attendance by scores of scientists and officials from the U.S War Department, the Manhattan Project, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture and Justice Departments, the U.S Army's Chemical Warfare Service and Edgewood Arsenal, the Bureau of Standards, and du Pont lawyers. Declassified memos of the meetings reveal a secret mobilization of the full forces of the government to defeat the New Jersey farmers:

These agencies "are making scientific investigations to obtain evidence which may be used to protect the interest of the Government at the trial of the suits brought by owners of peach orchards in ... New Jersey," stated Manhattan Project Lieutenant Colonel Cooper B. Rhodes, in a memo c.c.'d to General Groves.


27 August 1945

Subject: Investigation of Crop Damage at Lower Penns Neck, New Jersey
To: The Commanding General, Army Service Forces, Pentagon Building, Washington D.C.

"At the request of the Secretary of War the Department of Agriculture has agreed to cooperate in investigating complaints of crop damage attributed... to fumes from a plant operated in connection with the Manhattan Project."

Signed, L.R. Groves, Major General U.S.

"The Department of Justice is cooperating in the defense of these suits," wrote General Groves in a Feb. 28, 1946 memo to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy.

Why the national-security emergency over a few lawsuits by New Jersey farmers? In 1946 the United States had begun full-scale production of atomic bombs. No other nation had yet tested a nuclear weapon, and the A-bomb was seen as crucial for U.S leadership of the postwar world. The New Jersey fluoride lawsuits were a serious roadblock to that strategy.

"The specter of endless lawsuits haunted the military," writes Lansing Lamont in his acclaimed book about the first atomic bomb test, "Day of Trinity."

In the case of fluoride, "If the farmers won, it would open the door to further suits, which might impede the bomb program's ability to use fluoride," said Jacqueline Kittrell, a Tennessee public interest lawyer specializing in nuclear cases, who examined the declassified fluoride documents. (Kittrell has represented plaintiffs in several human radiation experiment cases.) She added, "The reports of human injury were especially threatening, because of the potential for enormous settlements -- not to mention the PR problem."

Indeed, du Pont was particularly concerned about the "possible psychologic reaction" to the New Jersey pollution incident, according to a secret 1946 Manhattan Project memo. Facing a threat from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to embargo the region's produce because of "high fluoride content," du Pont dispatched its lawyers to the FDA offices in Washington, where an agitated meeting ensued. According to a memo sent next day to General Groves, Du Pont's lawyer argued "that in view of the pending suits...any action by the Food and Drug Administration... would have a serious effect on the du Pont Company and would create a bad public relations situation." After the meeting adjourned, Manhattan Project Captain John Davies approached the FDA's Food Division chief and "impressed upon Dr. White the substantial interest which the Government had in claims which might arise as a result of action which might be taken by the Food and Drug Administration."

There was no embargo. Instead, new tests for fluoride in the New Jersey area would be conducted -- not by the Department of Agriculture -- but by the U.S. Army's Chemical Warfare Service because "work done by the Chemical Warfare Service would carry the greatest weight as evidence if... lawsuits are started by the complainants." The memo was signed by General Groves.

Meanwhile, the public relations problem remained unresolved -- local citizens were in a panic about fluoride.

The farmer's spokesman, Willard B. Kille, was personally invited to dine with General Groves --then known as "the man who built the atomic bomb" -- at his office at the War Department on March 26, 1946. Although he had been diagnosed with fluoride poisoning by his doctor, Kille departed the luncheon convinced of the government's good faith. The next day he wrote to the general, wishing the other farmers could have been present, he said, so "they too could come away with the feeling that their interests in this particular matter were being safeguarded by men of the very highest type whose integrity they could not question."

In a subsequent secret Manhattan project memo, a broader solution to the public relations problem was suggested by chief fluoride toxicologist Harold C. Hodge. He wrote to the Medical Section chief, Col. Warren: "Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents of Salem and Gloucester counties through lectures on F toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?" Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.

The New Jersey farmers' lawsuits were ultimately stymied by the government's refusal to reveal the key piece of information that would have settled the case --how much fluoride du Pont had vented into the atmosphere during the war. "Disclosure... would be injurious to the military security of the United States," wrote Manhattan Project Major C.A Taney, Jr. The farmers were pacified with token financial settlements, according to interviews with descendants still living in the area.

"All we knew is that du Pont released some chemical that burned up all the peach trees around here," recalls Angelo Giordano, whose father James was one of the original plaintiffs. "The trees were no good after that, so we had to give up on the peaches." Their horses and cows, too, acted stiff and walked stiff, recalls his sister Mildred. "Could any of that have been the fluoride ?" she asked. (The symptoms she detailed to the authors are cardinal signs of fluoride toxicity, according to veterinary toxicologists.)

The Giordano family, too, has been plagued by bone and joint problems, Mildred adds. Recalling the settlement received by the Giordanos, Angelo told these reporters that "my father said he got about $200."

The farmers were stonewalled in their search for information, and their complaints have long since been forgotten. But they unknowingly left their imprint on history -- their claims of injury to their health reverberated through the corridors of power in Washington, and triggered intensive secret bomb-program research on the health effects of fluoride. A secret 1945 memo from Manhattan Project Lt. Col. Rhodes to General Groves stated: "Because of complaints that animals and humans have been injured by hydrogen fluoride fumes in [the New Jersey] area, although there are no pending suits involving such claims, the University of Rochester is conducting experiments to determine the toxic effect of fluoride."

Much of the proof of fluoride's safety in low doses rests on the postwar work performed by the University of Rochester, in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury.

Fluoride and the Cold War.

Delegating fluoride safety studies to the University of Rochester was not surprising. During WWII the federal government had become involved, for the first time, in large-scale funding of scientific research at government-owned labs and private colleges. Those early spending priorities were shaped by the nation's often-secret military needs.

The prestigious upstate New York college, in particular, had housed a key wartime division of the Manhattan Project, studying the health effects of the new "special materials," such as uranium, plutonium, beryllium and fluoride, being used to make the atomic bomb. That work continued after the war, with millions of dollars flowing from the Manhattan Project and its successor organization, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). (Indeed, the bomb left an indelible imprint on all U.S. science in the late 1940's and 50's. Up to 90% of federal funds for university research came from either the Defense Department or the AEC in this period, according to Noam Chomsky's 1996 book "The Cold War and the University.")

The University of Rochester medical school became a revolving door for senior bomb program scientists. Postwar faculty included Stafford Warren, the top medical officer of the Manhattan Project, and Harold Hodge, chief of fluoride research for the bomb program.

But this marriage of military secrecy and medical science bore deformed offspring. The University of Rochester's classified fluoride studies -- code- named Program F -- were conducted at its Atomic Energy Project (AEP), a top-secret facility funded by the AEC and housed in Strong Memorial Hospital. It was there that one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War took place, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. Revelation of this experiment in a Pulitzer prize-winning account by Eileen Welsome led to a 1995 U.S. Presidential investigation, and a multimillion-dollar cash settlement for victims.

Program F was not about children's teeth. It grew directly out of litigation against the bomb program and its main purpose was to furnish scientific ammunition which the government and its nuclear contractors could use to defeat lawsuits for human injury. Program F's director was none other than Harold C. Hodge, who had led the Manhattan Project investigation of alleged human injury in the New Jersey fluoride-pollution incident.

Program F's purpose is spelled out in a classified 1948 report. It reads: "To supply evidence useful in the litigation arising from an alleged loss of a fruit crop several years ago, a number of problems have been opened. Since excessive blood fluoride levels were reported in human residents of the same area, our principal effort has been devoted to describing the relationship of blood fluorides to toxic effects."

The litigation referred to, of course, and the claims of human injury were against the bomb program and its contractors. Thus, the purpose of Program F was to obtain evidence useful in litigation against the bomb program. The research was being conducted by the defendants.

The potential conflict of interest is clear. If lower dose ranges were found hazardous by Program F, it might have opened the bomb program and its contractors to lawsuits for injury to human health, as well as public outcry.

Comments lawyer Kittrell: "This and other documents indicate that the University of Rochester's fluoride research grew out of the New Jersey lawsuits and was performed in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury. Studies undertaken for litigation purposes by the defendants would not be considered scientifically acceptable today, " adds Kittrell, "because of their inherent bias to prove the chemical safe."

Unfortunately, much of the proof of fluoride's safety rests on the work performed by Program F Scientists at the University of Rochester. During the postwar period that university emerged as the leading academic center for establishing the safety of fluoride, as well as its effectiveness in reducing tooth decay, according to Dental School spokesperson William H. Bowen, MD. The key figure in this research, Bowen said, was Harold C. Hodge-- who also became a leading national proponent of fluoridating public drinking water. Program F's interest in water fluoridation was not just 'to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents,' as Hodge had earlier written. The bomb program needed human studies, as they had needed human studies for plutonium, and adding fluoride to public water supplies provided one opportunity.

The A-Bomb Program and Water Fluoridation

Bomb-program scientists played a prominent -- if unpublicized -- role in the nation's first-planned water fluoridation experiment, in Newburgh, New York. The Newburgh Demonstration Project is considered the most extensive study of the health effects of fluoridation, supplying much of the evidence that low doses are safe for children's bones, and good for their teeth.

Planning began in 1943 with the appointment of a special New York State Health Department committee to study the advisability of adding fluoride to Newburgh's drinking water. The chairman of the committee was Dr. Hodge, then chief of fluoride toxicity studies for the Manhattan Project.

Subsequent members included Henry L. Barnett, a captain in the Project's Medical section, and John W. Fertig, in 1944 with the office of Scientific Research and Development, the Pentagon group which sired the Manhattan Project. Their military affiliations were kept secret: Hodge was described as a pharmacologist, Barnett as a pediatrician. Placed in charge of the Newburgh project was David B. Ast, chief dental officer of the State Health Department. Ast had participated in a key secret wartime conference on fluoride held by the Manhattan Project, and later worked with Dr. Hodge on the Project's investigation of human injury in the New Jersey incident, according to once-secret memos.

The committee recommended that Newburgh be fluoridated. It also selected the types of medical studies to be done, and "provided expert guidance" for the duration of the experiment. The key question to be answered was: "Are there any cumulative effects -- beneficial or otherwise, on tissues and organs other than the teeth -- of long-continued ingestion of such small concentrations...?" According to the declassified documents, this was also key information sought by the bomb program, which would require long-continued exposure of workers and communities to fluoride throughout the Cold War.

In May 1945, Newburgh's water was fluoridated, and over the next ten years its residents were studied by the State Health Department. In tandem, Program F conducted its own secret studies, focusing on the amounts of fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues - key information sought by the bomb program: "Possible toxic effects of fluoride were in the forefront of consideration," the advisory committee stated. Health Department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Program F team at the University of Rochester. The samples were collected by Dr. David B. Overton, the Department's chief of pediatric studies at Newburgh.

The final report of the Newburgh Demonstration Project, published in 1956 in the Journal of the American Dental Association, concluded that "small concentrations" of fluoride were safe for U.S.citizens. The biological proof -- "based on work performed ... at the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project" -- was delivered by Dr. Hodge.

Today, news that scientists from the atomic bomb program secretly shaped and guided the Newburgh fluoridation experiment, and studied the citizen's blood and tissue samples, is greeted with incredulity.

"I'm shocked -- beyond words," said present-day Newburgh Mayor Audrey Carey, commenting on these reporters' findings. "It reminds me of the Tuskegee experiment that was done on syphilis patients down in Alabama."

As a child in the early 1950's, Mayor Carey was taken to the old firehouse on Broadway in Newburgh, which housed the Public Health Clinic. There, doctors from the Newburgh fluoridation project studied her teeth, and a peculiar fusion of two finger bones on her left hand she had been born with. Today, adds Carey, her granddaughter has white dental-fluorosis marks on her front teeth.

Mayor Carey wants answers from the government about the secret history of fluoride, and the Newburgh fluoridation experiment. "I absolutely want to pursue it," she said. "It is appalling to do any kind of experimentation and study without people's knowledge and permission."

Contacted by these reporters, the director of the Newburgh experiment, David B. Ast, says he was unaware Manhattan Project scientists were involved. "If I had known, I would have been certainly investigating why, and what the connection was," he said. Did he know that blood and placenta samples from Newburgh were being sent to bomb program researchers at the University of Rochester? "I was not aware of it," Ast replied. Did he recall participating in the Manhattan Project's secret wartime conference on fluoride in January 1944, or going to New Jersey with Dr. Hodge to investigate human injury in the du Pont case--as secret memos state? He told the reporters he had no recollection of these events.

A spokesperson for the University of Rochester Medical Center, Bob Loeb, confirmed that blood and tissue samples from Newburgh had been tested by the University's Dr. Hodge. On the ethics of secretly studying U.S citizens to obtain information useful in litigation against the A-bomb program, he said, "that's a question we cannot answer." He referred inquiries to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), successor to the Atomic Energy Commission.

A spokesperson for the DOE in Washington, Jayne Brady, confirmed that a review of DOE files indicated that a "significant reason" for fluoride experiments conducted at the University of Rochester after the war was "impending litigation between the du Pont company and residents of New Jersey areas." However, she added, "DOE has found no documents to indicate that fluoride research was done to protect the Manhattan Project or its contractors from lawsuits."

On Manhattan Project involvement in Newburgh, the spokesperson stated, "Nothing that we have suggests that the DOE or predecessor agencies -- especially the Manhattan Project -- authorized fluoride experiments to be performed on children in the 1940's."

When told that the reporters had several documents that directly tied the Manhattan Project's successor agency at the University of Rochester, the AEP, to the Newburgh experiment, the DOE spokesperson later conceded her study was confined to "the available universe" of documents. Two days later spokesperson Jayne Brady faxed a statement for clarification: "My search only involved the documents that we collected as part of our human radiation experiments project -- fluoride was not part of our research effort.

"Most significantly," the statement continued, relevant documents may be in a classified collection at the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory known as the Records Holding Task Group. "This collection consists entirely of classified documents removed from other files for the purpose of classified document accountability many years ago," and was "a rich source of documents for the human radiation experiments project," she said.

The crucial question arising from this investigation is: Were adverse health findings from Newburgh and other bomb-program fluoride studies suppressed? All AEC-funded studies had to be declassified before publication in civilian medical and dental journals. Where are the original classified versions?

The transcript of one of the major secret scientific conferences of WW2--on "fluoride metabolism"--is missing from the files of the U.S. National Archives. Participants in the conference included key figures who promoted the safety of fluoride and water fluoridation to the public after the war - Harold Hodge of the Manhattan Project, David B. Ast of the Newburgh Project, and U.S. Public Health Service dentist H.Trendley Dean, popularly known as the "father of fluoridation." "If it is missing from the files, it is probably still classified," National Archives librarians told these reporters.

A 1944 WW2 Manhattan Project classified report on water fluoridation is missing from the files of the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project, the U.S. National Archives, and the Nuclear Repository at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The next four numerically consecutive documents are also missing, while the remainder of the "MP-1500 series" is present. "Either those documents are still classified, or they've been 'disappeared' by the government," says Clifford Honicker, Executive Director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, in Knoxville, Tennessee, which provided key evidence in the public exposure and prosecution of U.S. human radiation experiments.

Seven pages have been cut out of a 1947 Rochester bomb-project notebook entitled "Du Pont litigation." "Most unusual," commented chief medical school archivist Chris Hoolihan.

Similarly, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by these authors over a year ago with the DOE for hundreds of classified fluoride reports have failed to dislodge any. "We're behind," explained Amy Rothrock, FOIA officer for the Department of Energy at their Oak Ridge operations.

Was information suppressed? These reporters made what appears to be the first discovery of the original classified version of a fluoride safety study by bomb program scientists. A censored version of this study was later published in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association. Comparison of the secret with the published version indicates that the U.S. AEC did censor damaging information on fluoride, to the point of tragicomedy.

This was a study of the dental and physical health of workers in a factory producing fluoride for the A-bomb program, conducted by a team of dentists from the Manhattan Project.

 * The secret version reports that most of the men had no teeth left. The published version reports only that the men had fewer cavities.

 * The secret version says the men had to wear rubber boots because the fluoride fumes disintegrated the nails in their shoes. The published version does not mention this.

 * The secret version says the fluoride may have acted similarly on the men's teeth, contributing to their toothlessness. The published version omits this statement.

The published version concludes that "the men were unusually healthy, judged from both a medical and dental point of view."

Asked for comment on the early links of the Manhattan Project to water fluoridation, Dr Harold Slavkin, Director of the National Institute for Dental Research, the U.S. agency which today funds fluoride research, said, "I wasn't aware of any input from the Atomic Energy Commission." Nevertheless, he insisted, fluoride's efficacy and safety in the prevention of dental cavities over the last fifty years is well-proved. "The motivation of a scientist is often different from the outcome, " he reflected. "I do not hold a prejudice about where the knowledge comes from."

After comparing the secret and published versions of the censored study, toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix commented, "This makes me ashamed to be a scientist." Of other Cold War-era fluoride safety studies, she asks, "Were they all done like this?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archival research by Clifford Honicker

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the authors :

Joel Griffiths is a medical writer in New York City, author of a book on radiation hazards and numerous articles for medical and popular publications. Joel can be contacted at 212-662-6695. Chris Bryson holds a Masters degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and has worked for the British Broadcasting Corporation, The Manchester Guardian, The Christian Science Monitor and Public Television. Chris can be contacted at 212-665-3442.


Source:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/wastenot414/

----------


## eduardo89

TLDR

This is your MO, donnay. You ignore the facts presented, change the subject with some really long copypasta, or just post outright falsehoods with no scientific backing.

You've been confronted on the fact that fluoridated water has levels of fluoride way way way way too low to do any potential damage and within the range where it provides health benefits, yet of course you ignore the facts.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> * Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide “evidence useful in litigation” against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. *The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.*


The flouride lawsuit was not related to floridated water but from a chemical accident where a huge amount was spilled. Too much salt spilled can kill crops as well and too much salt would be toxic to humans as well.  Perhaps we should ban salt?   Using links from the article provided:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/deepwater/




> *February 18, 1946*
> 
> Senator Brian McMahon, Chairman
>  Special Committee on Atomic Energy
>  United States Senate
>  Washington, D.C.
> 
> Dear Senator McMahon
> 
> ...






The article also claims that putting flouride in the water was in responce to the lawsuit "to prove it is safe".  But one problem. The lawsuit is from 1946 while flouridation started in January 1945. 




> McNeil has written one of the more complete histories of the fluoridation wars that I was able to find.* It starts on Jan. 26, 1945 when the city of Grand Rapids, Mich. became the first city to fluoridate its water supply.* It was meant to be a public health experiment, to test whether fluoridation could protect against tooth decay, especially among younger children.
> 
> It would take decades to have any results and, therefore, ”the pioneers of fluoridation were generally a cautious lot,” McNeil writes, noting that they thought “that communities should at first fluoridate only on a test-batch basis.”


The Newburgh floridation also predates the lawsuits. 




> In *May 1945,* Newburgh's water was fluoridated, and over the next ten years its residents were studied by the State Health Department.





> Indeed, du Pont was particularly concerned about the "possible psychologic reaction" to the New Jersey pollution incident, according to a *secret 1946 Manhattan Project memo.* Facing a threat from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to embargo the region's produce because of "high fluoride content," du Pont dispatched its lawyers to the FDA offices in Washington, where an agitated meeting ensued. According to a memo sent next day to General Groves, Du Pont's lawyer argued "that in view of the pending suits...any action by the Food and Drug Administration... would have a serious effect on the du Pont Company and would create a bad public relations situation." After the meeting adjourned, Manhattan Project Captain John Davies approached the FDA's Food Division chief and "impressed upon Dr. White the substantial interest which the Government had in claims which might arise as a result of action which might be taken by the Food and Drug Administration."

----------


## donnay



----------


## donnay

Eduardo,

Now I am beginning to understand why you were banned so much.  Keep the -rep's coming.  

Don't forget to salt your food.  You need that Fluoride!

----------


## eduardo89

> Eduardo,
> 
> Now I am beginning to understand why you were banned so much.  Keep the -rep's coming.  
> 
> Don't forget to salt your food.  You need that Fluoride!


You neg repped me first just now...

And I've only neg repped you twice in the past week. Both times for posting completely misleading and false data.

----------


## donnay

> You neg repped me first just now...
> 
> And I've only neg repped you twice in the past week. Both times for posting completely misleading and false data.



 

We'll just agree to disagree.  Now go on and make yourself some popcorn and don't forget to salt it _real_ good.  You need the fluoride to keep those pearly whites nice and shiny!

----------


## donnay

Fluoride is a multi-system poison. The Natural Solutions Foundation strongly opposes compulsory drugging through its addtion to the water systems of communities. We believe that this is both medically reckless and unconstitutional.

The Natural Solutions Foundation’s strongly anti-fluoride position for infants and children is now echoed by the American Dental Association (ADA) which says that children under 1 year should not be exposed to fluoride. 

Although the US supported fluoride in infant formula during the 2006 Codex Committee on Nutritiona and Foods for Special Dietary Uses meeting in Chiang Mai, Thailand which dealt with infant formula and other special purpose foods, using data provided by the Natural Solutions Foundation, South Africa pushed the restriction on fluoride in healthy infants’ formula through, despite strong US objection. 

Long a proponent of fluoridation of children’s teeth, the ADA joins the Natural Solutions Foundation in pointing out the dangers of the now-debunked toxin in infant’s bodies. 

Rather than deal with the expense of safe disposal, the mining industry created the false belief that fluoride should be added to water, toothpaste, supplements, etc. That way, mining companies make a profit instead of taking a loss on fluoride which is expensive to dispose of according to EPA regulations. Despite propaganda to the contrary, fluoride has no known place in human metabolism and increases disease in those exposed to it. It is toxic to the brain, kidneys, bones, teeth, causes bone and other cancers at levels far lower than those permitted in water and has no known positive impact on human health despite oft-repeated but deeply flawed research claims to the contrary. Recent re-evaluation of the original research and other data make it clear that fluoride in any amount is a cumulative biological poison.

Although the United States has sought to add Fluoride to infant formula in the US and internationally, the World Health Organization recommends that infant formula be prepared in water which has no fluoride. Fluoridating water supplies means that infants will necessarily be exposed to amounts of fluoride which are toxic to them. “Little is known of the particular susceptibility of infants to fluoride but what we do know makes it clear that infant formula should be mixed with fluoride free water because fluoride is so toxic to them. Since infants are generally more sensitive to toxins than adults, banning it from formula is the only sensitive alternative,” according to Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation (http://www.HealthFreedomUSA.org).

Despite its wide acceptance as a water and food additive, and even as a “nutritional supplement,” fluoride is actually a dangerous metabolic poison with permanent effects at levels much lower than 1 part per million (ppm). Exposure is cumulative since fluoride is a bio-accumulator which remains in the body and can cause cancer, kidney failure, bone disease, including bone cancers, structural damage to bone and teeth, thyroid poisoning, pineal gland calcification, reproductive failure, synergistic increases in lead poisoning when both are present, endocrine disruption leading to diabetes, other cancers and decreases in the availability of essential nutrients like magnesium.

In addition to water, the FDA allows sodium aluminum fluoride (cryolite) to be sprayed on more than 30 fruits and vegetables at up to 7 ppm. The USDA set a 1.2 ppm limit for arsenic and fluoride pesticides in 1933 since they are equally toxic. While arsenic sprays have been phased out, fluoride ones are increasingly popular and now can be used not only on food but on food storage areas as well. Current FDA water fluoridation standards allow up to 4 ppm and assure on-going fluoride contamination for most Americans.

Industry pressure is strong to increase the amount of fluoride we ingest: DOW Chemical uses extremely high fluoride tolerances on a wide number of common foods including 98 ppm for wheat germ, 40 ppm for wheat bran, 31 ppm for rice bran, 30 ppm for some nuts, 28 ppm for corn meal, 26 ppm for corn flour, 25 ppm for millet, wild rice, sorghum and wheat grains and 17 ppm for oat grain.

Leading scientists have called for a ban on all fluoride usage in light of its devastating impact on health and a recent evaluation of the data upon which fluoridation was initially approved by the FDA for municipal water supplies was deeply and fraudulently distorted when presented to the FDA and the public since toxic results were not revealed in the group receiving fluoridated water.

Vaccines often contain fluoride as an adjuvant or immune system irritant to provoke the immune system into producing more antibodies with fewer antigens since antigens are the expensive part of vaccines. Since vaccines also frequently contain aluminum hydroxide, the synergistic toxicity of the two toxins is significantly more than the toxicity of either toxic metal alone at the same dosage. This problem is repeated in municipal water supplies since fluoride is added for its alleged dental health benefits while aluminum salts are added to “polish” the water and give it an appealing gleaming appearance.

Fluoride as an additive has a dark past: it was first added to water in the Soviet Gulag (prison system) since it is a neurological poison and made political and other difficult prisoners complacent and therefore easier to manage. It was added to the water supplies of the Nazi death and slave labor camps for the same reason. Fluoride is widely used as an additive although the scientific evidence upon which its use rests is either fraudulent or flawed. Long a staple of water treatment, sodium fluoride has been replaced by other, even more toxic fluoride compounds like sulfuryl fluoride which has never been tested in water supplies nor approved for use in them.

The New York State Attorney General has expressed support for banning this dangerous but widely used pesticide. Fluoride contamination from either natural sources or its addition to liquids and products used by children results in dental fluorosis, a permanent mottling of teeth which is both cosmetic and structural, and similar structural damage to bone associated with increased fractures, osteoporosis (bone loss) and demineralization of bone. IQ loss and other neurological damage is due both to the fluoride itself and the dangerous interaction of fluoride with lead since fluoride renders lead even more toxic to the brain. Fluoride without lead leads to loss of higher cognitive functions including decision-making and IQ.

Yours in health and freedom,
 Dr. Rima
 Medical Director

Source:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/fluoride-facts-and-myths/



"Water Fluoridation is medically reckless and unconstitutional."   <---that is the bottom line.

----------


## eduardo89

> We'll just agree to disagree.  Now go on and make yourself some popcorn and don't forget to salt it _real_ good.


I grew up in a municipality in Canada that fluoridates the drinking water. Never had a cavity in my life. Same with my younger brother.

Here in Mexico we rarely cook with salt. I always stay at my grandma's place when I visit and she has a no-salt diet. Whenever I do salt things, I use fleur de sel from Brittany. I've never liked regular table salt.

Just so you know salt fluoridation is widespread in Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland, as well as much of Latin America. I wonder how all those people aren't dead from eating so much 'toxic waste.' 




> You need the fluoride to keep those pearly whites nice and shiny!


Fluoride doesn't whiten teeth nor make them shiny. It does make them stronger, though.

----------


## donnay

> I grew up in a municipality in Canada that fluoridates the drinking water. Never had a cavity in my life. Same with my younger brother.
> 
> Here in Mexico we rarely cook with salt. I always stay at my grandma's place when I visit and she has a no-salt diet. Whenever I do salt things, I use fleur de sel from Brittany. I've never liked regular table salt.
> 
> Just so you know salt fluoridation is widespread in Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland, as well as much of Latin America. I wonder how all those people aren't dead from eating so much 'toxic waste.'



They are not dead because it is a slow kill.  Again if you took the time to research it you would know that.

Salt is necessary nutrition for the body to function properly.  Fluoridated salt, however, is not a nutrition and it slowly wrecks the thyroid, kidneys and causes bone deformities. 

In Jamaica they fluoridate the milk too.

----------


## eduardo89

> It is toxic to the brain, kidneys, bones, teeth, causes bone and other cancers at levels far lower than those permitted in water and has no known positive impact on human health despite oft-repeated but deeply flawed research claims to the contrary. Recent re-evaluation of the original research and other data make it clear that fluoride in any amount is a cumulative biological poison.


Every credible scientific study disagrees with this.




> Exposure is cumulative since fluoride is a bio-accumulator which remains in the body and can cause cancer, kidney failure, bone disease, including bone cancers, structural damage to bone and teeth, thyroid poisoning, pineal gland calcification, reproductive failure, synergistic increases in lead poisoning when both are present, endocrine disruption leading to diabetes, other cancers and decreases in the availability of essential nutrients like magnesium.


Not true...

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientifi...n/en/l-3/2.htm



> *Fluoride distribution, metabolism and excretion* 
> 
> Once absorbed, fluoride is rapidly distributed throughout the body via the blood. *The short term plasma half-life is normally in the range of 3 to 10 hours.* Fluoride is distributed between the plasma and blood cells, with plasma levels being twice as high as blood cell levels. The saliva fluoride level is about 65% of the level in plasma (Ekstrand 1977). Plasma fluoride concentrations are not homeostatically regulated, but rise and fall according to the pattern of fluoride intake. In adults, plasma fluoride levels appear to be directly related to the daily exposure of fluoride. Mean plasma levels in individuals living in areas with a water fluoride concentration of 0.1 mg/L or less are normally 9.5 μg /L, compared to a mean plasma fluoride level of 19-28.5 μg/L in individuals living in areas with a water fluoride content of 1.0 mg/L. In addition to the level of chronic fluoride intake and recent intake, the level of plasma fluoride is influenced by the rates of bone accretion and dissolution, and by the renal clearance rate of fluoride. Renal excretion is the major route of fluoride removal from the body. The fluoride ion is filtered from the plasma by the glomerulus and then partially reabsorbed; there is no tubular secretion of fluoride. Renal clearance rates of fluoride in humans average at 50 mL/minute. A number of factors, including urinary pH, urinary flow, and glomerular filtration rate, can influence urinary fluoride excretion. There are no apparent age related differences in renal clearance rates (adjusted for body weight or surface area) between children and adults. However, in older adults (more than 65 years of age), a significant decline in renal clearance of fluoride has been reported consistent with the age-related decline in glomerular filtration rates.
> 
> *Approximately 99% of the fluoride in the human body is found in bones and teeth.* Fluoride is incorporated into tooth and bone by replacing the hydroxyl ion in hydroxyapatite to form fluorohydroxyapatite. The level of fluoride in bone is influenced by several factors including age, past and present fluoride intake, and the rate of bone turnover.* Fluoride is not irreversibly bound to bone* and is mobilized from bone through bone remodelling.
> 
> *Soft tissues do not accumulate fluoride*, but a higher concentration has been reported for the kidney due to the partial re-absorption. *The blood-brain barrier limits the diffusion of fluoride into the central nervous system*, where the fluoride level is only about 20% that of plasma. Human studies have shown that fluoride is transferred across the placenta, and there is a direct relationship between fluoride levels in maternal and cord blood. *In humans, fluoride is poorly transferred from plasma to milk.* The fluoride concentration in human milk is in the range of 3.8–7.6 μg/L.

----------


## donnay

> Every credible scientific study disagrees with this.



Credible because YOU have been told this LIE all your life.  Again, an industry that knew it was going to cost them billions to dispose of this toxic waste paid lots of scientists to do studies that helped them sell it to YOU, hook, line and sinker.  And let's not forget the government alphabet soup groups that got money to be the enforcers of such wacko science.  This is not only a conspiracy, it is crony capitalism at it's best!

It is downright forced medication people against their will and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

----------


## donnay

double post

----------


## eduardo89

> Credible because YOU have been told this LIE all your life.  Again, an industry that knew it was going to cost them billions to dispose of this toxic waste paid lots of scientists to do studies that helped them sell it to YOU, hook, line and sinker.  And let's not forget the government alphabet soup groups that got money to be the enforcers of such wacko science.  This is not only a conspiracy, it is crony capitalism at it's best!
> 
> It is downright forced medication people against their will and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!


If it's such a lie then why have you failed to provide a single shred of credible, scientifically sound evidence to refute it? 




> Since the scientific community is so solidly in favor of fluoridation, antis try to discredit it entirely by use of the conspiracy gambit. The beauty of the conspiracy charge is that it can be leveled at anyone and there is absolutely no way to disprove it. After all, how does one prove that something is not taking place secretly? Favorite "conspirators" are the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the aluminum industry. Apparently, in the minds of the antis, these groups could all be working together to "poison" the American people! Years ago, conspiracy claims would work primarily with the very paranoid. But modern-day government scandals may make them seem realistic to a wider audience.The "slippery slope" claim is a related gambit. "This is only the beginning!" the antis wail. "First they will add fluoride, then vitamin pills, and the next thing you know it will be birth control pills!" Who "they" are need not be specified.

----------


## donnay

> Every credible scientific study disagrees with this.



Credible?  You mean an industry that knew it was going to cost them billions of dollars to dispose of a toxic waste paid big money to scientists to write reports saying fluoride was needed for healthy teeth?  That credibility?  There is definitely a conspiracy here, not to mention, even if this so-called science was spot on (and it is not) who gives government the authority to force medicate it's people?

It's people like you that become the hypocrites.  You want to take poison--be my guest.  Just don't force it on me in the process!!  You dig?

----------


## eduardo89

> Credible?  You mean an industry that knew it was going to cost them billions of dollars to dispose of a *toxic waste* paid big money to scientists to write reports saying fluoride was needed for healthy teeth?  That credibility?  *There is definitely a conspiracy here*, not to mention, even if this so-called science was spot on (and it is not) who gives government the authority to force medicate it's people?
> 
> It's people like you that become the hypocrites.  You want to take *poison*--be my guest.  Just don't force it on me in the process!!  You dig?


lol ok

Come back when you can actually prove any of that. Study after study after study from countries around the world, scientists in different fields have all refuted what you claim.

Here are some studies on fluoride, water fluoridation, and it's health effects, are all of them bought and paid for by this conspiracy you claim?

http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/260130
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...nticated=false
http://208.109.172.241/health/teeth/...nidr-dmfs.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2179336
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi.../AJPH.40.6.716
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...666.x/abstract
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi.../AJPH.46.3.265
http://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/16565
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4587515
http://www.bmj.com/content/315/7107/514.abstract
http://208.109.172.241/health/teeth/...nidr-dmft.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...tb02448.x/full
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...00571200000051
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/261542
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/300.short
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/260359
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/262393
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031310/
http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/86/5/410.short
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs...53678008990817
http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/71/5/1255.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919545/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...43380600678112
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...964.x/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897748
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...228.x/abstract
http://www.oda.on.ca/member/index.ph...=401&Itemid=19
http://www.cda-adc.ca/_files/positio...uorides-en.pdf
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/news/...0110404_2.aspx
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/en/healthy-...uoridation.pdf
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/branc...ject-eng.php#6
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv.../fluor-eng.php
http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/sg04.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27492/

----------


## donnay



----------


## eduardo89

So, what studies has Christopher Bryson done into the safety of water fluoridation? None.
What degrees does he have in science? None.

Nothing more than another conspiracy theory scaremongering video.

----------


## donnay

> So, what studies has Christopher Bryson done into the safety of water fluoridation? None.
> What degrees does he have in science? None.
> 
> Nothing more than another conspiracy theory scaremongering video.



Boy oh boy...the quick knee-jerk reaction.  Boxing of the ears, stomping of feet and saying, "La, la, la, la...I am not listening."  


If you listened to the interview c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y you will understand it took Bryson 10 years to collect the information to write his book.  Bryson is an award winning journalist and producer and he doesn't claim to be a scientist.  He was asked in the short version of this interview to introduce us to the important individuals and institutions which have *played a role in shaping public policy* _on the toxicity of fluoride and the purported safety of the controversial water fluoridation program_.

----------


## donnay

> lol ok
> 
> Come back when you can actually prove any of that. Study after study after study from countries around the world, scientists in different fields have all refuted what you claim.
> 
> Here are some studies on fluoride, water fluoridation, and it's health effects, are all of them bought and paid for by this conspiracy you claim?
> 
> http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/260130
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...nticated=false
> http://208.109.172.241/health/teeth/...nidr-dmfs.html
> ...




You can post a million of those so-called scientific studies--they can all say, fluoride causes you to blow gold out of your arse.  It makes no difference to me because I know most, if not all, are completely fraudulent.  I know the players in this game and know their end game agenda.

The bottom line is, government does not have the authority to force medicate me.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Boy oh boy...the quick knee-jerk reaction.  Boxing of the ears, stomping of feet and saying, "La, la, la, la...I am not listening."


How ironic, this is precisely what I thought you were doing....huh.

I dunno how more clearly I can spell it out or how many more articles I can post by chemists, science organizations, or any other place, though I don't know if it will matter anyway, because if it doesn't fit your pre-defined worldview, you won't look into it, you'll just dismiss it and roll it into an even larger group of organizations and claim it's all just part of the conspiracy (as evidenced by the huge list Eduardo posted). We've addressed many of the claims in YOUR articles, but you haven't addressed the claims in ours-simply claiming "nope, not true, just a lie because it's part of this grand conspiracy".


And two things, for the record; flouride isn't metabolized well by the body at all; it goes to the stomach, becomes hydroflouric acid; it's then able to cross membrane walls where it ends up binding to calcium in your bones. 

And secondly, there are flourine based rat poisons, but theyr'e not the same as flouride in terms of chemical composition AND the does they receive is astronomically high (mg concentrations) per their body weight, as well. You can't just pick an element, then find out that it is used in harmful substance X, Y, or Z, then dismiss it entirely because its toxic when bound to elements A, B, and C...you have to look at it uses in unique chemical forms.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Always put your teeth to bed happy!


Thanks. Didn't buy the same brand. I bought Xyla, the least expensive well reviewed brand. Having so sweet tea now that is actually good for my teeth

----------


## donnay

> How ironic, this is precisely what I thought you were doing....huh.
> 
> I dunno how more clearly I can spell it out or how many more articles I can post by chemists, science organizations, or any other place, though I don't know if it will matter anyway, because if it doesn't fit your pre-defined worldview, you won't look into it, you'll just dismiss it and roll it into an even larger group of organizations and claim it's all just part of the conspiracy (as evidenced by the huge list Eduardo posted). We've addressed many of the claims in YOUR articles, but you haven't addressed the claims in ours-simply claiming "nope, not true, just a lie because it's part of this grand conspiracy".
> 
> 
> And two things, for the record; flouride isn't metabolized well by the body at all; it goes to the stomach, becomes hydroflouric acid; it's then able to cross membrane walls where it ends up binding to calcium in your bones. 
> 
> And secondly, there are flourine based rat poisons, but theyr'e not the same as flouride in terms of chemical composition AND the does they receive is astronomically high (mg concentrations) per their body weight, as well. You can't just pick an element, then find out that it is used in harmful substance X, Y, or Z, then dismiss it entirely because its toxic when bound to elements A, B, and C...you have to look at it uses in unique chemical forms.



By the time some people figure it out, it will be too late.  Sad really.





Sources:
http://www.heartcom.org/FluorideInfo.htm

----------


## presence

> Thanks. Didn't buy the same brand. I bought Xyla, the least expensive well reviewed brand. Having so sweet tea now that is actually good for my teeth


Not to pee in your coolaid... but I think xyla comes from GMO corn not birch trees.  But good for your teeth nonetheless.  I've never found xylitol as satisfying as sugar in my tea and coffee myself.  I'm a "organic evaporated cane juice", agave nectar, and honey user for day to day sweeting.  I just use the birch for post teeth brushing each day.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Not to pee in your coolaid... but I think xyla comes from GMO corn not birch trees.  But good for your teeth nonetheless.  I've never found xylitol as satisfying as sugar in my tea and coffee myself.  I'm a "organic evaporated cane juice", agave nectar, and honey user for day to day sweeting.  I just use the birch for post teeth brushing each day.


Nah, the amazon reviews said it comes from trees and so did the website and the label. It is made by a CO based company. I usually use maple syrup to sweeten food, living in New England and all. Otherwise I don't bother to sweeten food.

----------


## presence

> Nah, the amazon reviews said it comes from trees and so did the website and the label. It is made by a CO based company. I usually use maple syrup to sweeten food, living in New England and all. Otherwise I don't bother to sweeten food.


Cool.  Will keep in mind.

----------


## eduardo89

> Boy oh boy...the quick knee-jerk reaction.  Boxing of the ears, stomping of feet and saying, "La, la, la, la...I am not listening."


Are ou talking about yourself....?




> You can post a million of those so-called scientific studies--they can all say, fluoride causes you to blow gold out of your arse.  It makes no difference to me because I know most, if not all, are completely fraudulent.  I know the players in this game and know their end game agenda.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> By the time some people figure it out, it will be too late.  Sad really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sources:
> http://www.heartcom.org/FluorideInfo.htm


A lot of that site is just repeating what we've already said, and it's been thoroughly debunked by Eduardo, Zippy, and myself.






> 


This guys' research was not well accepted by other scientists of his day (his study didn't account for other variables), and other studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22189446
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21479915
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10702326
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4045363
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/530145
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6933354
http://health.gov/environment/Review...AJfind.htm#can (check this one out for sure)

confirm that.

----------


## donnay

> A lot of that site is just repeating what we've already said, and it's been thoroughly debunked by Eduardo, Zippy, and myself.


All you have done is spew the same lies the establishment have spewed for years.






> This guys' research was not well accepted by other scientists of his day (his study didn't account for other variables), and other studies:





That's because he wasn't on the take like so many other scientist have done.


"When you have power you don't have to tell the truth.  That's a rule that's been working in this world for generations.  And there are a great many people who don't tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions."---Dean Burk former head of National Cancer Institute Research (interview on the Owen Spahn Talk Show, San Francisco, June 1972)

"They (ACS) lie like scoundrels."----Dean Burk, Ph.D., 34 years at the National Cancer Institute (Peter Barry Chowka, "The Cancer Charity Rip-Off," East West Journal, July 1978)

"Such letters...from the FDA, are, filled with objectively demonstrable lies, practiced deceptions and deviousness, red herrings, directed misinformation, misdirected information, etc. ...Once FDA-NCI-AMA-ACS...concedes that Laetrile anti-tumor efficacy was indeed even once observed...a permanent crack in bureaucratic armor has taken place." - Dr. Dean Burke, co-founder, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cyto-chemistry section: open letter July 3, 1973.

"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical."--Dean Burk -- Congressional Record 21 July 1976

"My analyses and conclusions differ diametrically from those of the Southern Research Institute/National Cancer Institute report wherein it is concluded that amygdalin 'does not possess activity in the Lewis lung carcinoma system.'…. My analysis of the data is that it is overwhelmingly positive." — Dr. Dean Burk, while serving as Chief of the Cytochemistry Division of the National Cancer Institute, March 22, 1974, letter to Dr. Seymour Perry, Deputy Director, NCI Division of Cancer Treatment.

"I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year." Dr. Dean Burk Ph.D. (34 years at the National Cancer Institute).  Judicial hearing, January 14, 1982. Safe Water Foundation vs. City of Houston,  District Court of Texas, Harris County,  151st Judicial District, 80-52271  http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000045.htm

----------


## donnay

I just wanted to post the MSDS on Hydrofluorosilicic Acid.

 Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (FSA or HFS)



Download MSDS
PDF

*Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, also known as FSA or HFS, is a transparent, colorless, aqueous solution that is used in a variety of applications. One of its most common uses is in the fluoridation of water. FSA is produced during the concentration of phosphoric acid in an evaporation process unique to the phosphate industry. The vapor stream from the phosphoric acid reaction is scrubbed with water to form FSA from the naturally occurring silica and fluorine in the phosphoric acid. The final product is collected, stored and tested prior to release for shipment. Mosaic's FSA meets or exceeds ANSI/AWWA Standard B703 and is registered through ANSI/NSF60 for use in drinking water.*


Source:
http://www.mosaicco.com/products/ind...oducts_hfs.htm

----------


## Fox McCloud

> I just wanted to post the MSDS on Hydrofluorosilicic Acid.
> 
>  Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (FSA or HFS)
> 
> 
> 
> Download MSDS
> PDF
> 
> ...


This is pretty much what several of us already stated, just not in as much detail =3

----------


## donnay

Dr. Paul Connett


 Dr. Paul Connett is a graduate of Cambridge University and holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College.  In May 2006, he retired from his full professorship in chemistry at St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, where he taught for 23 years. His speciality was environmental chemistry and toxicology. 

Over the past 23 years his research on waste management has taken him to 49 US states and 50 other countries, where he has given approximately 2000 pro bono public presentations. Ralph Nader said of Paul Connett, "He is the only person I know who can make waste interesting." He has co-authored 6 peer reviewed articles on dioxin and numerous other articles on waste management. His latest article on this (Zero Waste and Sustainability) will appear in a book to be published in Italy in 2008. A series of videos Paul has produced
on Zero Waste can be viewed at http://www.americanhealthstudies.org/ 

Paul Connett has researched the literature on fluoride¹s toxicity for 12 years. He helped found the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) for which he is the Executive Director. He has given presentations at the International Society for Fluoride Research conferences in New Zealand, Germany and China; the Japanese Society for Fluoride Research; the American College of Toxicology; the US EPA; the US National Research Council; the CDC in Nanjing, China; the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Health and Children in Ireland, a parliamentary committee in the Knesset, Israel as well as to many citizens¹ groups in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, the UK and the US. 


For further information on Dr. Connett or the Fluroide Action Network, visit:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/about-fan.htm
http://wearechangect.org/2013/07/dr-...-fluoridation/

----------


## donnay

> *LATEST STUDY ON WATER FLUORIDATION AGAIN LINKS IT TO LOWERED CHILDRENS IQS*
> 
> January 3, 2018
> 
> Phillip Schneider, Staff Writer
> Waking Times
> 
> What would you think if I told you that there is poison in the tap water? If youre like some, you might think that there is no way the government could allow that to happen. However, if you live in the United States its likely that you the water from your tap contains a type of neurotoxin called sodium fluoride. For decades, fluoride has been added to public water supplies for what some claim protects the health of our teeth, but is that really what it is doing?
> 
> ...


http://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/01/0...childrens-iqs/

----------


## Zippyjuan

The "Harvard" paper was not put together by Harvard but was a group which tried to compare previous studies conducted in China.  They did not control for any variables like how much flouride was in the natural water or different schools and the differences in IQ was less than the margin of error on IQ tests- the average was three points while the standard deviation on an IQ test is six points- well within the margin of error. 

A statement they authors later put out:  https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-cont...2-Revised2.pdf




> -These *results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of
> exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.* On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no
> risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels
> may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly
> take into regard this possible hazard.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The "Harvard" paper was not put together by Harvard but was a group which tried to compare previous studies conducted in China.  They did not control for any variables like how much flouride was in the natural water or different schools and the differences in IQ was less than the margin of error on IQ tests- the average was three points while the standard deviation on an IQ test is six points- well within the margin of error. 
> 
> A statement they authors later put out:  https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-cont...2-Revised2.pdf


Please take flouride supplements Zip, it will be good for your teeth.

----------


## donnay

> The "Harvard" paper was not put together by Harvard but was a group which tried to compare previous studies conducted in China.  They did not control for any variables like how much flouride was in the natural water or different schools and the differences in IQ was less than the margin of error on IQ tests- the average was three points while the standard deviation on an IQ test is six points- well within the margin of error. 
> 
> A statement they authors later put out:  https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-cont...2-Revised2.pdf


Probably got bullied and threatened to cut off their grants.  Happens all the time.

*FLUORIDE & IQ: THE 51 STUDIES*
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

----------

