Govt Poisoning us through Water supply?

[Rayne]

Many people, including those in the scientific community, believe fluoridation of our drinking water is a serious health detriment. Can anyone support the opposing view that our drinking water is completely safe?


The Arguments against Sodium Fluoride in our water are many, here are some:

1) Common proported idea that that fluoride was added to the drinking water of prisoners to keep them quiet and to hamper noncompliance with authority, both in Nazi prison camps during World War II and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia

2) Fluoride has not been shown to reduce cavities

3) Fluoride is an ingredient in rat and roach poison, psychiatric drugs, and nerve gas

4) "Researchers concluded that the fluorosilicic acid-treated water was equal to or worse a contributor of blood-lead levels as old house paint." : ...

5) Exposure to high fluoride concentration in drinking water will affect spermatogenesis and steroidogenesis in male albino rats.

6) Effects of chronic ingestion of sodium fluoride on myocardium in a second generation of rats.

7) There is the aligation that our fluoride supply is Industry Waste product purchased by the Govt, I do no know if this is true or not

 

[SGT]

This article not only answers most of your questions, but link to several serious sites as the American Dental Association and the American Dietetic Association.

 

[Pengwuino]

Many people, including those in the scientific community, believe fluoridation of our drinking water is a serious health detriment.

no they dont

 

[rachmaninoff]

Short answer:

Points 1,2,3, and 7 are patently false and idiotic; you didn't mention their source, so there's no need to even argue them.

Point 4 is taken from a crank site, "American Free Press" . It is not a scientific paper, and glancing through it, it does not give any references to legitimate research.

Points 5 and 6 refer to NIH-funded studies with rats (not humans) exposed to NaF concentrations significantly higher than achieved by water fluoridation. In the abstracts, the authors do not mention human health or water flouridation, so I don't see how those papers are relevant.


SGT - great link, thanks.

 

[Rayne]

Tried to find a source for some stuff since you asked, this guy makes some similar points but it was at least published in a Med Journal rather than a liberal paper: Irish Medical Journal
Sept. 2000, Vol.93, No.6, pp165-168.[/URL]



2) Fluoride has not been shown to reduce cavities
"Dr. J. Yiamouyiannis in 1989 reviewed the tooth decay figures in a survey conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research involving 39,207 children aged 5-17 years old from 84 areas across the United States (U.S.). This study showed no difference in decayed, missing and filled teeth between children living in fluoridated and non- fluoridated areas.

The New Zealand School Dental Service recorded the dental status of 59,331 students aged 12-13 years old in 1987. They concluded that "child dental decay differences are not closely related to the presence or absence of water fluoridation" but are more related to demographic, and especially socio-economic, factors. There is, in fact, "no significant difference in tooth decay in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas". "


Edit: Counter to this from article cited in previous post
"Recent data have shown that fluoridation has been reducing the incidence of cavities 20% to 40% in children and 15% to 35% in adults. The reduction is less than it used to be, probably due to improved dental hygiene and widespread use of fluoride toothpaste."


"In the mid-1970s, John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. and another anti began issuing a series of reports claiming that fluoridation causes cancer. Experts concluded that these reports were based on a misinterpretation of government statistics. They had compared cancer death rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated cities but failed to consider various factors in each city (such as industrial pollution) that are known to raise the cancer death rate. [I don't know if these is related to the study mentioned above which is a review of a survey by the NIDR by the Dr. in question rather than a study conducted by him]







Fluoride Toxicity


"More recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified fluoride as more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic. The British Medical Association in 1994 highlighted the risks of excess fluoride in the "New Guide to Medicines and Drugs". They concluded, "In large quantities, fluoride may cause slow poisoning- termed fluorosis. Prolonged intake of water containing more than 2ppm may lead to mottled or brown discolouration of the enamel of developing teeth. Very high levels (over 8ppm) may also lead to bone disorders and degenerative changes on the kidneys, adrenal glands, heart, central nervous system and reproductive organs". Considering the water in Ireland is "optimally fluoridated" at 1ppm, this is a very narrow of margin of safety. It does not take into consideration persons with a large consumption of water e.g. athletes, dialysis patients, infants



The same publication states that 0.15mg fluoride is a safe daily intake for children under 3 months and about 0.5mg up to 2 years. Black's Medical Dictionary advises 2.5 fl. oz. per lb. of body weight of human milk or equivalent. Therefore, a newborn baby will drink 20 fl. oz. (1 pint) milk daily. If the parent is using formula baby feed with fluoridated water, one pint is equivalent to 0.55 litres approximately. And in fluoridated areas, there is 1mg of fluoride in every litre of water drunk. Therefore, a newborn will receive over 0.5mg fluoride in their daily feed. This is over three times the limit set by the BMA. Correspondingly, a three-month-old child weighing around 14lb will drink around 1.75 pints and will therefore receive 0.875 mg of fluoride daily-nearly six times over the limit."

EDIT: The article cited in a previous post acknowledges that Fluoride can be poisonous, but only at doses that are not experienced with fluoridated drinking water, this is opposed above.

"Half-truths are commonly used. For example, saying that fluoride is a rat poison ignores the fact that poison is a matter of dose. Large amounts of many substances -- even pure water -- can poison people. But the trace amount of fluoride contained in fluoridated water will not harm anyone."



I had not noticed previously that there is also the tangent possbility that there is a different fluoride problem by interaction with aluminum: http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/16/fluoride.htm

 

[Rayne]

#1

This talks about #1, I doubt you will find too many 'soild' sources in less one was to dig up documents like the one mentioned here. Assuming it were true, obviously the information would not be readily available in a History Book.


http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/fluoride.htm



" In an "Address in Reply to the Governor's Speech to Parliament", Mr. Harley Rivers Dickinson, Liberal Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for South Barwon, Australia [In Australia, parliamentarian Mr. Harley Dickenson raised the issue in the Victorian Legislative council, which is recorded in the official Hansard report on August 12th, 1987] made a statement on the historical use of fluorides for behaviour control.

Mr. Dickinson reveals that,

"At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Elliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. While there, he was told by German chemists of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff.

"This scheme was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. "





This is of interest to me because I drink a very large amount of water on average and have noticed that I am unusually fatigued at times when I should not be ( i.e. sleepy at 4 pm the day after 8+ hours of sleep). I haven't drinken water today and I am not sleepy but obviously there is an absurd amount of possible extrinsic factors here, but hey if the placebo keeps me more alert for a few days Ill take it.

 

[SGT]

Tried to find a source for some stuff since you asked, this guy makes some similar points but it was at least published in a Med Journal rather than a liberal paper: Irish Medical Journal
Sept. 2000, Vol.93, No.6, pp165-168.[/URL]



2) Fluoride has not been shown to reduce cavities
"Dr. J. Yiamouyiannis in 1989 reviewed the tooth decay figures in a survey conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research involving 39,207 children aged 5-17 years old from 84 areas across the United States (U.S.). This study showed no difference in decayed, missing and filled teeth between children living in fluoridated and non- fluoridated areas.

From the site I provided:

Cancer Scares

In the mid-1970s, John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. and another anti began issuing a series of reports claiming that fluoridation causes cancer. Experts concluded that these reports were based on a misinterpretation of government statistics. They had compared cancer death rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated cities but failed to consider various factors in each city (such as industrial pollution) that are known to raise the cancer death rate. By 1977, independent investigations by eight of the leading medical and scientific organizations in the English-speaking world had refuted the claims, but they still surface today in many communities that consider fluoridation.

In 1990, the cancer charge was raised again following an unauthorized release of data from an experiment in which rats and mice were exposed to high dosages of fluoride. The experiment was conducted by the National Toxicology Program, a branch of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The agency's final report stated that there was no evidence of cancer-causing activity in female rats or in male and female mice and only "equivocal evidence" in male rats. Subsequent review by a U.S. Public Health Service expert panel concluded that the data were insignificant and that fluoridation posed no risk of cancer or any other disease.

The New Zealand School Dental Service recorded the dental status of 59,331 students aged 12-13 years old in 1987. They concluded that "child dental decay differences are not closely related to the presence or absence of water fluoridation" but are more related to demographic, and especially socio-economic, factors. There is, in fact, "no significant difference in tooth decay in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas". "


Edit: Counter to this from article cited in previous post
"Recent data have shown that fluoridation has been reducing the incidence of cavities 20% to 40% in children and 15% to 35% in adults. The reduction is less than it used to be, probably due to improved dental hygiene and widespread use of fluoride toothpaste."

The article I proposed shows statistics from the US. The statistics from New Zealand does not counter the other. It agrees with what was said, that people in socio-economic upper classes have improved dental hygiene and better teeth, whether or not the water is fluoridated. I would like to see a statistic showing the difference (or not) of dental health in poorer people in both types of communities.

Fluoride Toxicity


"More recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified fluoride as more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic. The British Medical Association in 1994 highlighted the risks of excess fluoride in the "New Guide to Medicines and Drugs". They concluded, "In large quantities, fluoride may cause slow poisoning- termed fluorosis. Prolonged intake of water containing more than 2ppm may lead to mottled or brown discolouration of the enamel of developing teeth. Very high levels (over 8ppm) may also lead to bone disorders and degenerative changes on the kidneys, adrenal glands, heart, central nervous system and reproductive organs". Considering the water in Ireland is "optimally fluoridated" at 1ppm, this is a very narrow of margin of safety. It does not take into consideration persons with a large consumption of water e.g. athletes, dialysis patients, infants

The same publication states that 0.15mg fluoride is a safe daily intake for children under 3 months and about 0.5mg up to 2 years. Black's Medical Dictionary advises 2.5 fl. oz. per lb. of body weight of human milk or equivalent. Therefore, a newborn baby will drink 20 fl. oz. (1 pint) milk daily. If the parent is using formula baby feed with fluoridated water, one pint is equivalent to 0.55 litres approximately. And in fluoridated areas, there is 1mg of fluoride in every litre of water drunk. Therefore, a newborn will receive over 0.5mg fluoride in their daily feed. This is over three times the limit set by the BMA. Correspondingly, a three-month-old child weighing around 14lb will drink around 1.75 pints and will therefore receive 0.875 mg of fluoride daily-nearly six times over the limit."

In excessive doses fluoride is harmful. It is also true for calcium, sodium and other elements needed for our body. The amount of fluor added to water is safe.

 

[Evo]

Tried to find a source for some stuff since you asked, this guy makes some similar points but it was at least published in a Med Journal rather than a liberal paper: Irish Medical Journal
Sept. 2000, Vol.93, No.6, pp165-168.[/URL]

Your link is not to the Irish Medical Journal website. Searching the "real" IMJ site, this is what comes up when I search under "Irish Medical Journal
Sept. 2000, Vol.93, No.6" http://www.imj.ie/UserControls/Issue/search_results.aspx?searchString=Sept.%202000,%20Vol.93&SearchArchive=False

The author listed at your link DR. DON MAC AULEY, is not listed as an author on the IMJ's website http://www.imj.ie/DTIndex.aspx?tabindex=&tabid=&subtabindex=5&subtabid=194

Since his first "reference" is to a well known quack, even if he did write the article, I would question it.

2) Fluoride has not been shown to reduce cavities
"Dr. J. Yiamouyiannis in 1989 reviewed the tooth decay figures in a survey conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research involving 39,207 children aged 5-17 years old from 84 areas across the United States (U.S.). This study showed no difference in decayed, missing and filled teeth between children living in fluoridated and non- fluoridated areas.

Yiamouyiannis was debunked as a quack.

In 1978, Consumer Reports published a two-part series on fluoridation that criticized Yiamouyiannis's work and concluded:

"The simple truth is that there's no "scientific controversy" over the safety of fluoridation. The practice is safe, economical, and beneficial. The survival of this fake controversy represents, in Consumers Union's opinion, one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation [3]."

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/yiamouyiannis.html

I don't have time to look up the rest of what you posted right now, but I wouldn't be surprised to find more of the same.

 

[gerben]

Your link is not to the Irish Medical Journal website. Searching the "real" IMJ site, this is what comes up when I search under "Irish Medical Journal
Sept. 2000, Vol.93, No.6" http://www.imj.ie/UserControls/Issue/search_results.aspx?searchString=Sept.%202000,%20Vol.93&SearchArchive=False

The article is published there, if you search under "Water Fluoridation" you wil find it:
http://www.imj.ie/UserControls/Issue/search_results.aspx?searchString=Water%20Fluoridation&SearchArchive=False

However in the December issue of the same journal there is an article "Water Fluoridation: Safe and Effective" that severely criticized the view expressed in the september issue (if you follow the above link you will find both articles).

 

[Evo]

The article is published there, if you search under "Water Fluoridation" you wil find it:
http://www.imj.ie/UserControls/Issue/search_results.aspx?searchString=Water%20Fluoridation&SearchArchive=False

However in the December issue of the same journal there is an article "Water Fluoridation: Safe and Effective" that severely criticized the view expressed in the september issue (if you follow the above link you will find both articles).

Thanks Gerben!

 

[hypatia]

The doctor can arrange a test{urine} and tell you how much fluoride is in your body.
There is enough evidence, to make me think..maybe up to date research should be done. The research my community is relying on is from the 1960's, the era that told us smoking was safe. I was shocked to find that UNICEF and WHO is also using the same data.
New research is that it causes odd crystal formations in bones.

 

[Evo]

The research my community is relying on is from the 1960's, the era that told us smoking was safe.

I don't ever recall anyone saying smoking was safe during my lifetime. I remember from as early as 1960 telling my dad smoking was bad and he'd respond that he only smoked cigars and pipes and didn't inhale the smoke, so it wasn't as harmful as cigarettes. My mom stopped smoking during WWII because it was known to be bad for your health. I distinctly remember all kinds of information about cigarettes being bad as a small child in the 60's, and the controversy about adding warnings to cigarette packages, which finally happened in 1965, which is why I don't get why some people say they didn't know.

 

[TOKAMAK]

A very awesome movie was (sort of) based on the danger of flourine in our water:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/

Although I suppose this has no relevance to the discussion.

 

[rachmaninoff]

A very awesome movie was (sort of) based on the danger of flourine in our water:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/

Although I suppose this has no relevance to the discussion.

Flourine is not the same as Flouride!

And I hope you noticed that the discussion about flouridation in Dr. Strangelove was somewhat ironic in context.