Fluoride In The Water

[Polaris]

Fluoridate is a misnomer as the chemical Chinahand wants to mass-medicate us all with is an acid (fluorosilicic) and not a fluoride.

Polaris - I presume you do not understand chemistry and so do not understand this:

H2SiF6(aq) + 4 H2O . 6 HF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq) (1)

Na2SiF6(aq) + 4 H2O . 4 HF(aq) + 2 NaF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq) (2)

NaF . Na+(aq) + F–(aq) (3)

 

Chinahand - If you presume I do not understand chemistry why post the formulae? You could write a similar formula for brine and bang about it containing chlorine ions (you’d probably say chloride ions though). Any normal person would say brine is water with salt added. By the way F- is a fluorine ion.

 

You could try reading this. There are more than one way of skinning a particular cat - in all these cases the end result is a fluoride ion.

 

It looks like the fluorosilicic acid used to mass-medicate people in the USA is contaminated with arsenic. Nice. Does the fluorosilicic acid used in England come from the USA? Perhaps the stuff you want us to be mass-medicated with here comes from a more contaminated source. Who manfactures the fluorosilic acid used in England and Ireland? I guess that is the stuff you'd have the Manx Water Authority treat us with.

 

The link also deals with any of your claims about incomplete dissociation. While this one deals with contamenents.

 

I don’t think I made any claims about incomplete dissociation.

 

If your argument is that these reports have been forged, or evidence has been surpressed we are not going to get anywhere - but then again as you say even discussing this subject is an assault I doubt if a rational debate is possible.

I don’t think we are going to get anywhere anyway because medicating us via our water supply is fundamentally wrong. When you are prescribed medication by your doctor, do you you insist on your next door neighbour taking it? Of course you don’t. Fluoridation is no different. All the talk about “fluoride ions” is to cover-up its industrial waste source.

 

Chlorine is added to water to make it safe to drink, fluorosilicic acid is added to water to treat people.

 

I would love to see the English revolt against fluoridation like they they revolted against the poll tax. We could join in too. All those subjected to fluoridation world-wide could join in. If we all withheld our payments to the water utilities until all fluoridation legislation world-wide is repealed, the fluoro-madness would soon end.

[jimbms]

I would love to see the English revolt against fluoridation like they they revolted against the poll tax. We could join in too. All those subjected to fluoridation world-wide could join in. If we all withheld our payments to the water utilities until all fluoridation legislation world-wide is repealed, the fluoro-madness would soon end.

I think you may be on to something there, food for thought maybe?

[jimbms]

research on a known risk which does not outweigh the benefits. I am certain you'll find "anti-chlorine" web sites screaming this and other research in a very similar way to the anti-fluoride mob do.

I am also certain you will find the pro chlorine and pro floride mob doing the same

 

The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), which acts as the guardian of water quality on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said its own research had been unable to confirm such a link.

It has also been unable to disprove the link, also are you saying the govt doesnt lie?

 

"But there's no reason for people to be worried."

 

"Chlorination is reliable and has been used for centuries. The only reason diseases like cholera and typhoid are not in our water supply is because of chlorination."

Realy so the people who have been poisoned by chemicals in the water over the normal limits shouldnt be worried. Yes chlorine is needed to clense the water note the word clense also the amount needed is minute and can be neutralised whereas flourine is NOT needed to clense the water and is only added for FORCED MEDICATION by dictatorial governments. We live in a democracy this means we have the right to choose, afterall even the people of Tibet dont have it forced upon them and they are in an occupied dictatorship

[Miss Take]

We live in a democracy this means we have the right to choose, afterall even the people of Tibet dont have it forced upon them and they are in an occupied dictatorship

 

I assume you meant this as a joke and forgot the smiley. Regardless, it's the funniest thing I've read all day.

[Chinahand]

The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), which acts as the guardian of water quality on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said its own research had been unable to confirm such a link.

It has also been unable to disprove the link, also are you saying the govt doesnt lie?

First point this is a quote from the Drinking water inspectorate, not me.

 

Secondly, I have attempted many times to get people to undertand that science can't do things it doesn't have evidence for - you can't prove a negative. But science can put bounds on the level of an effect. It can prove that there is no link above a certain level - its often called a statistical upper bound. Going out on a limb I'll say there is almost certainly a link - but at a level that means the ill effects are not deemed significant.

 

That is a huge, societal level issue. And a huge problem because people don't like it when people admit things cause cancer, or deaths or whatever, but the issue is at what level.

 

Cars, powerstations, chemical factories, modern life - they all have side affects which kill, and make people ill. You might say that if you are one of those people it is a big deal, but breaking down all the thousands of factors and so saying that this or that broke the camels back isn't reasonable. Point one percent of this, point one percent of that, half a percent of this - you add them all up and you get a dead person or a congenital abnormality or whatever.

 

What these studies are doing is adding up the effects - I've posted quite a few times that epidemiological studies have been able to find a correlation between mobile phone masts and about five additional cases of childhood leukemia - that is a trully incredible result and shows how detailed science can get.

 

Once you can quantify you can more accurately make decisions based on the costs and the benefits. But that has to be done with a proper weighing up of the issues, not scaremongering and exaggerating.

 

Thirdly, of course both governments and scientists either directly lie, or have biases. But by amalgamating the results of thousands of individual studies you do get a wisdom of crowds and that is how science in particular has been able to overcome these biases and so be able to provide technological progress.

[jimbms]

The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), which acts as the guardian of water quality on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said its own research had been unable to confirm such a link.

It has also been unable to disprove the link, also are you saying the govt doesnt lie?

First point this is a quote from the Drinking water inspectorate, not me.

 

Secondly, I have attempted many times to get people to undertand that science can't do things it doesn't have evidence for - you can't prove a negative. But science can put bounds on the level of an effect. It can prove that there is no link above a certain level - its often called a statistical upper bound. Going out on a limb I'll say there is almost certainly a link - but at a level that means the ill effects are not deemed significant.

 

That is a huge, societal level issue. And a huge problem because people don't like it when people admit things cause cancer, or deaths or whatever, but the issue is at what level.

 

Cars, powerstations, chemical factories, modern life - they all have side affects which kill, and make people ill. You might say that if you are one of those people it is a big deal, but breaking down all the thousands of factors and so saying that this or that broke the camels back isn't reasonable. Point one percent of this, point one percent of that, half a percent of this - you add them all up and you get a dead person or a congenital abnormality or whatever.

 

What these studies are doing is adding up the effects - I've posted quite a few times that epidemiological studies have been able to find a correlation between mobile phone masts and about five additional cases of childhood leukemia - that is a trully incredible result and shows how detailed science can get.

 

Once you can quantify you can more accurately make decisions based on the costs and the benefits. But that has to be done with a proper weighing up of the issues, not scaremongering and exaggerating.

 

Thirdly, of course both governments and scientists either directly lie, or have biases. But by amalgamating the results of thousands of individual studies you do get a wisdom of crowds and that is how science in particular has been able to overcome these biases and so be able to provide technological progress.

Stick to the point and quit the long winded bullshit, the basics are should we have medication forced upon us, it's benifits or dangers are not relivant to the moral and legal issue. IT IS THE FUNDIMENTAL RIGHT OF ANY PERSON TO BE ABLE TO REFUSE MEDICATION

[incandescent]

Here we go again chinahand, same old approach; at least you are consistent and tenacious in your continuing determination to convince others of your ill founded belief in fluoridation. Your ‘honest joe’/ordinary citizen approach belies a more than general interest in denigrating others who may have a different view from your own.

I contribute to this forum because of what fluorosilicic acid has done to my children’s teeth, and out of a sense of personal integrity and an interest in the rights of individuals. It would be interesting to see what is really behind your endless propaganda. Due to your inclination towards prolific postings I now respond in kind.

 

Facts not opinions from Authorities

 

Your approach is predicated on your inculcated view that fluorsilicic acid is safe and beneficial save only a bit of fluorosis. Apart from your opinion there are no reliable studies proclaiming the safety of fluorsilisic acid. Where are your references to prove it is essential for human health?

For someone claiming an interest in science, what meaningless nonsense is your statement quoted from the WHO which reads ‘Fluoride MAY be an essential element for animals and humans etc…. however the essentiality has NOT been demonstrated unequivocally and NO DATA indicating the minimum nutritional requirements are available’. Maybe, once again, science considers that it know more than nature. Mother’s milk contains 0.01 ppm of fluoride therefore bottle fed babies would be receiving 100 times more fluoride than breast fed babies.

 

How much fluoride?

 

Chinahand your sweeping generalities are presented yet again on the subject of fluoride levels. Dr Mansfield a member of the UK Fluoride Working Group has, after a ten year study found that one in three people in the fluoridated British Midlands are receiving four milligrams of fluoride each day, over three times the recommended level. Had Dr Emerson conducted himself in a more courteous, professional manner, listeners to Manx Radio may have been forewarned of this research.

 

The York Review stated’ the prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride level of 1ppm

was estimated at 48%’. This means nearly half the population will have a new oral disease inflicted against their will. The York Review found that out of every 10,000 exposed to water fluoridation 1250 exhibit dental fluorosis “of concern” In Ireland, Professor O’Mullane is on record stating “We find approximately 50% of the population who reside in fluoridated communities have this very mild, very questionable change in the (tooth) enamel”

Today, populations are exposed to fluorides from a wide range of sources, including air pollution, mouth rinses, toothpaste, foods, beverages, kitchen utensils, medicines, anaesthetics, fluoride supplements, pesticide and herbicide residues etc.

 

Studies sponsored by Government and Industry have established that dental fluorosis and dental abnormalities have negative psycho-social impacts and the public commonly perceives people with dental abnormalities to have - poor health, low intelligence, poor psychological adjustment, poor personal hygiene and a lack of social skills. The research extends to describe the potential for the development of further anti social and self destructive characteristics. Such well documented negative outcomes are never included in a cost/benefit analysis and are most likely to affect the poorer sections of the community with sub standard diets and who will have to pay for cosmetic dental treatment which they will probably not be able to afford.

 

 

Fluorosis – What is it?

 

Fluoride promotion started in the United States over fifty years ago and was based on certain assumptions such as: Fluoride being an electronegative element (F) would bind with positively charged calcium (Ca) and form Calcium fluoroappatite crystals in the tooth enamel. Calcium fluoroappetite would withstand acid solution (acids being produced by the bacteria breeding in an unhygienic cavity) which is the primary cause of Dental Caries. This assumption is a myth rather than science.

 

In reality, when fluoride is ingested through drinking water/ any other source, fluoride accumulates in the teeth and Calcium is gradually lost from the matrix

 

 

STATUS OF DERMATAN SULPHATE IN FLUOROSED HUMAN TEETH

 

Glycosaminoglycan and its sulphated isomers are an integral part of the tooth matrix and play a significant role in the calcification of the tooth. Studies on normal and fluorosed human teeth with reference to total glycosaminoglycans and its sulphated polymers have shown that although there is an overall reduction in total glycosaminoglycan content, the most significant change that takes place in the matrix of the tooth as a result of exposure to fluoride is the accumulation of Dermatan Sulphate which under normal circumstances does not occur in calcified structures like teeth or bone except during developmental stages. Accumulation of Dermatan Sulphate induces loss of calcium and the tooth becomes soft (demineralised) and soft areas get pitted or perforated. Fluoride induces pitting/cavity formation on the surface of the enamel – a fact never understood before. The cavities formed in fluorosed teeth are distinctly different from the cavities formed as a result of Dental Caries. In Dental Caries, the decay commences from the lateral sides or in-between two teeth and / or hidden crevices of the teeth. Cavities caused by fluoride occur on the tooth surface. Fluoride in drinking water ranging from 0.5 ppm or 1 ppm and above has been found damaging to teeth as a result of demineralisation pitting and chipping of the teeth.

 

The above is a shorter version of the original work containing specific data by Dr A K Susheela October 1998

 

The preceding information was almost certainly taken into account when Dr Arvid Carlsson stated ‘fluoridation is obsolete and against science.’

 

Is fluoridation Safe?

In the interest of an honest and informed contribution I reproduce an extract of an Affidavit presented by world fluoride expert Dr A K Susheela.

 

CITY OF FOND DU LAC, Defendant.

Case No. 92 CV 579

______________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF A.K. SUSHEELA, Ph.D.

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

______________________________________________________________

Nation of India

City of New Dehli

A. K. Susheela, Ph.D., being first duly sworn on oath, under penalty of perjury, and with personal knowledge of the information contained herein, respectfully states to the Court as follows:

1. I, Dr. A. K. Susheela, have spent more than 20 years doing scientific research in the field of Fluoride Toxicity and Fluorosis.

2. I am a full Professor of Anatomy (Histocytochemistry) and Chief of the Fluoride and Fluorosis Research Laboratories, at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.

3. I have held Faculty positions at the same Institute since 1969.

4. I am a Ph.D from India, with Post-doctoral training under LORD WALTON (Neurologist) of U.K. and Dr. Ade Milhorut of the Muscle Institute, New York, USA, (which no longer exists).

5. I was a Visiting Professor at the Allan Hancock Fn. at the University of Southern California during 1974-76.

6. I am a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medical Sciences.

7. I have won the prestigious Ran Baxy Research Foundation Award (Cash Prize) for outstanding research in medical sciences.

8. I have been involved in teaching medical students of all levels and carrying out research and guiding research in the field of muscle diseases and Fluorosis for more than 20 years.

9. My field of interest for the last 20 years has been Fluoride and Health Hazards.

10. Numerous funding organizations have been calling upon me during that time for evaluating projects for funding in the field of Biomedical Research.

11. I have been a member of several National Committees since early 1970s, where issues related to Fluoride are debated and discussed.

12. I have convened an International Conference on Fluoride and Fluorosis research in India in 1983. I edited a book on Fluoride Toxicity during 1985.

13. I have been invited to speak on my experience in the field of Fluoride Research at various scientific meetings held in: (1) Japan; (2) Denmark; (3) Switzerland; (4) Kenya; (5) U.S.A. (several times); and (6) Hungary.

14. I have guided 6 Ph.D theses in the subject of Fluoride and Health Hazards. A 7th Project is ongoing.

15. I have more than 80 scientific publications in leading Western and Indian Journals.

SAFETY OF FLUORIDATION

16. From my extensive experience, I state without hesitation and with a high degree of scientific certainty, the following evaluation of fluoridation.

17. Fluoride destroys muscle structure, muscle function and depletes muscle energy.

18. Fluoride destroys the bone.

19. Fluoride destroys the teeth.

20. Fluoride destroys the RBCs.

21. Fluoride destroys the Blood Vessels.

22. Fluoride destroys the lining of the stomach and intestine causing GI problems.

23. Evidence that is forthcoming also strongly suggests that in some individuals it causes infertility (not in all, depending on their hormonal status).

24. Substantial scientific evidences has emerged in recent years from studies conducted on Human Subjects and Hospital patients & those residing in areas/ regions/villages where fluoride content ranges in drinking water from 0.5 p.m to 38.5 ppm.

25. Twenty years of follow-up studies have now been concluded and the important findings include the following.

26. Gastro-intestinal complaints are the earliest manifestations of Fluoride toxicity and Fluorosis. The most common complaints include (1) Headache; (2) Nausea (Loss of appetite); (3) Pain in the stomach; (4) Gas formation in the stomach (bloated feeling); (5)Constipation; (6)Intermittent fermentation diarrhea.

27. As a result of the above, GI complaints in endemic areas are considered as early warning signs of the fluoride toxicity and are used as a diagnostic parameter under field based conditions. See Fluoride Ingestion and its Correlation with Gastrointestinal Discomfort. (Exhibit____).

28. Studies on human teeth have shown that fluoride alters a chemical substance in the matrix of the tooth. The mineralization process is abnormal, leading to changes in mineral content, and cavities or pitting are known to occur.

29. In other words, Fluoride induces cavity formation, as well as discoloration of teeth. It is also evident that use of fluoride can lead to loss of teeth at an early age and one becomes edentulous. See The Status of Sulphated Isomers of Glycosaminoglycans in Fluorosed Human Teeth. (Exhibit____).

30. Fluoride in circulation has an affinity to get deposited in tissues rich in calcium although some amount is excreted. In children, the fluoride ingested has adverse effects on kidney function. See Fluoride: Too Much Can Cripple You. (Exhibit____).

31. During the last 20 years, six Doctorate Degrees which were carried out under my supervision and guidance have been conferred on theses on Fluoride Toxicity & Fluorosis.

32. Thesis No.1 (Ph.D): "Muscular and Neural manifestations in Fluoride Toxicity in Rabbit and Man". Submitted to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and conferred the Ph.D. degree to RAJ D. KAUL in 1976.

33. Significant Findings emerged from studies on human patients of skeletal fluorosis. Degenerative changes were well defined at the ultrastructural level in the fluoresced muscle obtained from patients of Skeletal Fluorosis.

34. Thesis No.2 (Ph.D): "Certain structural and functional aspects of bone with reference to Fluoride Poisoning". Submitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and conferred the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to MR. MOHAN JHA during the year 1983.

35. Significant findings emerged from the thesis and have added a new dimension to our understanding of fluoride poisoning and fluorosis. The thesis has reported a sensitive blood based test which has been developed based on the chemical defects occurring in the tissues as a result of fluoride poisoning.

36. Thesis No.3 "Erythrocyte membrane abnormalities during Fluoride Toxicity and Fluorosis". Submitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and conferred the Doctorate degree to MR. SURESH K. JAIN in 1987.

37. Significant findings emerged from the thesis, showing that fluoride inhibits the activity of enzymes of Glucose-6-Po dehydrogenase and pyruvate kinase in erythrocytes leading to impairment of carbohydrate metabolism.

38. Fluoride adversely affects membrane bound enzyme (ATP - ase) and affects the transfer of calcium and magnesium ions in erythrocytes.

39. Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in rabbits and may occur in human subjects as well.

40. Fluoride inhibits protein and DNA synthesis in cultured lymphocytes.

41. Fluoride reduces the number of lymprocytes in circulation by inhibiting their proliferation.

42. Thesis No. 4 (Ph.D): "Fluoride Toxicity Studies on Glycosaminoglycans and its Sulphated Isomers in the Calcified Tissues" Submitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and conferred the degree of Ph.D. to MR. KAMAL SHARMA in the year 1988.

43. The findings emerging from the studies on both tooth & bone have made significant contributions to negate the belief that fluoride is good for teeth.

44. Instead, Fluoride does more damage to teeth than any good. Prolonged use of fluoride leads to a decrease in the organic matrix of rabbit tooth but Dermatan Sulphate content is increased.

45. High Dermatan Sulphate content appears to be the detrimental factor in causing dental fluorosis.

46. Thesis No. 5 (Ph.D): "Effects of excess fluoride ingestion on calcification of bone with reference to Glucocorticoids". Submitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and conferred the degree of Ph.D to MR. TAPOSH K. DAS during 1991.

47. The above treatise has contributed significant, novel information in the understanding of the pathogenesis of skeletal abnormalities occurring in chronic fluoride toxicity and fluorosis.

48. Reduced plasma cortisol levels in patients afflicted with fluorosis is reported for the first time. Fluoride treated animals also produced less cortisol and revealed adrenocortical hypofunction.

49. The study also revealed for the first time, pituitary gland hypofunction which is possibly the reason for adrenal insufficiency in the production of steroid hormone.

50. Fluoride toxicity was shown to impair cortisol production, thereby altering the bone matrix constitution both organic and inorganic, leading to defective and abnormal mineralization process.

51. Thesis No. 6 (Ph.D): "Effect of fluoride on soft tissues - Structural and Biochemical studies". Submitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and conferred the degree of Ph.D to MRS. POONAM KHARB during 1991.

52. This thesis focuses on the biochemical mechanism of ectopic or soft tissue calcification.

53. Although the treatise was completely devoted to animal studies, it offers the message to both the developing and developed world, particularly in the prevention of cardiac problems. Aortic calcification, which is very frequently occurring, perhaps is a result of excess ingestion of fluoride through food, water, drugs, cosmetics like tooth paste/mouth rinses and fluoridated water.

54. The disappearance of Dermatan Sulphate from soft tissue (which normally has high concentration of Dermatan Sulphate) is the beginning of nucleation for calcification of the soft tissue. This process is activated by fluoride.

55. The impact of the above contributions in the Indian National scene has been significant.

56. India launched a Technology Mission on "Safe Drinking Water" in 1986 (now re-designated after the late Prime Minister Sh. Rajiv Gandhi, as Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission) in which every drinking water source in the rural sector is checked for water quality, specially for Fluoride.

57. People are keen to defluoridate the water due to gastrointestinal problems and are adopting indigenous technology for obtaining potable (defluoridated) water.

58. Results include reduced abortions (as Fluoride is known to induce calcification of blood vessels of the fetus).

59. Reduced still births (as Fluoride is known to induce calcification of blood vessels of the fetus).

60. I am absolutely certain that large numbers of persons all around the world are suffering from Fluoride Toxicity, to one degree or other.

61. The various and frequent health complaints, caused by fluoride ingestion, are often (or invariably) over-looked due to unawareness at all levels, which include the health professionals or, perhaps, due to the prevailing ill conceived, unscientific notion that "fluoride is good for teeth."

62. Fluoride is potentially a dangerous chemical and a poisonous substance, which does no good to the human body.

63. With a high degree of scientific accuracy and certainty, I conclude that artificial fluoridation of drinking water is an ineffective means of improving dental health, and is in fact quite dangerous to those forced to consume it.

64. I make this Affidavit in support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

To read the other affidavits submitted in this lawsuit visit: http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/susheela.htm (and scroll to bottom of page)

 

Quality research

 

Chinahand,your reference to the expense of Grade A studies suggests that statistics and costs are more important than people’s health. Epidemiological studies are nowhere near as satisfactory as randomized double blind trials. Anyone trying to suggest they are is being disingenuous. For a UK Government that wasted £101 Billion Pounds in 2007 (Source - The Bumper Book of Government Waste) the cost of a requisite Grade A study would be insignificant in the interest of safeguarding its citizens.

 

The long term facts

 

With over fifty years of fluoridation in the United States there is NO evidence that the teeth of those in the US are any better than those in non fluoridated Europe.

No response yet from you chinahand concerning the definitive 10 year study on fluoride presented in the ‘Fluoride Deception’ book.

 

In the real World

 

Former fluoridation advocate Dr Hardy Limeback Associate Professor and Head of Dentistry at the university of Toronto, Ontario Canada can be googled to read his extensive real life experience of fluoridation.

 

The British Fluoridation Society (BFS)

 

It is difficult to ascribe much credibility to the BFS of which I understand the IOM Health Authority is a corporate member as is, or was, Dr Emerson. I understand the current BFS Director has been a long standing employee of Colgate Palmolive a major manufacturer of fluoridated toothpaste. A conflict of interest here perhaps?

The mission statement of the BFS originally published in 1985 reveals its primary objective:

“It should . . . liaise with Civil Servants, establish support groups, rebut opposition, commission opinion surveys, publicise and hold conferences, and establish a public relations programme . . . promote fluoridation, monitor and combat anti-fluoridation activity, and distribute packages of information to decision-makers. THE SOCIETY MUST EXERT CONTINUOUS PRESSURE ON GOVERNMENT NATIONALLY AND LOCALLY AND DEMAND FLUORIDATION”

 

This does not sound like an objective from rational scientifically based organisation structured for public benefit quite apart from aspects of Human Rights and the potential illegality of administering a poisonous substance with claims of medicinal benefits there from.

 

Honest Broker

 

In the event that the Health Authority or other Government agencies were to be perceived as ‘honest broker’ in the fluoridation consultation process, there would be more evidence of the presentation of disbenefits, not just a reference to mild cosmetic effects. Running a specifically targeted poll with a presold preamble concluded with carefully structured questions designed to obtain the answers desired is not intended to be representative of true public opinion.

A simple solution to gauge public opinion would be to advise the IOM community that all those interested in fluoridation should register their interest with their GP (those GP’s that were prepared to partake) and sign a statement indicating the acceptance of their responsibility for any adverse health benefits including Dental fluorosis.

This would have been a far cheaper more democratic and honest approach potentially satisfying both pro and anti parties. I have not taken into account aspects of the law or human rights in presenting the above which may have the effect of presenting such a course of action.

 

Illogic

 

Apart from some undisclosed financial incentive, where is the logic in putting fluorosilicic acid in 100% of the water supply when we drink less than 0.5% of the total. It is known that any ‘benefit’ from fluoride is topical, so why drink it, and why not provide fluoride toothpaste for those that wish to believe in the ‘benefits’. Children, who appear to be the main target of the fluoride ‘sales’ drive, are important, but those who suffer Dental disadvantages would probably be less than 2% of the population. This does not make statistical sense.

 

On the subject of contaminants in water treated with fluorsilisic acid I have sight of an independent analysis which does reveal a list of measurable contaminant substances, so chinahand’s reference to no measurable quantities found must depend on the level the measurement took into account.

 

 

 

 

Urbansky and Schock

 

Had you conducted further research chinahand you should have realised that the critique of the Masters and Copeland paper to which I referred in my last posting would not go unchallenged so for your ease of reference it is reproduced below.

This document more likely to be understood by scientifically knowledgeable persons.

 

In over 45 years of successful consulting in polymer science, chemical engineering processes, chemistry, and other fields including water and waste water treatments, Myron Copeland has served many companies, including one of the largest phosphate fertilizer producers. He is therefore eminently qualified to understand the issues and the Dartmouth University study Dr Copeland co authored is an important contribution which should be studied in a proper scientific fashion.

 

IFIN BULLETIN #577: EPA seeking more information on fluorosilicates.

May 24, 2002.

For many the following excerpts from an US EPA Request for Assistance is going to read like a lot of gobbledy-gook and thus I will take some time to put it into historical and scientific perspective.

In 1999, Roger Masters and Myron Coplan published a paper in the International Journal of Environmental Studies, in which they showed a statistical correlation between the use of silicofluorides (but not sodium fluoride) to fluoridate water supplies and the blood lead level of children living in Massachusetts.

The CDC responded in the way they usually respond when any research threatens their "precious" fluoridation program, they proceeded to attack the methodology - behind the scenes. They did this also with Phyllis Mullenix's paper on rat behavior. This is a political approach to science. A scientific approach is to critique the paper openly in the scientific literature.

Then two US EPA scientists Edward T. Urbansky and Michael R. Schock published a paper in the same journal as Masters and Coplan, critiquing their findings on theoretical grounds. In this article they argued that there was no difference between the use of silicofluorides and sodium fluoride to fluoridate drinking water, because according to their computations and observations, "we can dispense with the issue of incomplete hydrolysis entirely. There is essentially no hexafluorsilicate remaining in drinking water at equilibrium". The implication being that all the hexafluorosilicate would be converted to free fluoride ion on dilution at the public water works.

This was an important argument because Masters and Coplan had to find an explanation as to why the fluorosilicates would increase the uptake of lead into children's blood but not sodium fluoride. They postulated some interaction between lead and a fluorosilicate species.

On the basis of the Urbansky and Schock paper officials behind the scenes continued to denigrate Masters and Coplan's work.

Masters and Coplan responded to the Urbansky and Schock critique by producing a Ph.D thesis published in Germany in 1975 by Johannes Westendorf. The thesis which they had translated and made available on their web site (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/ahabs.htm), showed that under physiological conditions the hexafluorosilcate ion was not completely converted in water (hydrolysed) to free fluoride ion but instead two fluoride ions remained attached to the silicon. Moreover, Westendorf also showed that the toxicological properties of this species differed from free fluoride ion in its inhibition of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase.

Meanwhile, of course the US EPA has had to admit to Congress that they have no toxicological data on the hexafluorosilicates even though these are used in over 90% of the fluoridation programs in the US.

Now, we are ready for the EPA's Request For Assistance, titled: MEASUREMENT OF FLUOROSILICATES IN DRINKING WATER (Announcement date:April 25,2002).

The following exerpt from the RFA provides the background and research objective as follows:

________________________________________

2.0.RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

2.1.Background

Hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6)are the most commonly used fluoridating agents by potable water systems in the U.S.These species dissociate and hydrolyze to produce fluoride anion (F -).The release of fluoride proceeds through a complex,multi-step equilibrium process that is not well-understood. A variety of models have been proposed,and the speciation remains a matter of debate as does the existence of some fluorosilicates. A review of the relevant chemical literature detailing the complexities,disagreement,and scientific facts has been prepared by the EPA.This review is available to prospective applicants, and they are encouraged to request a copy prior to preparing a proposal.

In addition to the silicon(IV)present from the fluoridating agent,many natural water supplies contain soluble oxo-and hydroxosilicates,which further complicates the speciation.The EPA seeks information on the utility of techniques and methods for monitoring the species formed during the dissociation and hydrolysis of hexafluorosilicate as well as those species present once equilibrium is achieved.These data are expected to aid in the development of pharmacokinetic and toxicokinetic studies and to further the understanding of the fate of fluoride,including its interactions with other species in drinking water.As such,the results of this study will be of use to state agencies,water utilities,and other governmental or scientific bodies who seek to ensure the quality of the nation 's drinking water supplies.

2.2.Objective

The primary objective of this RFA is to investigate the reactions that take place when fluorosilicates are added to drinking water supplies and what concentrations of which fluorosilicate species may monitored in finished drinking water supplies and what techniques may be used for such monitoring."

________________________________________

Now this statement contains within it an uncertainty which is far removed from the earlier statement of Urbansky and Schock quoted above, where they said "we can dispense with the issue of incomplete hydrolysis entirely. There is essentially no hexafluorosilicate remaining in drinking water at equilibrium". Clearly, there is a lot the EPA does not know about the species formed in water when hexafluorosilicate is added to it. Clearly, the statement that there is no difference between the use of sodium fluoride (on which all the toxicological testing has been done) and hexafluorosilcic acid or its sodium salt, is erroneous. Only now, some 40 years or more since using these fluorosilicates is the EPA trying to find out what that difference is! Meanwhile, Masters and Coplan have published a second paper in which they found the same association between hexafluorosilicate use (this time in New York State) and greater uptake of lead into children's blood.

Of particular interest, is that the RFA was issued under the name of Edward T. Urbansky.

Edward T. Urbansky,

U.S.Environmental Protection Agency

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Water Supply and Water Resources Division

26 West Martin Luther King Drive,MS 681

Cincinnati,Ohio

That looks like a scientific apology to Masters and Coplan to me.

Paul Connett.

The full RFA can be accessed at www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/rfa-fluoride.pdf

All the references cited above can be obtained on Masters' web site: www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/AHABS

My reference to Professor Roger Masters comment “If further research confirms our findings, fluoride may be the worst environmental poison since leaded gasoline” is still valid. A further reading of the Urbansky and Schock data you presented does not make encouraging reading with particular reference to the Chinese studies on IQ declination in the presence of fluoride.

Perhaps fluoridation in the United States is working to reduce IQ. The Washington Post Newspaper recently published a report showing one in five Americans believe the Sun revolves round the earth and 80% of American families did not read or buy a book in 2007. Have you ever lived in the US chinahand?

Integrity in Science

I note that you offer no response in respect of the 15000 scientists in the US who have signed a petition against political and other interference to undermine true science.

Authorities

You make frequent reference to Authorities in a generalised manner but do not state on what they rely on in support of fluoride, do they have a specific statement or scientifically validated opinion which they publish?

The statement from Dr William J Hirzy, Snr Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scientist expresses doubts about the safety and science of fluoridation.

Dr R J Carton PhD former US EPA Scientist stated “Water fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not all time”.

 

I note you skirted round my reference to the credibility of the US FDA, and the evidence that is there for all to see, witness antidepressants administered to a substantial percentage of the US population and found to be worthless in achieving their objective. There are numerous examples that can be produced of questionable practices involving the FDA and therefore the comment made in my last post is entirely relevant and Einstein appositely summed the up the position regarding blind trust in authorities.

The genuine skill and scientific capability of the majority of those employed within the framework of the various Authorities is to be respected, however it is the use to which information gained is employed, or not employed is the reason for concern. This is becoming increasingly apparent and is reflected in my earlier paragraph on Integrity in Science.

The Right of Choice

It is appreciated that very few readers will have reached this point, but you will chinahand, and despite your endless production of statistical gymnastics you know there is no honest, scientifically proven case that supports the addition of fluorsilicic acid to water supplies that meets the objective of improved Dental health.

Finally everyone has the right of choice which your cost/benefit argument seeks to over ride, and in the final analysis the right to choose is the governing factor.

 

There is more to say but this is enough for now

[bluemonday]

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/CoMin-to-co...rvey.4146368.jp

 

THE results of the controversial public survey on fluoridation will go to the Council of Ministers for consideration next week, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Security has confirmed.

The survey was carried out as part of the public consultation process on fluoride in the water.

 

A DHSS leaflet was sent out to homes in April and this was followed up with a telephone poll of a random sample of residents last month to gauge their views.

 

The leaflet was widely criticised for only presenting one side of the fluoridation argument.

 

With the results of the phone poll in front of them, CoMin will have to decide whether or not to push forward with adding fluoride to the Island's water system.

 

Hmmm and the verdict is.........................................

[camembert]

Maybe, once again, science considers that it know more than nature. Mother’s milk contains 0.01 ppm of fluoride therefore bottle fed babies would be receiving 100 times more fluoride than breast fed babies.

 

Dental decay is a failry recent phenomenon on the evolutionary time scale. Give nature a few thousand years to catch up & maybe we will see increased levels of fluoride in breast milk.

[saveourwater]

Excellent post Incandescent, though most will not bother to read it - they should, especially due to the ramblings of our far eastern friend - Chinahand.

 

I offer up an interesting film: -

 

[manshimajin]

Excellent post Incandescent, though most will not bother to read it

 

Perhaps more importantly the DHSS won't bother to read it - why should they if the survey proves that we want fluoride in the general water supply?

[saveourwater]

Perhaps more importantly the DHSS won't bother to read it - why should they if the survey proves that we want fluoride in the general water supply?

 

Only a week to go LINK.

[manxy]

I read your letter incandescent and I'm amazed that the Government and various bodies still want to try and put this through.

 

quote from incandescent

The British Fluoridation Society (BFS)

 

It is difficult to ascribe much credibility to the BFS of which I understand the IOM Health Authority is a corporate member as is, or was, Dr Emerson. I understand the current BFS Director has been a long standing employee of Colgate Palmolive a major manufacturer of fluoridated toothpaste. A conflict of interest here perhaps?

The mission statement of the BFS originally published in 1985 reveals its primary objective:

“It should . . . liaise with Civil Servants, establish support groups, rebut opposition, commission opinion surveys, publicise and hold conferences, and establish a public relations programme . . . promote fluoridation, monitor and combat anti-fluoridation activity, and distribute packages of information to decision-makers. THE SOCIETY MUST EXERT CONTINUOUS PRESSURE ON GOVERNMENT NATIONALLY AND LOCALLY AND DEMAND FLUORIDATION”

 

There's something 'not right' IMO about the way this is being forced on people.

Who knows, maybe its to stop the baby boom or we taste better to aliens

Joking apart, can anyone tell me if boiling the kettle (for instance) changes the affects? I only say that because that's the only source of water I drink and thats by having a cup of tea or coffee (not sure if alcohol (spirits) comes under that though?) If the various and whatever chemicals are changed and nullifies the effect, then there would be little point in adding the chemical anyway and the problem still remains.

ps, if anyone wishes to stick a load of gobbledygook chemical equations to disprove whatever point I've written, I'd suggest you save your energy as they mean absolutely nothing to me and would prefer a straight basic answer.

[manshimajin]

Only a week to go LINK.

 

A DHSS leaflet was sent out to homes in April and this was followed up with a telephone poll of a random sample of residents last month to gauge their views.

 

If comments elsewhere on this thread, and in the media, that women age 35+ and men age 55+ have specifically been excluded by the pollsters then the survey cannot correctly be described as 'random'.

[Chinahand]

Joking apart, can anyone tell me if boiling the kettle (for instance) changes the affects? I only say that because that's the only source of water I drink and thats by having a cup of tea or coffee (not sure if alcohol (spirits) comes under that though?) If the various and whatever chemicals are changed and nullifies the effect, then there would be little point in adding the chemical anyway and the problem still remains.

ps, if anyone wishes to stick a load of gobbledygook chemical equations to disprove whatever point I've written, I'd suggest you save your energy as they mean absolutely nothing to me and would prefer a straight basic answer.

Trying to keep it simple - na boiling doesn't significantly affect it. Boiled food etc is as big a source as drinking fluorinated water. And its in beers, beverages etc that use the municipal water. As I've said before Guiness is fluorinated if its made in Dublin, I assume various Irish Whiskeys are also - interestingly also probably the coke! Tea's full of fluoride whether you use flourinated water or not.

 

I am sure I'll get shouted at but the largest review studies (York etc) do say that the effect still results in reduced numbers of cavities even with the fact most of it is not actual drank; and with other sources of fluoride in the environment - these were multivariate analyses trying to look at confounding factors.