"While both San Diego and Southampton are both clearly lagging behind other places that applied fluoridation many years ago"

One could equally say we are ahead of the curve.

Connett gets it. Mortimore, like our own Cockcroft, fail to understand where the fault and remedy lies.

The people of Southampton have so far made it abundantly clear that they do not want this poisonous muck in their drinking water. However Mssrs Cockcroft and Mortimer like two demented parrots still shout, "fluoride is safe and effective, safe and effective" despite little or no evidence to support this mantra and much which denies it.

The Terrible Two have won no new converts to this nonesense yet because of a combination of orthodoxy and pride, refuse to hold their hands up and say, "well there may be some problems now we have looked at the latest evidence. "

Of course when you have accepted the Queens shilling and sworn an oath of allegiance its rather difficult to admit any doubts. Fortunatley now, on both sides of the pond Mssrs Sue Grabbit and Runne are already collecting evidence of those who seek to lead us astray with a view to bringing them to book. And is this surprising when we have a fast dwindling number of proponents of fluoride who know nothing of toxicology or epidemiology and no concern for the wishes of the citizens of Southampton or even medical ethics. The most relevant of which are Non-maleficence - "first, do no harm" (primum non nocere) and Autonomy - "the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment." (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)

So Andy and Baz, we the people, have the right to refuse fluoride and you do not have the right to insist that we take it.

Southampton does not need or want fluoride. We want decent drinking water. Fluoride is dangerous for several groups of people - the elderly, people with thyroid problems etc

So do the detractors find fault with iodine in salt? It would appear that far too much credence it given to the uneducated today.

No longer are they able to brainwash & mislead the masses anymore!

What they're doing in reality is a criminal act, they justly deserve to face the music!

There's no need to expose the whole body to such an industrial toxic sludge, period!

Of course, there are entities out there, who surely will benefit both $$$ & control etc.

Ingesting this crap does not even properly work on the teeth!

Check out the following simple experiment to verify this:
http://tinyurl.com/4
726bu

Big Boy says: So do the detractors find fault with iodine in salt? It would appear that far too much credence it given to the uneducated today.

What's that got to do with the issue? No-one is forced to take salt. Despite an overwhelming NO from the Echo poll, they are still pushing ahead. Clearly a case for the European Court of Human Rights.

Fluoridated for years and still as bad as ever or worse - in this weeks paper.

http://www.newsandst
ar.co.uk/news/1.1292
41

..................Th
e Department of Health also highlighted high levels of tooth decay in children living in Copeland and Allerdale, a finding likely to add bite to the debate over fluoridation of water supplies.
The government has said the practice improves oral health but West Cumbria has been adding fluoride to its tap water for years.
The profiles make grim reading for those living in Copeland and Carlisle, which according to DOH indicators are among the unhealthiest places in the country.
High levels of obesity, premature deaths and mental health issues are just some of the problems which are hitting parts of Cumbria harder than most. In comparison Eden was top ranked in 15 of the 32 profile indicators.
Residents enjoy lower levels of teenage pregnancy, a longer life expectancy and there are fewer claims for mental health incapacity benefits.
Eden’s youngsters also have a better chance of success at GCSEs.
Copeland and Carlisle have high numbers of workers on low wages, deputy director of public health for Carlisle Dr Rebecca Wagstaff says this explains a lot of the findings as deprivation is linked to poor health.

Doctor Connett said "A DOCTOR CANNOT FORCE MEDICATION ON A PATIENT".This principle says it all and whatever the PCT or dentists argue, the fundamental right of the people is there.From the comments posted on this web-site and others it would suggest to me that THE MAJORITY OF US DO NOT WISH IT IN OUR WATER SUPPLY. Nuff said innit.

There is no proof it can harm anyone.

Also Americans have Lard in there water. Plus they dont drink tap water, they only use it to bath and brush there teeth with.

If fluoride man cared to read the wealth of information on the subject, he would find that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary of his assertions.

Sorry fluoride man (or is it Baz or Andy?) you dont need to drink fluoridated water to be poisoned by it. Every time you wash, shower or bathe you absorb it through your skin and whatever you do absorb, only half of it is excreted. Builds up very nicely over time as your posting seems to demonstrate rather well.

Smiler wrote:
If fluoride man cared to read the wealth of information on the subject, he would find that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary of his assertions.

Carried out by people with limited knowledge, do they have HARD evidence? Lets face it everything causes you to get cancer, breathing, walking, smelling of cheese.

Get a grip and drink Flouride. Your teeth make me sick.

It's good to read some very good opinions on this Blog. Did anyone read In my View - Jennifer Godschall's article; it was worth reading because it outlines the ominous sound of dictatorship. We are being tipped into extreme control and it is now very worrying times in our Country. Sometimes we have to stand up and be counted.

Goard

The article states:

Dr Mortimore said: "Why should the people of Southampton and San Diego, and, in particular, their children, be denied an opportunity to reduce their risk of tooth decay and having those teeth filled or extracted? When we know that we could significantly and safely reduce those risks, it would be wrong of us not to propose the fluoridation of our water supplies."

The answer is simple, the people of Southampton do not want to suffer the adverse effects that fluoridation can cause.

NO MEANS NO!

These sound like the bleatings of men who know they've already lost the arguement and have run out of ideas.
They don't have a shred of real scientific evidence that Fluoride will have any benefit to anyone (except the companies who stand to make money selling their waste)
Mortimore and Crockford, Should they go ahead, should be struck off the medical register for violation of basic medical ethics.

How can we convince that the 'No's' outweigh the 'Yes'. We all have a reason for our fear of intrusion in our well ordered and outstanding control of our living standards and access to our doctors and dentists. Don't punish the ones who have a caring attitute towards our family.

Goard

If one looks at the World Health Data it is clearly shown that most developed countries do not fluoridate water and have decreased cavities in the last 3 to 4 decades as much or more then the few who do. The current science clearly shows ingested fluorides cause dental fluorosis or forever porous ,brittle, discolored ,stainable enamel in about half the kids. The cavity reduction is very small or nonexistant. Topical at much higher rates then 1ppm may have value with toothpaste but large risk also for young kids as most can swallow way to much 7 and under causing much of the moderate and severe damage said the ADA. This is a lose-lose most. Unmentioned is the mass revolt of the EPA professionals over fraud and 11 unions asked congress for IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM and a goal of ZERO just like the other cumulative toxins lead and arsenic. The FDA has not approved any ingested fluoride ever. The claimed thousands of studys did not once study the much more toxic chemical brew direct from smokestack scrubbers of phosphate/uranium mines. We had Uranium recovery units for years to take the uranium from the acid but closed them all down when the price of yellow cake dropped in the early 90's. All are considering recovery with the price at $120 pound. Until then we have many of the 20 plus contaminates being radioactive. The unmentioned free bonus. The Health departments are just running a big con game as they have lots of claims and no real proof with specifics. Poughkeepsie NY tried to ask specific questions and not a single supplier or health Department would answer a single question on product health and safety and benefit. They voted to stop fluoridation.

The newest issues in the US are the National Kidney Foundation now says for chronic kidney patients to monitor and avoid fluoride intake but mention most of the 20 million do not know they have CKD and there is no way to know intake. Also another 20 million are in the high risk group. The American Water Works Association has been served constructive notice to not destroy records to be used in kidney damage lawsuits and they may be personally sued also as they develop the safety standards for product. 60,000 AWWA members. In Arkansas every water plant operator(11) in one city signed a letter in opposition to manadatory fluoridation bill. They are going public of the danger to workers and water users.

Florida now has one of the big players in fluoride propaganda working for the Health Department.When he was out spreading the lies in the Metro LA Fluoridation mess his statement in the Newspaper to those that opposed was "nobody drags anyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country." This disrespect for Citizens is unacceptable and I asked to state to dismiss him. They said he was taken out of context. Constant attack and the list of supporters seem important to him. Your two are at least polite as they lie. First do no harm. Informed consent is not possible when we have only been told one side and claims of safe for all and everyone benefits. Could it be possible they really believe that? Not possible really. Even if it is just the 48% the York review say get dental fluorosis from fluoride toxicity. It is really a evil pack of misinformation to deceive. How do they look themselves in the mirror? Jim Schultz In the UK it seems they think it impossible the lower classes can do anything for themselves. Fluoride almost cannot be avoided without much effort.

In her article, “US city mirrors Hampshire's fluoride debate,” Lucy Clark points out that “Forty-six of the USA's largest cities” as well as “Sydney, Melbourne, Hong Kong, Dublin, Birmingham and Newcastle” fluoridate their water. If this list is given in order to encourage Southampton to follow suit, I would point out that the vast majority of cities worldwide do not fluoridate their water, and there is no scientific evidence that their teeth are any worse than the cities that do. These non-fluoridated cities include: Albany (NY), Amsterdam, Antwerp, Athens, Basel, Beijing, Belfast, Bergen, Berlin, Bern, Bologna, Bombay, Bonn, Bremen, Brescia, Brussels, Calcutta, Cambridge, Cape Town, Cardiff, Carlisle, Cologne, Copenhagen, Christchurch, Delhi, Durban, Dusseldorf, Edinburgh, Florence, Frankfurt, Geneva, Genova, Hamburg, Helsinki, Innsbruch, Johannesburg, Kyoto, London, Lucca, Luxembourg, Lyon, Madras, Malmo, Marseilles, Milan, Monaco, Montreal, Moscow, Munich, Naples, Nice, Oslo, Osaka, Oxford, Padua, Paris, Prague, Pretoria, Quebec City, Reykjavik, Rome, Rotterdam, Rouen, Salzburg, St. Petersburg, Stockholm, Tallin, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Trieste, Turin, Udine, Utrecht, Vancouver, Venice, Vienna, Warsaw, Wurtemburg, Yokohama, Zagreb, and Zurich.

I urge you to be very wary of following this bad American practice. In America, some of the worst tooth decay is occurring in cities which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. This is largely because America does a terrible job of getting dental care to families of low income. 80% of American dentists refuse to treat poor children on MedicAid. It is well established that there is a far greater relationship between poor dietary habits, and low income levels, than you will ever find with lack of ingested fluoride. In the US, and elsewhere, health authorities should find better ways of providing dental care for families of low income, as well as education for a better diet and dental habits, than wasting taxpayers dollars pursuing the myth of water fluoridation.

Paul Connett, PhD,
Executive Director,
Fluoride Action Network
315-379-9200
http://www.FluorideA


lert.org

Why is it that Dr Andrew Mortimore, Public Health Director for Southampton City PCT
won't listen to the majority of people who do know about fluoride and say over and over again we don't want it? In Portsmouth about 2 years ago the Primary Care Trust rejected fluoridation now with the board members changed they've set up a steering group to, guess what, look into introducing fluoridation.

Thank you USA blog people for giving a deeper understanding of fluoride.I like to quantify the 'for' and 'against' but as I see it there is a very big worry that fluoride will be imposed on us. I would imagine that those who have other major health worries, including those that have kept tooth decay in check must surely outnumber those people who, for various reasons, need attention to their teeth and gums. Surely, it would be wise to tackle these people than cause extra problems for the population at large? and cheaper!

goard

I'm sorry, but this is all getting far too one sided. Please use the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Fluoride

Do we honestly need American pseudo science in this debate? After all they managed to give us 'Intelligent Design' & 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'.

If Big Boy doesn't want American pseudo -scienc then he should reject fluoridation, which is perhaps the biggest example of pseudo-science America has ever produced. After all the US Public Health Service endorsed this practice before a single trial had been completed and with hardly any health information on the table.

So reject this American practice and go along with the vast majority of European countries which have rejected fluoridation.

Does Big Boy think the the National Research Council 507 page review entitled "Fluoride in Drinking Water" is pseudo-science? Check it out -it is available on the internet and can be accessed via our web page www.FluorideAlert.or

g

Does Wikipedia reference this review?
If not, why not?

If 507 pages is too much reading check out Scientific American (sorry there's that word again) January 2008 issue.

Paul Connett, PhD,
Dirctor,
Fluoride Action Network

Mat I also draw your attention to the following on the wikipedia web site.

The American Dental Association states on their website that many prominent organizations endorse water fluoridation, including the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Medical Association.

On April 2, 1999, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed water fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.

I would prefer water fluoridation to occur throughout the UK rather than not have it. After all it is possible to remove it if you are particularly frightened of it's effects.

Doesn’t it concern you that the junk they put in the water is not a pure product like sodium or calcium fluoride - this is the specification as admitted by the UK Chief Medical Officer Prof Sir Liam Donaldson, Na2SiF6 powder requires a minimum of 98% m/m of the pure chemical, and gives maximum limits for impurities, including heavy metals (as lead) and iron. No other substances are allowed to be used in the fluoridation process, other than an anti-caking agent (the identity of which must be disclosed) in the case of Na2SiF6. The acid also eats the water supply pipes and there are still lead pipes in many parts of the inner city.
Read Chris Bryson’s book Fluoride Deception he is an English reporter who while in America was asked to look into fluoridation a subject he knew nothing about and like you thought it was good. Or look at one of the video’s where he is interviewed
http://video.google.

com/videoplay?docid=

7319752042352089988
It is not so easy to filter out fluoride not like chlorine which is simple.

I think everybody should have to swallow fluoride everyday, and stop complaining. I should know, I have studied it for years and been responsible for introducing fluoridation to many cities. It cant hurt you.
If it does hurt some people then those genetic groups will die off sooner and we will have a super race, with magnificent teeth, who can withstand any toxic effects of fluoride. Get with it, its progress.

Dr I Cluck wrote:
I think everybody should have to swallow fluoride everyday, and stop complaining. I should know, I have studied it for years and been responsible for introducing fluoridation to many cities. It cant hurt you.
If it does hurt some people then those genetic groups will die off sooner and we will have a super race, with magnificent teeth, who can withstand any toxic effects of fluoride. Get with it, its progress.

Er.....then why does it say in my toothpaste tube, and I quote "Children under 7 years should use a pea sized amount of toothpaste and be supervised whilst brushing to minimise swallowing" me thinks Glaxosmilthkline are savvy enough to know when to protect themselves from a possible lawsuit!
We are hearing from too many dentists who've had the fluoride lie drilled into them since the 50's by the chemical industry and who are now unwilling to see the elephant in the room. all over the fluoridated world, health problems associated with Fluoride are cropping up. Eventually the truth will out.
Let's hope no young men in southampton die needlessly from bone cancer because of their blinkered attitude. Studies in both the US and Eire, show a significant increase in bone cancer in young males where fluoride is present in the water.

So big boys and Bubba's are on both sides of the pond. Some must have a calling for the attitude. Non selective breeding or maybe being bullied. There are non so blind that refuse to see. Just to mention do not listen to the 19 unions of the Epa as they now want immediate halt of fluoridation and to have goal of ZERO just like other toxins lead and arsenic. FSA product damages water making it more corrosive causing leaching of lead from brass ,solder,copper but you can add orthphosphate and poly phosphate to reduce the damage. It does complicate the process and makes PH control more critical. The main source of arsenic in many cities is from the arsenic in the H2SiF6 product as it is the most common contaminate. See Maas 2007 who studied over 150,000 homes for lead for the EPA in 18 years and he showed that up to 900% more lead leached into water from H2SiF6 when used with chloramine disinfectant it was. Washing DC had out of control lead levels from 2001 until 2004 and gave out bottled water and filters for a year as the did not discover the problem for over 2 years. Major failure due to toxic corrosive toxic acid waste used for fluoridation. This chemical brew has never been studied by any agency for chronic safety ,health or even benefit nor has the FDA ever approved any ingesed fluoride product ever. Grandfathered in as effective rat poison sort of as only use prior to 1938. Like Paul said health Department gave complete endorsement when first study was half done but then they only looked at kids and the real risk is long term cumulative effects which take many decades to show up at low dose. We now receive much more then the 1mg a day kids first got because it is in everything now and only water then. Any comments? I will try to answer if I can. Jim Schultz

So even if the product dis reduce cavities it does complicate and add two cumulative chronic toxins with gaols of ZERO which makes it illegal to add them without reason to the water. They have negative effect at any level and they had tried to lower the allowed level for arsenic to 3ppb but it ended up at 10ppb and lead at 15ppb. The osteosarcoma has many good studies being increased by the HFSA but they did not really look if it was the 10 plus radioactive contaminates that are in the product but never mentioned to the public. The AWWA did not even admit they existed until 1998. They come from a phosphate /Uranium mine and are not removed from the acid now but all the companies are planning become the price is up to $120 a pound and it costs $40 to recover.This is a very complex issue and we only get a simple lie because it only makes dollars for industry and trade associations like dentists. It is the cover story for them not needing to treat poor people. Dental fluorosis damage is big buck cosmetic repairs. Dental incomes are soaring and doctors are flat for years. Dentists work far fewer hours also and dental damage is the pot of gold at the end of the fluoride rainbow. Always follow the money. Always. Jim Schultz

The following post is available as a highly condensed landscape A4 duplex capable single sheet document for Word specifically formatted to be used as a flyer for home delivery. If you want it contact griffithspeter0@goog
lemail.com

sorry about the small print!

GIVE YOUR KIDS THE GIFT OF BONE CANCER, BRAIN DAMAGE AND STERILITY

The proposals to fluoridate public water with toxic compounds of hexafloruasilic acid are a direct breech of European regulations forbidding the mass medication of human populations. It is also an offence under section 23 of the offences against the person Act of 1861. The Water Supply (Fluoridation Indemnities) (England) Regulations 2005 (Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 920) were a specific attempt by the government to provide the water supply industry with "blanket" immunity against civil and criminal liability arising out of these criminal acts. Poisoning by Fluoride, a known and deadly toxin, has no place in the public health system and its introduction has more to do with eugenics and population control than dental care. Alan Johnson is more than aware of this. Unfortunately unelected and unaccountable "health quangos" will be seeking to call the shots on this issue and most of them will be riven with the corrupt members of Common Purpose. An organisation more sinister than the Real IRA.

Fluoridation of public water supplies should not be allowed! And here’s why:
WHY EPA’S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION*

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride’s only effects were beneficial — reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.‡

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was all right for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief‡‡ in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.1

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride – as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan’s group found that several key chemicals in the brain – those that form the membrane of brain cells – were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others4 reported on the brain- and kidney-damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix’s finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm.

In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China5,6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.

Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke7 has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston.8

From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue.9 The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made the finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.11a,b,c,d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey,12 Washington and Iowa13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997.14 Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.15a,b,c,

d,e Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.16 The latest publication17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important.18 Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English-speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180-degree turn on fluoridation.

Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health.19,20,21 However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste.22 Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.

So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media,23 that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America’s children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.

We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA’s risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry
.1 Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W. Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61. On-line at URL http//:www.rvi.net/~

fluoride/naep.htm. 2 Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995). 3 Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).4 Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998). 5 Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996). 6 Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 7 Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994). 8 Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956). 9 Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW. 10 Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11a Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984). 11b Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139 193-198 (1984). 11c Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11d An increase in the number of Down’s syndrome babies born to younger mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46 (1985). 12 A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992). 13 Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. National Cancer Institute in Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. F1-F7 (1991). 14 New evidence on fluoridation. Diesendorf, M., Colquhoun, J., Spittle, B.J., Everingham, D.N., and Clutterbuck, F.W. Australian and New Zealand J. Public Health. 21 187-190 (1997). 15a Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, ,T.P. et al. JAMA 264 500-502 (1990). 15b Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. Danielson, C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992). 15c The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2 617-626 (1992). 15d Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly . Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273 775-776 (1995). 15e Water fluoridation and hip fracture . Cooper, C., Wickham, C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991). 16 Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990). 17 Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18 Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 29-44 (1997). 19 A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Limeback, H. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 62-71 (1999). 20 Fluoride supplements for young children: an analysis of the literature focussing on benefits and risks. Riordan, P.J. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 72-83 (1999). 21 Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Featherstone, J.D. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 31-40 (1999). 22 Appendix H. Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. H1-H6 (1991). 23 Some young children get too much fluoride. Parker-Pope, T. Wall Street Journal Dec. 21, 1998. 24 Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983. OTHER CITATIONS a Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Freni, S.C. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42 109-121 (1994). bAmeliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Vet. 78 75-91 (1988). cMilk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986). dMaternal-fetal transfer of fluoride in pregnant women. Calders, R., Chavine, J., Fermanian, J., Tortrat, D., and Laurent, A.M. Biol. Neonate 54 263-269 (1988). eEffects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Hoffman, D.J., Pattee, O.H., and Wiemeyer, S.N. Toxicol. Lett. 26 19-24 (1985). fFluoride intoxication in dairy calves. Maylin, G.A., Eckerlin, R.H., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 77 84-98 (1987). gFluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Holland, R.I. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 3 701-705 (1979). hAn unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Emsley, J., Jones, D.J., Miller, J.M., Overill, R.E. and Waddilove, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 24-28 (1981). iThe effect of sodium fluoride on the growth and differentiation of human fetal osteoblasts. Song, X.D., Zhang, W.Z., Li, L.Y., Pang, Z.L., and Tan, Y.B. Fluoride 21 149-158 (1988). jModulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. Jope, R.S. J. Neurochem. 51 1731-1736 (1988). kThe crystal structure of fluoride-inhibited cytochrome c peroxidase. Edwards, S.L., Poulos, T.L., Kraut, J. J. Biol. Chem. 259 12984-12988 (1984). lIntracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. Kay, A.R., Miles, R., and Wong, R.K.S. J. Neurosci. 6 2915-2920 (1986). mFluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. Roholm, K. H.K. Lewis Ltd (London) (1937). nToxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Isaacson, R.L., Varner, J.A., and Jensen, K. F. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 825 152-166 (1997). oAllergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Spittle, B. Fluoride 26 267-273 (1993). *For Correspondence: Bill Hirzy, NTEU Headquarters, Box 76082 Washington, DC 20013. TO RECEIVE THIS DOCUMENT AS AN EMAIL TXT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO 07510258880
‡For a history of how drinking water fluoridation began, see "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", by investigative reporters Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson ,

on-line at http://www.ia4u.net/

~sherrell/bomb.htm.
‡‡http://www.rvi.net

/~fluoride/amicus.ht

m
*PLEASE PHOTOCOPY THIS DOCUMENT FOR YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS-GET THE TRUTH OUT*