I found this article on yahoo.com news http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/a... even the country and the government are weighing in on the issue...read and pass on to all you know...maybe it will finally land on an official's desk and they'll finally do what's right for once for our community and not think of the cash padding their pockets.
J. S. Luckjohn
According to this news story this evening there has been much evidence of the over use of Fluoride! They even mentioned that children taking fluoride supplements are being exposed to too much Fluoride.
Also it has been on the news that areas in New York City and some cities in California are now in the works for stopping Fluoride supplementation in their municipalities because of examining to harm it has now been causing...
Obviously some people are finally reviewing all the facts not to mention the explosion in Fluorisis now going on according to CDC studies...
Excerpt from the article: US says Too much Fluoride causing Splotchy teeth, to read the rest click on the link below...
According to a recent CDC report, nearly 23 percent of children ages 12 to 15 had fluorosis in a study done in 1986-87. That rose to 41 percent in a study that covered 1999 through 2004.
"The report of discoloration has been going up over the years," said Dr. Robert Barsley, a professor at the LSU Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry. "It is not the water that's causing this by any means. It's the extra fluoride products..."
To read the rest of the story
Information will always be changing..
I would rather not drink water with out fluoride, and have the option of how I and my family ingest it...
On the bright side this opens up the opportunity to sell more bottled water free of these drugs. This is why the bottled water industry does so well in larger cities.
I'm hoping our good mayor of Sheridan reads, and replys to this post... Mayor, why, when it is obvious by this poll, these posts, and just walking downtown and talking to people, you are forcing the people of Sheridan to have floride in their water? WHY??? It is obvious the majority of us DO NOT WANT IT!! Who are you, and the council to decide what is good for us? If you are going to go against the majority, I promise you, the good people of Sheridan will have a lot more to do, and say about this issue. You do not have the right. I hope you reconsider your decision on this matter. As do the MAJORITY of sheridan residents.
it should be pointed out that this is a classic case of over response bias. only those who feel extremely strong will even take the time to vote on this poll and even find ways to vote multiple times. our "good" mayor has no reason to listen to this poll because frankly it doesnt mean a thing. you should get a stratified random sample and then go with that actual data and you might have a chance of getting your question answered.
It should be pointed out that this website poll is completely unscientific, and although there are measures in place to prevent multiple votes, it is not error-free, nor is it guaranteed to be an accurate representation of the general public opinion. Compare the results of this poll dealing with the 1% sales tax with the results in the general election and you will notice a substantial difference.
Last weekend, we had a news person on the street collecting sound bites for a story on this poll, and the people he talked to were nearly all in favor of fluoridation.
Perhaps a special election should be held to decide the fluoridation issue. Then again, special elections are not cheap, and I can imagine many people might not like the idea of more money being spent just to maintain the status quo.
So, with all this discussion and various others within other forms of communication, why doesn't this issue just come to the people to vote upon? Sure not all issues and items need to have a vote from the public, but on some issues that are affecting so many, why not have a vote?
Also- seems to me that this town has turned into a bunch of people that are looking to change everything. It seems that if you want something changed all you have to do is complain to the city and they will change it. Remember the 1 cent? Remember the allowed parking along Burkitt in front of the courthouse? The new no thru on Wyoming Avenue? People complain and then things change. What happened to just enjoying life here as it was? What happened to being a nice Western town? Just because big and bigger cities are changing doesn't mean that we always need to be a follower. There are some things that are great to have changed, but when one or a few complain it is changed for everyone I feel as though it is getting out of hand. Where is the balance?
Very well said. This attitude is what I feel this whole country must again capture- and I pray you do in Sheridan.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is
accepted as being self‐evident.” ‐Arthur Schopenhauer
I completely agree. Sheridan residents voted it out in the 1950s, so we should have the right to decide whether or not to put it back in.
I admittedly do not live in Sheridan. But I grew up just north of your good town and have very fond memories.
I've read through most of the commentary here. There are definitely two sides to these issues- both fluoridation and vaccination-- and I am definitely on one of them.
All I will add is this: Observe history. Study ALL sides of an issue before drawing conclusions.
Fluoride is a known toxin - hence the writing on the packages telling us not to swallow it. As has here been said, its promotion as an assistant to help prevent tooth decay is only relatively recent. Look up and study the work of Dr. Weston Price. A major study of his in the 1930s showed conclusively that tooth decay started making a horrific increase when things like sugars and refined foods started becoming commonplace in our diets. He found virtually no dental problems among the indigent peoples of Switzerland, the isles of Scotland, and Africa, who ate nothing but the natural foods available to them. A quick overview of this is found right here:
Our family has used non-fluoridated toothpaste and drunk distilled water for years. We eat a very natural diet. Our teeth are very healthy.
I have read the studies by the CDC, etc. regarding fluoride and its use in reconstituting infant formulas and its implication in fluorosis. Why do something to our innocent babies and young children that can mar them, even consmetically, for their entire lives, that is at best of questionable result? I don't care how convinced a dentist may be regarding how fluoride may be necessary in tooth health. Nutrition is the key here, not fluoride. This has been abundantly clear now for at least 70 years. Fluoride should not be added to any water system.
Regarding the use of fluoride as mind-control in WWII, here is an interesting article regarding this:
Again make no quick decisions. Just do sufficient research on all sides.
The same holds very true with vaccines. Thimerosal is still the combining agent in the multi-use vials of the flu vaccine. They are not afraid to say this on the package inserts. One of the easiest thing to do, as a consumer and as one to whom vaccines or any medication will be given, there is nothing better for us all to do than read the actual package inserts before taking or having anything administered to us or anyone we know and love. Here is a list of package inserts right here:
Take the time to read through these carefully. If you're not certain of a certain ingredient, look it up. Research here on the internet is not difficult. Just become familiar with what is out there and know your personal rights.
I believe strongly that the Lord gave us this earth to take care of responsibly and that nothing should be put upon us without our knowledge and consent. Doing anything to supposedly benefit a group of people on a "mass" scale has never worked. Know your history.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self‐evident.” ‐Arthur Schopenhauer
I was going to post that great find, Lalaland, but you beat me to it. lol. It's so wonderful truth to this matter is out because of those like you taking the time to try & educate our people. Thank you so much. Anyone backing fluoride in this day & age needs sat down & read the riot act.
That reminds me of the list of architects and engineers who believe 9/11 was an inside job.
This is a logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority."
Yes, just like the “appeal to authority” argument that proponents use all the time. It’s equally a “logical fallacy” to simply point to the CDC or ADA endorsements and conclude, without personal study, that there’s “no down side” to water fluoridation. Personally, I’d rather listen to Nobel Laureates, whether they’re chemists, toxicologists, medical doctors, bio-ethicists… than some rambling water engineer or dental hygienist simply parroting the CDC talking points.
How about this list: http://fluoridealert.org/stateme... - more than 3,000 professionals putting their names and reputations behind a call for an end to water fluoridation. Are they all just crazy “truthers”?
But I agree with your (inferred) larger point - we should all read the studies for ourselves. Here’s a fairly representative collection: http://www.slweb.org/bibliograph...
It’s not easy reading, but it is worthwhile reading. And anyone who has trouble, who doesn’t know the difference between dose & dosage, “naturally occurring” fluoride & sodium fluorosilicate, or a halogen element from a resulting compound… well, get help from someone who does. Anyone who paid even moderate attention in high school science classes should conclude, “There’s enough doubt, so keep it out”!
It would certainly be a fallacy to point to an ADA endorsement and state that there is no down side to fluoridation, because that is not what the ADA claims. They specifically note fluorosis as an adverse effect of high levels of fluoride intake - especially in infants - and have released detailed reports on that subject.
Unfortunately, the list of professionals against water fluoridation you provided is strikingly similar to the list of engineers who believe the government demolished buildings on 9/11.
Those individuals may have “engineer” in their title, but many of them are in fields unrelated to the subject, such as "civil engineers" like golf course managers and water quality testers. A great many of them have no more expertise on the collapse of the buildings in New York than I do. That doesn't mean they are crazy. For the most part they are intelligent, reasonable people. What's crazy is believing that their personal opinions on 9/11 somehow carry more weight than that of anyone else just because they are engineers or architects.
A problem with the list of engineers is that an overwhelming majority of genuinely qualified experts agree with the NIST research, which was conducted using proven, scientific methods, and leads to the conclusion that the collapse of the buildings in NYC was caused by the jets flown into the towers.
The list of "professionals" against fluoride includes people like retired school teachers, maintenance supervisors and psychiatrists. They may be "professionals" but that does not necessarily make them qualified to speak on the subject of water fluoridation. As an example, "Sarah Ford, MBA, Sonoma, CA", is among the 3,000 on the list of "professionals." She is most likely an intelligent, reasonable person who is convinced that water fluoridation is a bad idea. But does her master's degree in business make her any more qualified to speak on the subject than me? Barack Obama is an intelligent person with a Nobel Prize, but that doesn't give his personal opinion on fluoridation any more credibility than the "professional" status of Ms. Ford.
Just like the 9/11 engineers for truth, a problem with this list of professionals is that an overwhelming majority of qualified experts agree with the position taken by the ADA and CDC, which is that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial.
I'm not saying that the CDC, ADA, FDA, etc. are infallible. However, the fact that their recommendations are based on proven, peer reviewed research using scientific methods is more important than the letters after a person's name or if they have been awarded a Nobel Prize.
Yes, that would be fallacy, but that’s exactly what one of our councilmen said after listening to the CDC’s Kip Duchon, and prior to his voting in favor of fluoridation.
And really, you only reinforce my point, if somewhat obliquely. Anyone can choose their “preferred authority” with which to back up their own opinions. You’re choosing yours, same as the original poster of the Nobel Laureate list. And my somewhat sarcastic citing of the 3000 plus “professionals” was to illustrate this very tendency. It’s more difficult perhaps, but far more rewarding to actually read the studies yourself.
Do you know with any certainty that the “million or so dentists” that you cite in another post have actually looked at the science? Do they necessarily know more about chemistry, endocrinology, toxicology, epidemiology, etc… than the woman with the MBA who perhaps minored in one of those disciplines, or… let’s say… risk analysis? Just because they have a DDS after their name, does that mean they have the training or the time? I know my dentist doesn’t. I also know that my dentist is under enormous pressure to tow the party line.
As someone smarter than me said, “Consensus is not science.” I will add that “Endorsement is not evidence”.
Who has more to lose - an independent thinker who voices their studied conclusions, or a card-carrying member of a professional organization whose reputation and remuneration is on the line? The money involved in this industry of sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate disposal (all unpurified byproducts of phosphate fertilizer production – NOT “naturally occurring” or “pharmaceutical grade” calcium fluoride)… is HUGE. I imagine the shame, embarrassment, and liability concerns would be likewise considerable.
A small analogy of how this works: there are tens of thousands of dentists who no longer use amalgam fillings (because of the mercury), but instead offer only composites. But ask them to speak publicly against amalgams, and they will balk. Why? Political pressure, or fear of being caught out as wrong, or being held liable, or potentially damaging the almost universally sought “bottom line”.
I believe the practice of water fluoridation in this country was a mistake from the very beginning. Currently it is under fire, and will eventually go the way of asbestos, PCBs, leaded gasoline, DDT, etc. I’d really like to see Sheridan be a leader in this awakening trend, and not an angry, embarrassed follower, looking for someone to sue.
Lastly, there are so many better ways to fight dental carries, tooth decay, the dreaded cavity… Sheridan Media hosts PSAs warning against “flushing medications down the toilet” because it can contaminate the ground water. Before we get to the point of “don’t flush your water down the toilet”, why not try “don’t put your baby to bed with a juice bottle”, or “limit your children’s soda pop, candy, and sugar consumption”. Fluoride is not the magic bullet that so many are looking for, but it is a bullet. Now, because of the vote of four uninformed, politically-driven men, it is pointed straight at us.
Please read the many recent and various scientific, peer-reviewed, toxicological, double-blind, long-term (choose your own validation…) studies! Don’t just cite them because someone else did.
Very well stated. New scientific evidence frequently changes the consensus.
The toxicity of fluoride in large amounts is not new knowledge. However, a generalized statement to the effect of, "if something is harmful in large quantities then it is also harmful in small quantities," is not backed up by science. There are many substances which are beneficial in small amounts and harmful in large amounts. The anti-fluoride examples stated in many of the posts on this page deal with levels of fluoride higher than the amount recommended for fluoridated water, and are therefore not persuasive toward the position against fluoridating water.
The position of the ADA and CDC is obviously that ingesting fluoride in very small amounts does more good than harm. In order for that position to change, there needs to be solid scientific proof that fluoride is harmful even in minute amounts. That is going to be a difficult challenge, particularly since our water currently has a 0.3ppm concentration of fluoride and there have apparently been no known problems associated with it.
You claim that “small amounts”, or “very small amounts” are good, but you really can’t define what either means. I hear you cite the “optimal recommended level” of 1.0 PPM (based on “how hot it gets” in our location – itself a ridiculous standard... just think about it), but you don’t consider the following:
1. The common notion that “fluoride is fluoride is fluoride” is misguided. It’s understandable given the official confounding spin and obfuscations, but misguided nonetheless. It’s like believing that “metal is metal is metal” or “wine is wine is wine”. There are hundreds of fluoride compounds. The “naturally occurring” fluoride in our water is not the same as the “pharmaceutical grade” fluoride that they’ve actually tested, and is definitely not the same as the fluorosilicate waste products they add to the water. To my knowledge, the FIRST toxicological study on hexafluorosilicic acid (the most common fluoride compound used as a treatment additive) was done in February of this year. (See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm... )
2. You can control (hopefully) the amount of “fluoride” you add to the water, but you can’t control how much is consumed, or by whom. Neither the city, nor SAWS, nor any federal agency can control for differences in body weight, preexisting health conditions, quantities consumed (via drinking water), or quantities additionally consumed (via soda pop, fruit juice, tea, cereal, french fries, grapes, etc… See http://www.ars.usda.gov/services... ). Dosage, therefore, is out of control.
So, how much is “a little”? And how much of WHAT?
I know you don’t agree with city council’s fluoride resolution, Steve (you said as much). And I guess that keeping the discussion going here on the poll page is probably job related. Going forward, I hope you might spend more time and energy trying to reverse this bad policy, and less time nit-picking the less than perfect arguments of your fellow advocates of informed consent. We could use your help in the months ahead.
For the purposes of this discussion, "small" would be any concentration where beneficial effects outweigh adverse effects, and "large" would be anything where the scale tips in the other direction. "Optimal" is where the quantity is not so small that there is no beneficial effect and still not so large as to have an adverse effect.
Temperature was included in the standard because studies showed in hot climates people drank more water. However, this method was established in the 1960s and, because of lifestyle changes since then, the CDC in 2001 recommended that it be reevaluated to determine whether or not it is still valid.
1 - Just as in the mercury discussion, it makes little difference if it's ethyl or methyl because they are both considered toxic in large amounts. The same is true for both calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride. The quantity consumed and the frequency at which it is consumed is more of a factor than the type consumed. Both have adverse effects at higher than optimal levels.
2 - That's correct, but as I have mentioned before, at the concentration proposed, a person would have to drink so much water in order to "overdose" on fluoride that the water itself would be toxic before the fluoride would. According to the CDC, high fluoride intake results in "very mild to mild" dental fluorosis. If that is the concern, then we need to be focused on other fluoridated products instead of water. The use of fluoridated toothpaste by children under the age of 6 (who typically swallow about a half gram of fluoride per brushing) is more of a factor than the comparatively small amount of fluoride they ingest via water.
I take issue with arguments focusing on the toxicity of fluoride, because that is not a factor until you get well outside the range of any fluoridated water system. The tube of toothpaste in your bathroom is toxic; fluoridated water is not. People often assume that if large amounts of something are toxic, then ANY amount is harmful. In other words, there is no optimal amount. Multiple studies have proven otherwise. There are benefits to fluoridated water.
You’re playing what amounts to a silly numbers game, but you’re not adding up all the numbers. The EPA tasked the NRC to study their 4.0 PPM maximum containment level. The NRC found that the max is not protective. The proponents say, “Oh, well, we’re only recommending 1.0 PPM – perfectly safe”. But by the time a little kid drinks a glass of water, eats a box of raisins, has a cup of white grape juice… the little kid is maxed out. Add a cup of tea, and you’re way over the top.
By the way, did the NSF “revise” their policy on arsenic, cadmium, lead, beryllium… contaminants in hexafluorosilicic additives? Last I checked, they won’t guarantee or assume liability on the “purity” of their toxins.
Regardless, I don’t challenge your right to drink a “small amount” of poison, or a “very small amount”, if you believe it is “beneficial” (because someone told you so). And whatever flavor kool-aid you want to wash it down with, go for it. To each his own.
Just don’t expect the rest of us to forgo our right to reject this madness.
Fair enough. I assume that you don't currently drink tap water either, because it already has poisons in it, some of which are intentionally added. They are just at low enough levels that the EPA considers it to be safe.
What happens to a child that is "maxed out?" In most cases, nothing. In some cases, very mild dental fluorosis, which the CDC defines as "chalklike, lacy markings across a tooth's enamel surface that are not readily apparent to the affected person or casual observer."
The question is whether or not that is an acceptable risk for the scientifically proven benefits.
So you’re saying that since we’re exposed to some poisons, it’s therefore acceptable to increase that exposure to more poisons? What kind of logic is that?
The difference between the existing, intentionally added chemicals and fluoride is that the former are added to treat the water (for turbidity, PH balance, etc.) and the latter is meant to treat people.
The real question is “How do you justify medically treating people without their consent?” I wouldn’t spike your water glass without your permission, even if I thought I could make you “better” somehow. What gives anyone the right to dose me without my consent? The risk / benefit analysis should be up to the individual, not forced on them by government or popular vote.
As for the child, in addition to what you mention, in some cases moderate to severe fluorosis, not what you could call “casual” and “cosmetic”. Beyond that, I don’t know, and neither do you, and neither does the CDC. We’ve only just gotten to the point (60 some years into the experiment) where we can assess the effects of long term exposure. Questions regarding heavy metal uptake, thyroid problems, kidney disease, affects on IQ… are just a few of those on the table.
By the way, today’s “oops” from one of your preferred authorities seems relevant to our discussion:
Your acceptable “small amount” of poison just got smaller. It’s a start, anyway.
You are misrepresenting my position. In my post above I was wondering how you felt about consuming tap water that - by your definition - already has "poison" in it.
I don't agree with that definition. My position is that substances that are poisonous in large quantities can be perfectly safe - and even beneficial - for humans to consume in small quantities. I am convinced that fluoride is not poisonous at low levels, and therefore disagree with arguments against water fluoridation based on the assumption that it is a poison.
Referring to anything that can be toxic in large amounts as "poison" even when it exists in small amounts is not necessarily an accurate representation. By this standard, salt is also a "poison." I doubt you have objections to ingesting small amounts of it even though exposure to large amounts can be fatal.
I have no problem with people who oppose water fluoridation because they feel it is not a good use of resources, or because they feel it is not worth the risk of dental fluorosis, or if they disagree with the science that shows it is beneficial for oral health, or even if they disagree because they feel it is a medical treatment being done without their consent. However, I view claims of the government polluting our bodies with "toxins" and "poisons" as alarmist exaggerations and not particularly helpful in guiding people to a reasonable, logical decision on the matter.
On the news coming out today: As mentioned in an earlier post, in 2001 the CDC recommended a reevaluation of the standard which included adjustments for local temperature, because of the changes in lifestyle since that standard was created. It seems that due to this reevaluation, the temperature requirement is being removed, resulting in a single recommended level instead of a range. There is no admission that the original level was a mistake, only that it is no longer necessary.
I am against fluoridating the public water supply because there does not seem to be an overwhelming necessity to do so. While scientific evidence does seem to support the claim that fluoride is safe in the relatively small quantities that may be added to our water supply, we must also remember that human physiology is extremely complex and future evidence may come out that shows fluoride in small quantities is not as benign or helpful as we thought. Obviously, there have been many times in history when this has happened--cocaine used to be commonly prescribed and was an ingredient in Coke. Radium was thought to be a miracle "drug" and put (briefly) in products like toothpaste. We didn't initially recognize how harmful DDT was. Now, these examples are not entirely analogous with fluoride; fluoride has a much longer history of use and to my knowledge, has been more extensively studied. Plus, our technological capabilities and ability to test these substances are vastly better today than they were when radium was put in toothpaste. Still, I generally think, as most of us are not scientists, we need to have a bit of say, faith (but with a healthy dose of skepticism) in what people more knowledgeable say on an issue.
The problem with the modern populist mentality is that sufficient reverence is not given to people who have dedicated years to researching a topic. People think their lay opinion on say, climate science, is as valid as an actual climate scientist who has spent several decades researching climate patterns. While I'm in no way saying we shouldn't question experts, Joe the Plumber's opinion only deserves credence in the area he knows--plumbing. What he has to say about climate change or whatever else should not be given the same weight as a climate scientist's.
While this seems to be a rather tangential commentary, it is related to the fluoridation issue (and more broadly) in that we need to pay better attention to our sources of information, because in this world of populous rancor, the knowledgeable voices too often get blurred with the idiots'.
You know Steve, we are bombarded with toxins by air, food & our water. Not even going into the many facets of harmful drugs & the biggest assault of them all, which is the many toxins in vaccines. So when you want to talk doses you must remember they all add up & the synergy & toll is unknown & would strike people differently, depending on many factors.
If all the people, here, voting "yes", knew the true facts about fluoride, all those "yes" votes would be "no"
"The dangerous truth behind fluoride"
"The Dangers of Fluoride & Water Fluoridation"
This documentary is shocking & explosive. If it doesn't outrage you, you're not paying attention.
Here are many videos & documentaries exposing the truth behind fluoride;
The truth is undeniable once you really look. Please wake up, Steve. We need everyone to wake up.
A casual observation: If the life expectancy of Americans continues to rise and mortality rates continue to decline, then the benefits of modern medicines are apparently more than offsetting the bombardment of toxins.
Actually, we are among the first generation that is expected to have a shorter life expectancy than our parents. Granted, I'm not sure if or how this projection accounts for technological advancements, (if it assumes a linear pattern, exponential, or flat). To my understanding, the decline in life expectancy is primarily attributed to the increase in obesity.
Yes, it is attributed to obesity. This idea is credited to Dr. William Klish of Texas Children's Hospital. In 2002 he told the Houston Chronicle: "If we don't get this epidemic [of childhood obesity] in check, for the first time in a century children will be looking forward to a shorter life expectancy than their parents."
However, Dr. Klish said his claim was "based on intuition" instead of actual scientific evidence. In other words, he basically made it up.
Read more about the flaws in this theory here
Studies have shown that obese people may suffer health complications, but there is no empirical, scientific evidence indicating that life expectancy is decreasing as a result. This CDC report shows that life expectancy is "continuing a long-term rising trend." We are now approaching ten years since Dr. Klish predicted lower life expectancy, but people born today are expected to live about six years longer than their parents will.
I did hear life expectancy has been declining. So I just did a quick search & the first article that popped up was from The New York Times & it's almost three years old.
"Life Expectancy Is Declining in Some Pockets of the Country"
I couldn't find a more current report but maybe someone else can find one.
Granted, medical science has made giant strides in many areas but there have also been many errors. We are a "nation of epidemics" thanks to many of those errors that came in the form of harmful drugs, especially vaccines & many other toxins, like fluoride which is said to be one of the most toxic substances known.
As for the proof to the dire & sick state of our nation that's rippled out to the world due to our toxic happy state of being, perpetrated upon us by big business & corporations, take any disease you can think of & do a search. Like, "cancer and epidemic", for example.
"There is an epidemic of cancer today. One in three Americans will be diagnosed with cancer, often before the age of 65."
Go ahead, try it & see. Any disease that comes to mind.
Yes. Most people may still be living longer due to medical science but many of them live diseased & suffering lives thanks to our environment where so many toxins have taken toll which were let loose on us by the very agencies,
like the FDA, who we trusted to protect us.
On the other hand, many have gone to early graves, too.
All this is great for the medical profession but not so great for our people.
According to the article you provided on life expectancy, the "counties with significant declines were consistent with regional trends in smoking, high blood pressure and obesity."
Here is a graphic that doesn't focus on overweight smokers. It looks at the country as a whole based on data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
It shows an obvious upward trend in life expectancy, which is projected to continue into the next 40 years.
Water fluoridation became widespread in the 1960s but there doesn't appear to be any impact on these trends from it. Similarly, there doesn't seem to be any downward indication that can be attributed to the appearance of mercury in vaccinations around 1930.
Here is a comparison of the life expectancy in the US compared to the world in general:
How can the "dire and sick state of our nation" possibly be "rippling out to the rest of the world" if the world in general has a LOWER life expectancy than the US, yet it is increasing for both demographics?
A person can search "_______ epidemic" and usually find an article claiming that this particular subject is "frightening" and "alarming" and a cause for great concern. Just a few that I found over the course of five minutes:
Obesity, mosquitoes, bird flu, cholera, AIDS, Swine Flu, whooping cough, binge drinking, suicide, teen STDs, narcissism, bullying, depression and diabetes. There is a gun epidemic, a tanning epidemic, and even an "xBox Red Ring of Death" epidemic.
What this tells me is that we really have an "epidemic" epidemic. The word is extremely overused, and many organizations who are trying to get attention to their cause are likely to use the term in an attempt to create a sense of urgency. Rather than searching for alarmist articles, let's take a look at some real data.
You specifically listed cancer as an example. America's Health Rankings has been tracking our nation's health for the past 20 years. Their research shows a DECLINE in the cancer death rate EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS.
The infectious disease rate has almost been cut in half over the last 15 years http://www.americashealthranking...
A few indicators are on the rise, such as obesity, diabetes and high cholesterol, but those are probably due to the fact that we are more wealthy and less active compared to our ancestors. In general, your statement that we live longer, but a more "diseased and suffering life" doesn't seem to be supported by the data. Some people get sick more than others, some die young, some live to be 100 and are still healthy up to their last day. The difference is more related to individual genetics and lifestyle than poisoning from evil corporate America.
The fact is that - in general - each generation lives longer and is healthier than the one before, and some of the credit belongs to those "toxic" vaccines.
Steve, I disagree. The government, in cahoots with evil corporations, did a great disservice and were totally tramping on our rights when they virtually made diseases like cholera (in developed nations) a thing of the past. It is my right to contract cholera, and frankly, I'm kind of miffed that the government, yet again, took that right from me. Basically, I have no rights left. Except a modicum of free speech...
You are right. We have done some despicable things in the past. Another one that comes to mind is growing viruses in a monkey's kidney tissue, soaking them in formaldehyde and then injecting them into people. Not surprising, this practice can cause paralysis or even death in the person being injected... but it has virtually wiped out polio.
What no one has noted is that since WWII it is internationally agreed that it be illegal to force medication on a person without their knowledge or consent. The agreement does not say 'majority rule wins.' It does not say that the majority can be overridden by corporate interests.
It says that it is illegal to do so, period!!
Second, no one has noted the history of the use of flouride in water, or in dentristry. In the early part of the 20c dentists, as a profession, were opposed to use of flouride. Then we had the Manhattan project which has a lot of chemical waste to dispose as they made 'The Bomb.' Flouride salts were part of that waste and brilliant clones that they were, they decided to dump it into the public waters. Newburg, NY was the first dumping.
Newburg water has been flouride treated since that time. So fast forward to the late 20c when a study was done comparing the health of teeth in Newburg teens and those of teens in a city of the same size and demographics 40 miles away. The teeth in Newburg folk were not only no better than those in the Kingston folk, but were actually a bit worse!!!!!! Now there goes that stupid argument.
Now I would like to address the so-called science that people have referred to. The only science mentioned that is useful, at least for me, is that of the Pediatric society and the CDC that actually tries to put the break on its use. For these institutions to come out and criticize the haloed use of flouride tells me that the data they have is pretty severe--much more so than the benign cautions they put out. After all health is as political and economically motivated as is the oil industry. It takes an awful lot of disaster to get these mainstream people to develop an oppositional stand on anything. You cannot even get them to take a strong stand on high fructose corn syrup which is so heavily linked to diabetes and ill health, just to mention 1 little item.
I listened to a talk by this dentist a few years ago where he ran the whole history of flouride down and related it to damage not only to teeth but all kinds of health issues. I think his name was David Horowitz (but don't quote me). here is and article on the side effects of floride:
You will notice the fact of bone deformation in India from floride which is irreversible. And the cost to correct dental florosis is cited as $15,000.00. The neurotoxin effects have been noted in this blog by several others.
Floride in tea is mentioned in the referenced article, but I don't think it talks about the use of floride in the processing of commercial black teas. Another toxic burden put on us.
It seems to me that the common sense position should come from what is natural in nature, not the chemical/industrial labs. If our bodies get a miniscule amount of floride in natural foods on an occasional basis it will also be in a form that our bodies can most likely process. Our bodies developed within a world that was able to provide sustenance for us. And while it is true our bodies are adaptable to some degree to abuses, they do not serve us well over the years with constant abuse heaped upon ourselves.
Adding floride, or any other toxic chemical to water to medicate an entire population is unethical, unnecessary, dangerous and illegal.
Serum Fluoride Level and Children's Intelligence Quotient in Two Villages in China
"Background: Animal studies show that brain fluoride levels increase with increasing exposure to fluoride. Human studies have indicated an association between high levels of drinking-water fluoride and lower intelligence. Data on the association between serum fluoride and children’s intelligence quotient (IQ) are limited."
"Objective: This study was conducted to assess the relationship between serum fluoride and children’s IQ."
"Results: In Wamiao, the mean (± SD) concentration of fluoride in serum was 0.081± 0.019 mg/L, and average children’s IQ was 92.02 ± 13.00; in Xinhuai, fluoride concentration was 0.041 ± 0.009 mg/L and average IQ was 100.41 ± 13.21. The regression coefficients between serum fluoride and children’s IQ were –0.163 (p = 0.015) in Wiamiao, and 0.054 (p = 0.362) in Xinhuai. Serum fluoride levels were negatively associated with IQ after adjusted for age and sex, the ORs for IQ < 80 across groups with serum fluoride measuring < 0.05, 0.05–0.08, > 0.08 mg/L were 1, 2.22 (95% confidence interval: 1.42–3.47), and 2.48 (95% confidence interval: 1.85–3.32) (p for trend < 0.001) respectively. IQ was not related to family income and parent’s education level. There was a significant positive relation between serum fluoride and drinking-water fluoride."
"Conclusions: The results indicated that fluoride in drinking water was highly correlated with serum fluoride, and higher fluoride exposure may affect intelligence among children."
The fluoride level in the water in Wamiao may have been as high as 3.3 ppm, well above the recommended amount for drinking water. Funny how this particular summary leaves out that important piece of information.
14 Nobel prize winners have opposed fluoridation.
... and probably a million or so dentists support it.
If you are against water fluoridation on the stance of 'freedom', then you logically should also be against water treatment as a whole.
The existing water treatment process has taken away your freedom to ingest all the naturally occurring substances in our water that flows down to us from the mountains. Such as varying levels of minerals which may alter the taste, wildlife/livestock excrement, blood (mountain lions enjoy to kill deer as they drink from streams I am quite sure), parasites, bacteria, dirt and whatever else you can think of. You are no longer free to drink those items because of that evil water treatment system forced upon you...
And you should also be against: speed limits, traffic control devices (stop signs, traffic lights, etc.), laws regarding clothing to be required when in public, because ALL of those are clearly also reducing your freedom and reducing your choices.
If you are against this on the stance of 'monetary cost'.. it seems that in general the average cost of water fluoridation is in the range of $1 to $2 per person per year, that is essentially a non-issue entirely specially when it could reduce your kids dental bills for cavities (then the water fluoridation was like pure free extra money in your pocket.. and you'd be against that? it's similar to the 'ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' saying)
If you are against this on the stance of 'health hazard'...
The ONLY scientifically verifiable adverse effect of fluoride in water is dental fluorosis, which is typically mild, and is only a 'visual' effect and not actual health impacting. Also seems to be only mild (or not even noticed at all) unless fluoride levels go above and beyond that of recommended levels (or excessive quantities of fluoridated water is routinely ingested).
(the infant formula debate brings up a side debate that the mother should breastfeed, whenever medically/physically possible, as it is common knowledge that the mother's breast milk is healthier than formula)
I say the bottom line details are as follows:
it is not a dire need (maybe money could be spent elsewhere?).
it is inexpensive.
it has essentially zero adverse health effects.
it provides known dental benefits.
it is supported (and promoted) by the CDC and ADA.
I personally will not mind either way if it is done or not done, but I find the vast majority of the opposition to be obviously ill-informed.
As with everything, there are safe and unsafe levels (the fears about fluoride come only from the 'unsafe/excessive levels')
Chlorine disinfection of the water supply is safe and beneficial.
Chlorine disinfection of water has the known side-effects of increasing levels of trihalomethanes (including things like chloroform, and known carcinogen dibromochloromethane) as well as haloacetic acids (excessive levels of those can cause adverse nervous system and liver effects).
Fluoridation of the water supply is safe and beneficial.
My personal suggestion in this case would be that it should be made a ballot item and voted on (of course there is certainly a chance that eventually it could be a nationally mandated water standard).
I am opposed to it primarily because of the way it is being done. Unless I am mistaken, the city used to have fluoridated water in the early 1950s and a popular vote resulted in it being removed. So, why has the city council suddenly decided that they need to go against the will of the people expressed by that vote? What instigated this revisit of the fluoride issue?
My speculation is that there is a relationship between it and the cryptosporidium upgrades at the water treatment plants. I wonder if some federal money is going to be given to those projects if the city fluoridates the water.
That may not be such a bad thing, but I am typically not in favor of the government going against the will of the people. If there was a popular vote to remove fluoride last time around, then it seems only right to hold another vote to determine whether or not a majority of the population now wants fluoride in the water.
The issue is not whether or not flouride is a benefit or not. The issue is: Do we prefer "forced" ingestion or the freedom to choose?
If half the people like it and half don't, then forcing it upon everyone makes half unhappy. While Not putting it into the water allows almost everyone the freedom to choose.
Freedom produces more happiness for more people. Always has and always will.
The same logic applies to building codes, taxes and most other "choices" we make. If you like building codes, then you may choose to build to code, but don't force your will on your neighbor.
If you think "good project X" is worthy, then donate to it, but don't force your neighbor to support your cause. Your choices apply to you. If you impose (by law) your will on your neighbor, then you have taken away his god-given right to pursue his own happiness.
Anyone remember prohibition? If you don't like beer, then don't drink it, but the vast evil caused by that single law is still with us, today. (mob and disrespect for the law)
The freedom to choose is an inherent human right.
Discussing the relative merits of imposing flouride, taxes or codes is to miss the subject entirely. It's a freedom/force issue. Anything else is irrelevent.
Choose freedom for all and we all win.
Give me Liberty or....
Many of us are convinced that the science is conclusive that fluoride is dangerous. Why should the government force upon us and our children even the possibility of this danger? Especially if ANY portion of the incentive to do so is because "free" money (it's still OUR money!) is available from a federal grant to do so.
Mariet, I am probably more on the side against fluoridation of public water supplies...unlike, say cholera, tooth decay is not transmittable and generally not lethal and individuals can take individual steps to prevent it.
However, I don't think you necessarily present the best argument..."many of us are convinced that the science is conclusive that fluoride is dangerous." First, misleading...you don't mention what levels of fluoride is dangerous. Water is dangerous and toxic if you drink too much as well. And even if "many" are "convinced,"---well, "many" people also believe in UFO abductions and a white-haired Santa Claus-type guy who lives in the sky and will send them to a land of fire if they are "naughty." People believe all kinds of weird stuff, that doesn't make it true.
How many people do you think drink out of a nasty river like the Nile every day?
This is similar to food stamps and health care. If the tax payers have to pick up the tab for other peoples chosen life styles and bad habits (including dental bills) - then they should be able to dictate how that money is spent.
Can you still get fluoride pills through your doctor? I know when our kids were young and we had well water our doctor prescribed fluoride pills. I think this should be a choice of each individual, not forced on us through the water system. Fluoride in toothpaste is not swallowed like it would be in water. And by the way, our children did not benefit from the pills - they each had a fair share of cavities, whereas I grew up without fluoride in the water and my teeth have very strong enamel.
It should be up for the individual to decide and not administered upon the population.
*sarcasm* Don't some studies show that the antioxidants in a glass of red wine a day help fight heart disease or something? Why aren't we getting that piped to our house? :D */sarcasm*
I agree with Grant!!! (no sarcasm!)
I agree. I also agree with those who point out that most of the water isn't used for drinking, so a large portion of the fluoride will end up on lawns, clothes, dishes, etc.
Steve, I agree with only one of your statements - the one regarding government usurping its power and forcing people to ingest certain substances against their will. That being said, however, there are a few errors in your statements. If I may:
Fluoride has recently been studies by the ADA and the FDA as being a neurotoxin and the ADA is requesting its removal. There is absolutely no proof of its so-called "benefits," only proof that it is a neurotoxin, and is being implicated as a major factor in Alzheimer's and other neurological diseases. Where is the sense in statements of "Fluoride is required for healthy teeth, just don't swallow it." When you read a statement like that, warning bells should go off.
Same could be said with the statements regarding the pharmaceuticals, the mercury, the tuna, etc etc. The mercury in various pharmaceuticals is organic ethylmercury, there are NO studies currently available that suggests ethylmercury is safe, in ANY amount. The mercury in tuna, etc is methylmercury, and the FDA DOES inform the general public that ingesting of too much tuna, some freshwater fish is unsafe, especially among pregnant women. They are stating that pregnant women do NOT eat any fish products while pregnant, because unlike the ethylmercury, methylmercury HAS been studied and found to be a dangerous neurotoxin and unsafe for human consumption. The amount of ethylmercury in a single dose influenza vial, for example, is 25 mcg, way over EPA limits of what they (the EPA, FDA) consider "safe."
Now, digressing once again, the original topic being fluoride. There are so many other chemicals (Chromium 6, for one) and heavy metals in "drinking" water now, one cannot get away from them. You have to remember too, that not only will this fluoride be in the 'drinking' water, will you not bathe and shower and cook with this same water? Did you know that topically is the other fastest way for your body to absorb toxins/molecules/etc? Everything that is in that water will enter your body via orally or topically. There are no legitimate or logical reasons that fluoride should be in water. None. It's merely an excuse from various industries to get rid of their *waste*. I also wouldn't recommend eating a tube of toothpaste, but on the other hand, I don't agree with ANY amount of fluoride in drinking water.
Could you point me to the ADA document(s) where they recommend removal of fluoride?
1) That is not an official ADA document
2) It does not recommend removal of fluoride from water supplies
That article does not recommend removing fluoride.
The article clearly states that dental fluorosis (97% of which was mild) is linked to higher intake of fluoride (it doesn't state actual ppm levels though, so logic indicates that the 3% that weren't 'mild' were due to even higher levels of fluoride than the 97% that were mild).
"Results suggest that prevalence of mild dental fluorosis could be reduced by avoiding ingestion of large quantities of fluoride".
Notice it says to avoid "mild dental fluorosis" (google 'mild dental fluorosis' you'll find it is usually almost not noticeable and only a 'visual' issue and not health impacting), you should not ingest "large quantities" of fluoride.
it does not say "consuming normal, or low, amounts of fluoridated water will cause severe dental fluorosis", does it.
It also does not say "avoid normal or accepted fluoride levels", it only says to avoid "large quantities".
It does not say fluoride should be removed (or made to be 0ppm levels).
The CDC only recommends reduction of fluoride if the local water supply has a level exceeding 4ppm (the current EPA maximum allowed level).
If the article Heather linked scares you, then you should also be scared of driving, and scared of breathing air probably.
I find it interesting that you hijack a topic regarding fluoridation. Vaccination which you apparently haven't read up on is not the subject of this debate. I couldn't let your gross misinformation slide. Beside your goal post shifting, your ad homonym attack on "This same person" is not lost on me!
"mercury in pharmaceuticals and other such toxins as being similarly harmful"
A meta-analysis on all peer review data regarding vaccines prove the majority (74%) show a clear link to ASDs.
"compared to what exists in a can of tuna"
Okay, who grinds up a can of tuna and injects it into pregnant women and children? Your logic fails on so many levels. You couple that with the data established by Thomas Burbacher where he compared MethylMercury (found in tuna) to EthylMercury (found in vaccines). EthylMercury uptakes in the brain at higher levels than MethylMercury and upon dissection EthylMercury is known to change into inorganic mercury. This make is much harder to detox and causes known neuron death.
I will also take this opportunity to state the flu clinics in Sheridan only gave out the multi-dose vials of FluZone, unless you could provide a MD note stating you had an allergy to mercury. Which I find ironic you need to prove an allergy to a known neuro-toxin. This continued 25 mcgs of thimerosal (EthylMercury). This was injected into pregnant women and children. Even in the elementary schools where my son attends.
Everyone should take the time and listen to what our health authorities are saying. The EPA and NIEHS are looking into the environmental triggers that are causing epidemics in neuro and immuno disorders in out children. These are mainstreamers who are deeply troubled that 1 in 6 children are needed special education services in our schools and 1:110 are diagnosed autistic. The numbers are real and the cause is environmental with an underlying genetic susceptibility. We need to limit the amount of toxins our children are bombarded with. At the very least until the EPA and NIEHS's research comes in and narrows down the culprits. That means don't drink or inject known neuro-toxins because they do and will accumulate.
I also want to say that thimerosal isn't the only neuro-toxin found in vaccines. Aluminum is also being injected into our children and there is suspicion there is some kind of interplay with the live viral agents as well. Prenatal rubella (viral) infection is a known cause of autism. MMR vaccine (measles, mumps rubella)
Define the Question:
When you inject known neuro toxins like preservatives thimerosal and adjuvants like aluminum early in life than inject these live viruses, are you creating a toxic overload, a synergistic impact that then leads to a biohazard the size and significance which is entirely unknown?
Video Feeds from our health authorities (EPA, NIEHS)
I did not hijack the thread. The mercury in tuna was given as an example of trace elements of toxic substances considered safe for human consumption where larger amounts are not. This is directly related to the much smaller amounts of fluoride in water compared to toothpaste.
You are correct to point out the differences in types of mercury, but I think my original point is still valid. Methylmercury bioaccumulates and ethymercury does not. Also, methylmercury is quickly absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract, and has a longer half-life in human blood than ethylmercury. Any studies I have seen show that methylmercury is more toxic than ethylmercury.
"but I think my original point is still valid."
Your point is not valid based on the latest primate study that I linked you to above. Ethyl Mercury not only bioaccumulates it crosses the cellular membrane because it's fat soluble. When it does that it looses it's "ethyl" property and turns into inorganic mercury. This is not good news. I guess you didn't read the science.
"A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic Hg for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%)" The 7% was demonstrating Methyl Mercury exposure. This is toxicology research that isn't refuted.
Here it is again in case you missed it:
Well, here is more that refutes your stale outdated logic.
Ingesting mercury (via tuna) is very different from injecting it (via Thimerosal). It appears that eating foods with mercury is MUCH safer than using vaccines that contain this same ingredient:
"An incidental finding of oral mercury ingestion was followed clinically and did not result in complications....Subcutaneous mercury injection should be managed with local wound debridement, whereas ingestions are rarely of clinical significance."
"The oral route of metallic mercury use does not cause poisoning symptoms, but its use in infants and children could cause subclinical developmental problems. Concentrations in blood and urine after ingestion of mercury remain low because very little is absorbed. However, mercury injected subcutaneously causes sterile, inflammatory, and necrotic reactions resulting in abscesses and granulomas....When mercury is injected intravenously, it goes mainly to the lungs and can cross over to systemic circulation...Neurologic and renal complications can result from high systemic levels of mercury, and subcutaneous injection usually results in sterile abscesses."
This is yet another study looking at the vaccine schedule and thimerosal.
Page 40 - 41, Paragraph 4
Dr. Tom Verstraeten
Lead Author of study & EIS Office at National Immunization Program
“From those risk analysis, excluding those dichotomized for EPA, we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure [to thimerosal] and the outcome for these different exposures and outcomes. First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay which has its own specific ICD 9 code. Exposure at three months of age, Tics. Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of these plus a number of other disorders.”
So loose the tuna fish analogy. It has become ridiculous.
According to the CDC there are very few vaccines that still contain Thimerosal, and most of those are available in single-dose versions which don't need a preservative. Thimerisol-free vaccines may contain very small traces of mercury, but nowhere near the 100ppm in vaccines made prior to 2001.
25 mcgs of Thimerosal is not considered trace. This is what was injected in our community during the flu clinics held throughout our city, even in the elementary schools. So, pregnant women and children were injected with 25mcg of thimerosal. You apparently are fine with that.
Thimerosal is just one on the known neuro-toxins that have found their way into the vaccine ingredients list. Aluminum is also a known neuro toxin and lets not forget the biological interplay when you inject live viral agents. Especially if you have already set the patient up to potential immuno/neuro compromised outcomes because of the previously injected neruo-toxins.
"and most of those are available in single-dose"
Here you go again with the miss-information. Most of the influenza vaccines contain thimerosal (25mcg). Only a "limited" amount are made free of the preservative.
", but nowhere near the 100ppm in vaccines made prior to 2001."
So do you now admit that thimerosal is harmful? So where is the toxicology evidence that provse only a smig of neuro-toxin is fine? Where is the toxicology evidence that proves the synergistic affects of the recommended vaccine schedule is safe?
Agreed, 25 mcg is more than what would be considered a trace amount. However, less than half of the flu vaccines listed here by the FDA contain Thimerosal (in all but one the single-dose varieties are Thimerosal-free), and of the 36 non-flu vaccines, only 9 contain trace amounts or more and only 4 contain as much as 25 micrograms of thimerosal per dose.
We are starting to lose focus a bit. My original point was that the very significant difference in relative quantity of the toxin compared to other sources is ignored in these arguments, and that point has not been refuted. 25 millionths of a gram in a flu shot is very small compared to other sources of mercury.
Even if a person receives a flu shot each year containing thimerosal, the amount of mercury they get from that shot is minuscule compared to what they get from other sources. If that same person consumes one 6-ounce can of tuna a month, which is only ONE EIGHTH of the FDA recommended maximum amount, they would have put roughly 1,300 micrograms of mercury into their body over the same period -- more than 50 times the amount they received from the flu vaccine -- and still would be well within what the FDA considers a safe margin.
The differences between ethylmercury and methylmercury and injection vs. ingestion are of little consequence when we are talking about such extreme differences in quantity.
Trying to get back on topic, a person would have to take so much of a drug that the other products in the medication would likely be fatal long before a person would be able to reach an unsafe level of mercury from it. Also, if a person were to consume enough water to ingest the same amount of fluoride that they would get in a single tube of toothpaste, the massive quantity of water would cause severe health problems before the person would experience any negative effect from the fluoride in it.
The fact that fluoride toothpaste contains a poison warning is of little relevance when talking about fluoridated water. Substances can be fatal in large doses, but beneficial (or at least not harmful) in small doses.
And, just to restate for the record, I do NOT agree with the idea of fluoridating the water supply.
I've already linked you to evidence where tiny amounts of mercury that's found in vaccines cause known neurological affects. I could like you to more but it seems you have selective reading.
...so can the mercury in fish.
A person who eats fish on a regular basis is putting themselves at far greater risk than a person who gets a flu vaccine.
The FDA recommends a person eat no more than 12 ounces of tuna a week. Over the course of a year that amounts to over 400 times more mercury than they receive from an annual flu shot.... if that shot even contains Thimerosal.
No matter how many studies cited or statistics quoted, at the end of the day no one really knows the bottom line on how safe fluoride is in our bodies. We already have enough unwanted and unhealthy chemicals in our environment, I for one don't want one more.
Since we don't know everything about fluoride and its safety we have no business using it. Anyone forcing the use of fluoride, including the City, should take responsibility for any harm caused.
It is interesting that out of all the negative votes not one person would leave a comment about the subject.
Do to others as you want done to YOU!!
Due to the holiday weekend I did not post the submitted comments in a timely manner. My apologies. - Grant Toth
I grew up in Worland until 2nd grade and then moved to Sheridan with my family and Worland has had Fluoride in their water supply for many years! My sister and I have not had any problems with our teeth and we are in our 40s. I believe children need all the help they can get when it comes to teeth!
So now we are trading in our brains for teeth? Systemic application of fluoride is contraindicated. This drives to the very point of this debate. Topical application fine but leave it out of the water.
To Steve Sisson's remarks - could this be true? If so, where is your documentation on your remarks? What are your sources?
Check a tube of toothpaste and it shows how much fluoride is in it. Typically it is given as a percentage which works out to a concentration of about 1,000 ppm.
The ADA recommended concentration of fluoride in water is 0.7 to 1.2 ppm.
I had the opportunity to see the City Council meeting on television the other day of the decision to fluoridate and I was completely appalled. Not only by the bias of all the so called medical professionals in this community but how those in favor treated those in opposition like they were wackos, when infact they were not! I even heard one Dr after hearing those in opposition admit they would have to go and do some more checking, of course refusing to back down on their assumption fluoride is safe from birth on. I thought that's what medical school was for, hence the reason why medicine is a practice and not the gospel. The same Dr said infants under 6 months old could safely ingest fluoride in water, when the Academy of Pediatrics and CDC clearly say infants should avoid it completely! That is why fluoride free water is sold in the grocery stores for baby formula!
The bias comments from the mayor were more than obvious to those in favor and against those in opposition assuming they were wackos with no facts and was completely disrespectful! Which made those in favor sound like a good ol'boys club of elites by the sound of the Mayor's obvious bias! I applaud the council persons who voted to review the facts and take longer to decide and listen to all sides of the issue. It was very obvious when the Mayor told them "We need to decide now and not wait later" that his mind was already made up and didn't care to further investigate the facts.
The Mayor's way of solving "Freedom of Choice" was to have people invest in Reverse Osmosis Systems, of which he then seconds later said was a completely unhealthy way of drinking water. Just another stab at those who would like water pure of Agricultural Waste used to put Fluoride in the Water Municipalities. My question is what about the thousands in the community who may not own their home but rent, can they afford to invest in a water filtering system and wouldn't make sense if they don't own the house!?! What about their infants possibly being exposed to Fluoride???
I would like to applaud those who spoke out in opposition, from a variety of backgrounds both professional and common ordinary citizens, with facts. In fact someone who worked with Fish and Wildlife years ago specifically in the issues of water, spoke out in opposition to Fluoridation.
Thankfully this process can possibly be stopped with a future Mayor and Council Members and won't happen over night. But it takes the citizens standing their ground and letting their voices be heard!
Can you please link me to the feed of video of the council meeting?
You can find all of them here. http://sheridanwy.pegcentral.com/
The Mayor & everyone in denial to the harm fluoride represents must see this documented fact in these two videos that will be recorded, forever, along with the rest of the mountain of fact & evidence, in the archives of history for posterity.
They are both undeniable, revealing & explosive.
"Health Professionals Call for End to Water Fluoridation"
There's no way the good people of this town, or anywhere else, for that matter, will allow this injustice to take place or be continued. The cover up has been exposed just as truth behind the dangers of the toxins in vaccines, Steve is so misinformed on, has been exposed.
I think it has been stopped once before. I understand that the city had fluoridated water for a while in the 1950s, and it was stopped after a popular vote to end it.
If a vote of the people ended it, then a group of people needs to file a lawsuit at the state level to stop it from going back into practice until a new vote can take place to reverse the old vote... Its not that hard to file an order, but it just seems to me that people like to just complain... If you feel strongly about something get together, spend 120 bucks and file a cease and desist against the city putting them on proper notice that a new vote needs to be taken.
I'm not a big fan of government making people ingest things against their will.
On the other hand, I also think that the claims made by many of those opposed to fluoridation are off the mark. For example, one of the more outspoken local individuals consistently uses the warning on fluoridated toothpaste as evidence that fluoride in water is going to poison the population. This same person has also talked about the presence of mercury in pharmaceuticals and other such toxins as being similarly harmful.
I don't find these arguments persuasive at all because they neglect to account for the vastly differing concentration of these substances between products. For example, the amount of mercury in pharmaceuticals is minuscule compared to what exists in a can of tuna, and tuna is safe for human consumption as long as it is not ingested in large quantities. A person could not take enough drugs to get an unsafe level of mercury in their system from them without suffering far worse consequences from the drugs themselves first.
Likewise, the concentration of fluoride in toothpaste is about 1,000 ppm compared to about 1 ppm in fluoridated water. If a person were to drink enough water to get the same amount of fluoride that they would from ingesting a tube of toothpaste, they would probably develop Hyponatremia (water intoxication) long before the fluoride itself could cause any damage.
In other words, in those quantities the water itself is more harmful than the fluoride in it.
First of all, injecting & ingesting are two completely different things. The body is better able to rid itself of toxins via the digestive system but it's not so easy to do when injected as it stores in the body & brain. And who's to say what damage all this minuscule amounts add up to be, anyway? Everyone paying attention knows we are being loaded with a mix of toxins by air, water & food with the catalyst & trigger being vaccines.
And with all the information out there on fluoride, the argument has become ridiculous that tries to oppose the truth.
There is a lot of information on fluoride available online. There is also a lot of disinformation on fluoride available online.
I can understand your position, however I don't find your argument as persuasive either. You seem to be sugesting that since there may be no acute reactions to the poison we should disregard the long term exposure.
If you want to try a time consuming experiment, take two small fruit-bearing plants - like tomato - and treat them exactly the same (light exposure, fertilizer, ect.) just give them a different water source. One fresh, one tainted w/ a miniscule amount of toxin. Watch the differences in development of the plant and the fruit produced.
This ofcourse is all mute anyway, since the whole argument for fluoridating the water supply is supposedly to benefit our teeth... which is a riddiculous notion in and of itself; anyone who understands basic anatomy realizes that your stomach is not connectected to your teeth.
Actually Becky those who do understand basic anatomy know that the stomach is connected to the teeth. The mouth plays a plays a key role in the digestive system. The teeth are necessary for chewing, as well as tearing, cutting, and grinding food in preparation for swallowing. Chewing allows enzymes and lubricants released in the mouth to further digest food. So if we didn't have teeth how would we digest food? Oh the solution- dentures! We'll all have dentures because of the types of food we choose to eat and the lack of oral home care the average individual chooses to partake in each day because they are too busy or some other sort of excuse. Prevention is the key to people keeping their teeth. Regular check ups from your local dentist, prophys (teeth cleanings) from your local dental hygienist, daily brushing AND FLOSSING, as well as the proper amount of fluoride in their toothpaste AND their water.
I am not suggesting that there is absolutely no effect on the body. My point is that it is misleading to equate the fluoride in toothpaste with fluoride in water because they are in vastly different concentrations. Many substances which are beneficial in moderate amounts can be fatal when taken in large quantities. Iodine is a perfect example.
Does fluoride bioaccumulate? This is probably important to determine when discussing acute vs. long term exposure to fluoride.
For the record, I still like Grant's idea about the government administering red wine. Ok. I'm kidding, I have a similar position to Steve's, I think the counter-arguments tend to be "off the mark" but am still opposed to the government injecting public water supplies with something that is probably harmless and beneficial, but still should be more of an individual choice....
My understanding is that fluoride does not bioaccumulate in soft tissues where toxicity would be a concern except in cases of extremely high levels of sustained intake or in people with renal deficiencies.
WY Vaccine Info Network
I am against water fluoridation. However, my comment is regarding Steve Sisson's comment, in which he said:
"... the amount of mercury in pharmaceuticals is minuscule compared to what exists in a can of tuna, ..."
My comment will conclude with my thoughts on amounts of fluoride in water.
Please see Dr. Boyd Haley's article at
Dr. Haley's article "Affidavit Of Boyd E. Haley. Professor And Chair. Department Of Chemistry. University Of Kentucky -- Thimerosal Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopment Outcomes" talks about this.
Referring to amounts of mercury in vaccines, Dr. Haley said: "... This data basically demonstrated that addition of very low amounts of mercury to normal human brain homogenates inhibited critical thiol sensitive enzymes (creatine kinase, glutamine synthetase and tubulin) that are also dramatically inhibited in Alzheimer’s diseased brain. Research in our laboratory clearly demonstrates that thimerosal rapidly inhibits these enzymes as well as several other metabolically important enzymes."
In Dr. Haley's article, see the section called "Similarity To Acrodynia" to see more about the amount of mercury needed to cause systemic damage.
Dr. Haley has studied the effects of different types of mercury. He explains how mercury and other substances interact with each other and cause damage when they are together; however they wouldn't cause as much damage if they were not with another specific substance.
This quote in Dr. Haley's "Summary" explains it: "The chemical rationale for the neurotoxicity of thimerosal is that this compound would release ethyl mercury as one of its breakdown products. Ethyl mercury is a well known neurotoxin. Further, combining thimerosal with the millimolar levels of aluminum cation plus significant levels of formaldehyde, also found in these vaccines, would make the vaccine mixture of even greater risk as a neurotoxic solution. The synergistic effects of mercury toxicity with other heavy metal toxicities (Pb, Cd, Zn) has been established in the literature for many years. Further, using this vaccine mixture on infants who are ill and do not have fully developed bilary (liver) and renal (kidney) systems could greatly increase the toxic effects compared to that observed in healthy adults."
Also in his summary, Dr. Haley said: "It is the inability to see the effects of chronic, low level toxicities on human health that has been, and remains, our greatest failing as intelligent beings."
So, let's not accept even tiny amounts of a toxin. By the way, you cannot control the amount of fluoride that a person will consume when it is in the drinking water. Also, substances are absorbed through your skin, so your shower will also be a potential source of fluoride entering your body.
We are already accepting a tiny amount. Sheridan's water currently contains a fluoride concentration of 0.3 ppm. The ADA's minimum recommended level is 0.7 ppm.
Your reference to the .3 ppm of fluoride in our water supply is the natural occurring element currently in our water supply... It is not the same the chemical additive that will be used to adjust the levels. Even the Mayor himself admitted this at the end of the council meeting.
Do you know and understand that what is "added" to the water municipalities is a chemical and labeled as an agricultural waste by the EPA. The same chemical put into the water supply to bump the fluoride level is also illegal to dump and considered an agricultural waste until it is sold as a fluoride supplement, hence the reason these companies then began selling this byproduct to water municipalities all over the country as "Fluoride" for their water systems. That is a well proven and known fact.
If I remember correctly a former Game and Fish person who worked in the area of water at the council meeting confirmed this, so did a molecular biologist at the city council meeting. I may be wrong on who specifically brought this up, but it was shared a handful of times where and what this chemical being added to the water supply was and how it was considered a chemical waste product from the agricultural industry.
So there is a definite distinction and difference between the current levels and what chemical will be used to adjust the levels.
That's correct. Chlorine is also a chemical additive that is dangerous in large quantities. It is used in the production of plastics and insecticides. Its corrosive properties cause the EPA to require companies who work with it to treat it as a hazardous substance... but it has definite beneficial effects when added to water in very small amounts.
Chlorine is a poisonous gas, but it is extremely effective at removing bacteria and microbes from drinking water.
Just because something is hazardous in certain conditions, that doesn't necessarily make it hazardous in every condition.