Why is Fluoride in our Water?

Money and National Security. More on that later. There's a great website called fluoridealert.org that takes a scientific approach to the debate. Once you learn the truth about fluoride, your eyes will be open and a lot of questions will be answered. If you'd rather get the low down on fluoridated water by listening to 1 hour discussion by a well respected doctor on this subject, click here .

The bottom line is this. While there may be some benefit of putting fluoride directly on the teeth of children at a certain age, (topical benefit) there is not ONE study EVER that suggests ingesting fluoride is good for ones health. How can it be? It kills enzymes! Enzymes are essential to good health and they are used in every system of the body. The Journal of the American Medical Association" noted in its September 18, 1943 issue,

"Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes."

Here is what Dr Mercola says about fluoride:

Collagen Is The Body's Glue and Fluoride Ruins It � That's not just a metaphor; when collagen breaks down, tissues simply lose their substance, their framework. Fluoride dissolves the body's glue simply by preventing new collagen from being formed.. Not only is the collagen incorrectly formed, it is wrongly mineralized. Some collagen, like bones and teeth, should be mineralized in order to give it hardness. Other collagen structures, like ligaments, tendons and, and muscles, should not be mineralized, in order to keep them flexible and resilient. Fluoride mineralizes the tendons, and muscles and ligaments, making them crackly and painful and inflexible. At the same time fluoride interferes with mineralization of bones and teeth, causing osteoporosis and mottling or dental fluorosis.

But, as Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson reveal in "Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb," and Bryson in his book The Fluoride Deception, officials in the Manhattan Project eventually persuaded health policy makers and medical and dental leaders, in the interests of national security, to do an about-face and join the fluoridation bandwagon. This took many, many years. (See fluoride timeline) We were about to enter the nuclear age, and producing nuclear bombs creates tons of the toxic byproducts they now dump into our water in the name of public health. Instead of having to buy their toxic waste (would have slowed down building nukes), they were able to dump it into our water supplies. Certainly if fluoride in water was bad for our health the US government would not allow it and certainly there must be some research that suggested that putting fluoride in our water was beneficial, right? Wrong. Not if "national security" is at stake. They started dumping fluoride in our water before one human study was conducted, NOT ONE! That speaks volumes in and of itself. Here is how this public health scam of the century came to be:

WHEN AND WHY WATER FLUORIDATION STARTED

Back in the 1930's, the freemason Andrew Mellon who earlier founded Alcoa Aluminum got himself appointed Secretary of the Treasury.� What a nice guy!� He gave up the "high life" to serve the public.� Or perhaps there was another reason why Mr Mellon decided to take the job of Secretary of the Treasury? � If you answered, "Of course", you are correct.� You see, at that time, the US Public Health Service (USPHS) was under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Treasury . � Mellon also started the " Mellon Institute" to study the environment around this same time. In 1931, a Mellon Institute REPORT by Gerald Cox suggested that 1 PPM fluoride added to drinking water would be good for the teeth. That was it. No studies, no comparisons, no data, just a report by an organization funded by ALCOA. All previous research studies had shown that fluoride was toxic, and all studies since then suggest the same thing. The USPHS also sponsored some research put out by their Dr. HT Dean which manipulated data so that it "proved" that this same figure of 1 PPM resulted in reduction of tooth decay. So now there were two studies, one by Cox and one by Dean, both funded by agencies controlled by ALCOA, both supporting this arbitrary figure of 1 PPM fluoride that should be added to the water to lower tooth decay without even 1 study!� That was it. They've been dumping their toxic byproduct into our drinking water ever since.� Rather than have to pay to dispose of the toxic waste they could now make money from their toxic waste!� What a deal, eh? It should be noted that tooth decay was already on the decline due to improved hygiene and that long term studies find that cities who do not fluoridate their water have the same (sometimes more) tooth decay as cities who do fluorinate their water. And fluoridated cities always have more dental Flouridosis, a type of tooth damage caused by fluoride. �

Here is an interesting piece from Australia on fluoridated water:

The Brisbane Sunday Mail, 2nd July, 1989, published an article headed in very large print -

CHILD TEETH SURVEY: BRISBANE CAN SMILE

�Brisbane children�s teeth are healthier than those in Melbourne, where they have fluoride in the water supply, according to figures released from the Federal Health Department.�

�The figures collected in a child dental health survey among primary school pupils aged 5 to 13 show Melbourne children drank fluoridated water, but had worse tooth decay than Brisbane children on non-fluoridated water.�

This official Federal Government dental data was published after a concerted A.D.A. propaganda campaign attempting the same tactics as today�s effort of presenting mythical dental statistics for and against fluoridation.

Further official dental data relating to Brisbane children�s teeth was given prominence in another article Brisbane Sunday Sun, 6th April, 1989 with this large heading:

�OUR KIDS TOOTHY WONDERS�

�Queensland children have fewer decayed, missing or filled teeth than any other Australian children, Queensland University researchers said today. Social and Preventive Dentistry Department researchers, Professor Robin Powell and Associate Professor Greg Seymour, said the State�s children had reached a World Health Organization tooth-decay elimination target 10 years ahead of deadline.

Professor Powell said surveys showed the average 12-year-old had fewer than two decayed, missing or filled teeth - or DMF.

Nursing bottle caries is where children are put to bed with a sweet drink in a bottle, causing their teeth to rot, Prof. Powell said.�

Today�s story of �young children in Brisbane having all their teeth �yanked out� because of no fluoride in the drinking water� is scientifically and statistically destroyed by the Sunday Mail article that stated:

In fluoride-free Brisbane, children�s teeth are healthier than those in fluoridated Melbourne.

�The number of decayed, missing, indicated for extraction or filled teeth in Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide was 1.1, compared with 1.3 in Melbourne for the same period.�

These kind of REAL DENTAL FACTS was answered by Peter Ryan, Chairman, Queensland Fluoridation Committee who said:

�A number of factors could explain why Brisbane children�s teeth had less decay.�

Before publishing his expert dental explanation, note he admitted:

�Brisbane children had less decay.�

Peter Ryan�s Statement on Dental Decay

�Studies in the U.S. have found that people living nearer the equator have less decay, but no one is really sure why.� (The Sunday Mail, 2nd July, 1989)

Something strange has happened during the 14 years since these data on Brisbane children�s teeth were so classified by the Federal Government, and Ryan�s equator story �yanked� out of circulation.

Perhaps we may take licence and suggest the quality of the Brisbane teeth have not altered, but the type of research studies has changed to rectify the obvious embarrassment!

Serious scientific embarrassment for dentists and the fluoride pushers never stops, but they always saddle up again as though nothing has proven them wrong.

When the Brisbane Lord Mayor�s Task Force researched fluoridation during 1997 the A.D.A. presented their claims which were supported with a study by Spencer, Davies, Stewart and Slade (Adelaide University).

�Caries experiences among children in fluoridated Townsville and un-fluoridated Brisbane.� Published in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 1966. Vol. 20 No. 6.

Reading their 7 page official dossier presented to The Lord Mayor�s Task Force on Fluoridation, one finds on page 1:

�Riordan reported on 11-12 year-olds with different fluoride exposures in West Australia.�

�He found higher caries prevalence in the permanent dentition in children in unfluoridated Bunbury than in children in fluoridated Perth.�

So, on page one we find this study comparing populations of significant differences, a matter of failure to comply with rules of statistics which state such studies must be performed only with very similar populations.

It is not scientifically acceptable to compare populations of such differences as Perth 1,244,320, Bunbury 28,000, and also at the same time be aware and consider the socio-economic factor that was also significantly different.

Their main dental data related to Brisbane and Townsville, but here again we find a scientific and statistical error in comparing two cities of such different population and socio-economic differences.

The Population Factor

BRISBANE 1,000,000 -TOWNSVILLE 90,000

However, the authors after attempting a favorable fluoridation outcome with the Lord Mayor�s Task Force, expected the Committee to vote accordingly to fluoridate Brisbane�s drinking water supplies. The quality of their presentation collapsed on the final page of their �Research�.

�A difference of 0.25 (one quarter) surface in the permanent dentition probably constitutes a minor effect at the level of an individual patient in the age range studied here.�

On this kind of official dental study showing a difference of one quarter (1/4) of a tooth surface per child, we now find the fluoride pushers want another similar study in Brisbane. (Courier Mail, 21st July, 2004).

Is there a �hope� in the fluoridation camp that they can again change the �official� dental data and without REAL science and proper statistics, declare fluoridation not only safe and effective but teeth of Brisbane�s children have dramatically changed in the past 8 years?

Perhaps at this moment the reader should consider the Lord Mayor�s 1997 Brisbane Task Force on Fluoridation conclusion, page 88-5:�

Research evidence showed the complexity of trying to separately identify the benefits of water fluoridation alone, as illustrated by the recent comparison study of children in Brisbane and Townsville. (University of Adelaide)."

Further conclusions were of vital health warning!

�The evidence relating to what constituted a safe or toxic dose of fluoride was uncertain and confusing. A majority of Task Force members were concerned that the margin of safety between a safe and toxic dose may not be sufficiently wide.� (Emphasis added)

Dental �studies� by fluoridation dental hierarchy fail in their conclusions because of five important factors, (1) Pharmacology, (2) Statistics, (3) Dose, (4) Examiners qualifications, (5) The high variables never considered.

Taken together or separately, one finds the fluoridation data from the fluoride pushers astonishing in size, intellectually and scientifically unsubstantiated in their audacious hope of their title, �The untouchables�.

The fluoride �untouchables� are intellectually impervious to any scientific evidence relating to fluoridation which is no surprise considering the �actual� content of their team of promoters.

Fluoridation in this democratic Country is a case of �political transparency� being a one-way mirror. (END)

Here are a few quotes form some brave souls in the medical field on the dangers of fluoride:

"When historians come to write about this period, they will single out fluoridation as the single biggest mistake in public policy that we've ever had." - Paul Connett, PhD, Biochemistry

"Water fluoridation is the single largest case of scientific fraud, promoted by the government, supported by taxpayer dollars, aided and abetted by the ADA and the AMA, in the history of the planet." - David Kennedy, DDS President International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

"Sodium fluoride is a registered rat poison and roach poison. It has been a protected pollutant for a very long time." - William Hirzy, PhD President of the Union of Professional Employees of the EPA

"sodium fluoride is a very toxic chemical, acting as an enzyme poison, direct irritant and calcium inactivator ... .It reacts with growing tooth enamel and with bones to produce irreversible damage." - Granville Knight, MD president of the American Academy of Nutrition, Congressional Record, 31 July 56

"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable."� - Charles Gordon Heyd, MD, president, AMA

"no physician in his right mind would hand to his patient a bottled filled with a dangerous drug with instructions to take as much or as little of it as he wished ... And yet, the Public Health Service is engaged upon a widespread propaganda program to insist that communities do exactly that ... The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the water supply pure and potable but to contaminate it with a dangerous, toxic drug for the purpose of administering mass medication to the consumer, without regard to age or physical condition."� - L. Alesen, MD, president of the California Medical Association
Robotry, p14

"Fluoridation is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has." - Albert Schatz, PhD Nobel Laureate for discovering streptomycin quoted in Sutton's Fluoridation:The Greatest Fraud

"More people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States."� - Dean Burk, PhD National Cancer Institute -- Fluoridation:A Burning Controversy

"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time." - EPA scientist, Dr. Robert Carton (Downey, 2 May 99)

Solution: Drink distilled, ozonated water. Use "Toms Natural Toothpaste".�

if� you suffer from fluoride poisoning or a fluoride caused disease like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, you may want to consider the following information on how to rid the body of fluoride.� The information below is on a product we're read works well at ridding the body of this neurotoxin, borax. � We don't sell this at this time but are thinking about adding it to our offerings.

BORON (BORAX)
8/27/2007: "As per your request for research references regarding the antidote of fluoride poisoning, there is both the use of borax to remove fluoride poisoning. Most of the boron antidote was taken from research of Elsair, et.al. as follows:

"Boron effectively counteracts symptoms of fluoride intoxication in humans (Zhou et al. 1987) and in experimentally poisoned rabbits (Elsair et al. 1980a, 1980b, 1981). Men suffering from skeletal fluorosis experienced 50 to 80% improvement after drinking solutions containing 300 to 1,100 mg of borax/L daily, 3 weeks a month for 3 months (Zhou et al. 1987). Boron enhances sequestration of fluoride from bone and excretion through kidneys and possibly the intestinal tract (Elair et al. 1980a, 1981)"

Many of these research are not well known in U.S., but it's there if you dig hard enough. The details of research description regarding the experiment is no longer found in web pages however, I still have the references material based on that reading here.

P.S. Boron is found in borax. Sometimes I use the word boron to emphasize that there is boron in borax. Borax is a compound form of boron, with oxygen and sodium attached.

-----------

Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

A STUDY OF ANTIDOTES FOR FLUORINE

S. MARCOVITCH 1 and W. W. STANLEY 1

1 From the Department of Entomology, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

The fluoborates when fed in powdered form were found to be non-toxic to both rats and insects. In solution enough fluorine is liberated to produce toxic effects.

Both aluminum sulphate and hydrated lime are capable of saving animals from a lethal dose of sodium fluoride when mixed with the latter. Boric acid also has some value as an antidote through the formation of a fluoborate. The aluminum sulphate forms cryolite which was found to be much less toxic. When aluminum sulphate is mixed with the sodium fluoride and used as a roach powder, a lower kill is obtained than with sodium fluoride alone.

January 2002, Volume 56, Number 1, Pages 82-85 Table of contents Previous Article Next [PDF]

Original Communication Effect of tamarind ingestion on fluoride excretion in humans

A L Khandare, G S Rao and N Lakshmaiah

National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research, Hyderabad, India

Correspondence to: A L Khandare, National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research, Jamai Osmania PO, Hyderabad 500 007, AP, India. E-mail: alkhandare@yahoo.com

Research on Tamarind and Fluoride Removal:

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effect of tamarind (Tamarindus indicus) ingestion on excretion of fluoride in school children.

Design: Randomized, diet-control study.

Subject: Twenty healthy boys were included and 18 of them completed the study.

Interventions: Each subject consumed 10 g tamarind daily with lunch for 18 days at the social welfare boys' hostel. The nutrient composition of the daily diet was constant throughout the experimental period.

Results: Tamarind intake led to significant increase (P<0.001) in the excretion of fluoride in 24 h urine (4.8±0.22 mg/day) as compared to excretion on control diet (3.5±0.22 mg/day). However, excretion of magnesium and zinc decreased significantly (7.11±1.48 mg of Mg and 252.88±12.84 µg of Zn per day on tamarind diet as compared to 23.39±3.68 mg of Mg and 331.78±35.31 µg Zn per day on control diet). Excretion of calcium and phosphorous were not significantly different while creatinine excretion decreased with tamarind intake (225.66±81 mg creatinine/day with tamarind and 294.5±78.76 mg creatinine/day without tamarind).

Conclusion: Tamarind intake is likely to help in delaying progression of fluorosis by enhancing urinary excretion of fluoride.

Sponsorship: National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, India (ICMR).

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2002) 56, 82-85. DOI: 10.1038/sj/ejcn/1601287

Please see references material attached, especially:

1: Z Gesamte Hyg. 1977 Jan;23(1):14-20. Links [Results of animal experimental studies on rabbits with sodium fluoride and the effect of antidotes] [Article in German]

Baer HP, Bech R, Franke J, Grunewald A, Kochmann W, Melson F, Runge H, Wiedner W.

PMID: 842048 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Here is the research material on the fluoride antidote using boron:

Fluoride 1981; 14(1):21-29

Boron as antidote to fluoride: effect on bones and claws in subacute intoxication of rabbits

Elsair J, Merad R, Denine R, Azzouz M, Khelfat K, Hamrour M, Alamir B, Benali S, Reggabi M

Laboratories of Physiology, Toxicology and Galenic Pharmacy, Medical Institute, Algiers, Algeria

Summary: Rabbits were "subacutely" intoxicated by administration of 30 mg/kg/day of fluoride for 3 months followed by 15 mg/kg/day for a subsequent 3 months (F). Boron was given alone (B) as preventive and simultaneously with fluoride prophylactically (F + Bp), as well as therapeutically namely midway during the experimental period (F + Bpc) while fluoride was being administered and after it was discontinued (Bc compared with fluoirde interuption F*), at a constant F/B ratio. All groups were compared to normal controls.

Boron administered during fluoride intoxication or after its interruption, reduces fluoremia and increases urinary fluoride excretion. Skeletal fluoride levels are directly relatd to those of claws. They bear no relationship to fluoride in hair. The high fluoride content in bone in lot F decreases with addition of boron. It is still high in lot F* but returns to normal in loc Bc. Calcium content of bones remains normal in all lots. Posterior pad radiography shows a cortical thickness in lot F which is less pronounced in lots F + Bpc and F*, and returns to normal in lot Bc."

Bottom line is this. Fluoride is more toxic than lead. Avoid it like the plague if you want to remain mentally and physically sharp. Reverse osmosis removes fluoride from the water, water ionizers don't. Our "good water" is fluoride free and mineral rich.

Good Water Biz is a subsidiary of Ionic Zone - Las Vegas, NV - Skype # 702-425-4025 - Toll Free 800-549-9535

�2008 Good Water Biz Terms of Use � Privacy Statement Contact About Us