Six Facts You Need to Know About Water Fluoridation

Harmful Effects Have Been Known for Half a Century

What is perhaps most surprising is that the harmful effects of fluoride have been known by conventional medical organizations for over half a century. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) stated in their Sept. 18, 1943 issue that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes. And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association on Oct. 1, 1944, stated:

Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.

Part of the problem is that it’s an accumulative toxin that, over time, can lead to significant health problems that are not immediately linked to fluoride over-exposure. In a 2005 paper entitled “Fluoride — A Modern Toxic Waste,” Lita Lee, Ph.D. writes:

Yiamouyiannis’ book, Fluoride, The Aging Factor, documents the cumulative effect of tissue damage by fluoride, commonly seen as aging (collagen damage), skin rashes and acne, gastrointestinal disorders, and many other conditions, including osteoporosis. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and the Safe Water Foundation reported that 30,000 to 50,000 excess deaths occur in the United States each year in areas in which the water contains only one ppm fluoride …
Fluoride suppresses the immune system: Fluoride inhibits the movement of white blood cells by 70 percent, thereby decreasing their ability to reach their target. Yiamouyiannis cites 15 references in his pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation, that document immunosuppressive effects of as little as 10 percent of the amount of fluoride used in fluoridated water … Immunosuppressive effects run the gamut, from a cold that won’t go away to increased risk of cancer and other infectious diseases.

Studies have shown that fluoride toxicity can lead to a wide variety of health problems, including:

• Increased lead absorption
• Disrupts synthesis of collagen
• Hyperactivity and/or lethargy
• Muscle disorders
• Thyroid disease
• Arthritis
• Dementia
• Bone fractures
• Lowered thyroid function
• Bone cancer (osteosarcoma)
• Inactivates 62 enzymes and inhibits more than 100
• Inhibited formation of antibodies
• Genetic damage and cell death
• Increased tumor and cancer rate
• Disrupted immune system
• Damaged sperm and increased infertility

Suppressed Science: Fluoride Link to Cancer

Long-lost research linking fluoride to cancer has resurfaced in a Dutch film clip featuring Dr. Dean Burk, who in 1937 cofounded the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and headed its cytochemistry department for more than 30 years. In the taped interview, he equates water fluoridation to “public murder,” referring to a study that had been done on the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation compared to the 10 largest without it. The study demonstrated that deaths from cancer abruptly rose in as little as a year or two after fluoridation began. This and other studies linking fluoride to cancer were government-ordered but were quickly buried once fluoride was found to be linked to dramatic increases in cancer.

Top of page

Victories against fluoride becoming more frequent as citizens get informed, empowered.

(decryptedmatrix.com): Roughly 85,000 fewer people living in North America will be forced to drink and bathe in fluoridated water, thanks to four recent community victories preventing or overturning water fluoridation mandates. The towns of O’Fallon, Missouri; Rosetown, Saskatchewan; Lake View, Iowa; and Cassadaga, New York are all now officially fluoride-free, proving that individuals really do have the power to step up and protect themselves against one of the most ridiculous folklores of the past century to be thrust on the people in the name of public health.

As reported by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which has tabulated more than 70 community victories against fluoride across North America since 2010, a single citizen activist concerned about the safety of fluoride was able to persuade the City Administrator of O’Fallon, MO, population 80,000, to discontinue the town’s water fluoridation program. The town’s 2012 budget report states that the change will save the town $18,000 annually, and reduce the hazard for water operators who will no longer “have to handle the dangerous chemical on a regular basis.”

In Rosetown, SK, the failure of a fluoride feed pump was enough to scrap the outdated practice of water fluoridation, while water fluoridation’s high cost with lack of economic and societal benefit convinced the city council of Lake View, IA, to discontinue the pointless practice. And in Cassadaga, NY, local citizens rejected a proposal to fluoridate by an 87 percent margin, even after the town had already built a special shed to begin housing and pumping fluoride chemicals into the water supply.

Portland voters soon to vote on water fluoridation.

(decryptedmatrix.com): In Portland, Oregon, where rogue city council members and Mayor Sam Adams recently forced through a fluoridation mandate against the will of the people, more than 43,000 local citizens signed a petition to force the issue to a public vote. As of this writing, these signatures are still being counted — but since only 19,858 were required to get the issue on the ballot, the issue will almost surely be put up for a public vote.

And in New York City, where councilman Petter Vallone, Jr. has been working feverishly to end water fluoridation in America’s largest city, a resolution has been introduced to require that a warning about fluoride’s dangers for infants be printed on individual water bills. Both Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the entire state of New Hampshire recently passed similar requirements for infant warning labels on water bills.

Two Florida communities reconsider water fluoridation.

(decryptedmatrix.com): Lastly, both the Greater Pine Island Water Association, which serves the area of St. James City near Fort Myers, Florida, and the Ormond Beach City Commission, also in Florida, are also reconsidering their existing fluoridation mandates. The former group will have its members vote on the issue, while the latter group has already approved a referendum that will allow voters to decide the issue in an upcoming election.

Sources for (decryptedmatrix.com) articles include:

http://www.foodconsumer.org and NaturalNews

Top of page

• Some of the site’s key documents of interest are accessible below:

• West Virginia DEP Environmental Covenant – Deed Restriction [ 12 pp, 502 KB, About PDF]
• Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)[ 26 pp, 751 KB, About PDF]
• Corrective Action Statement of Basis [ 13pp, 2808 KB, About PDF]
• Environmental Indicator Determination – Human Exposures [6pp, 109 KB, About PDF]
• Environmental Indicator Determination – Groundwater [8 pp, 118 KB, About PDF]

• All documents and reports regarding this facility also can be reviewed in person at these locations:
  

  West Viriginia Dept of Enviromental Protection Division of Waste Management 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 Phone: (304) 926-0499 ext. 1288

  U.S. EPA Region III Land & Chemicals Division – RCRA 1650 Arch Street-11th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 814-3435 Call for an appointment.

An Administrative Order on Consent requiring investigation of the site was signed by EPA and the owner (Kaiser) on April 3, 1995. In compliance with the order, the following activities have been completed:

• A RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) was performed to evaluate the impact of the site on surrounding soils and groundwater. The RFI was completed on March 10, 1997.
• A Part I Corrective Measures Study (CMS) was completed on January 22, 1998, and identified the need for testing of the facility cover.

• A Part II CMS involved field and laboratory testing of the cover material. The draft CMS Report was submitted to EPA on May 28, 1998.

The draft CMS Report concluded that the most effective option for elimination of risk due to the facility was leaving the material in its present location, performing initial repairs to the seams in the cover, and then continuing to maintain the cover, replacing as necessary.

In 2004, Kaiser divested itself of the SPL Pile as part of bankruptcy proceedings. At that time, TRC Environmental Corporation took ownership of the Spent Potliner Pile.

EPA concurred with the recommended remedy in the CMS Report, and on August 25, 2011 the proposed remedy was put out for public comment. No comments were received during the 30 day public comment period and a Final Decision and Response To Comments (FDRTC) was issued to TRC on November 8, 2011.

The next step in the Corrective Action process is for the selected remedy to be implemented thru an EPA Administrative Consent order with TRC.

“I think that’s where citizens make the mistake, (thinking) natural fluoride is OK, man-made fluoride is not OK,” said Paul Connett, of St. Lawrence University of New York. “That is not the issue. The issue in my view is the fluoridating chemicals that we are using are contaminated. They’re industrial grade.”

The anti-fluoride campaign brought Connett to Wichita to present its views to local officials and voters.

“My argument is … fluoride ion is bad and we shouldn’t be putting it in the water,” he said. “And if we decide to put it in the water, then for goodness sake use pharmaceutical grade or food grade, not industrial grade.”

Fluoride used in water systems, which Connett calls industrial grade, is a processed by-product obtained from separating phosphates from rock to use in fertilizers, Adcock said.

She said calcium fluoride is much less soluble than the compounds used in man-made fluoride additives, limiting the concentration in water to about 2.5 parts per million.

Fluorosilicic acid, or FSA, is the chemical most often used in community water fluoridation.

“It’s not a different kind of fluoride, it’s just a much more soluble kind of fluoride,” Adcock said. “They use it because they can administer it as a precisely concentrated solution that they drop it into a large quantity of water and mix it. (FSA) is just a less expensive source of fluoride.”

How Pure is Pure?

Dr. Myron Allukian, a longtime fluoridation proponent, has stated that the Harvard team found only “a half point difference in IQ” between the children from high-fluoride and low-fluoride areas. According to Allukian, “a half point difference in IQ is meaningless. That’s like saying, we measured all the people in New York and Chicago and in New York they were a half millimeter taller.” Several other fluoridation “experts” made similar statements at a September 6th hearing before the city council of Portland, Oregon.

The problem with Allukian’s claim is that it is completely false — a fact that can be readily verified by actually reading the Harvard study. The Harvard team found that high-fluoride exposure was associated with a 0.45 reduction in the “standardized mean difference” (SMD) in intelligence. Dr. Allukian and other fluoridation proponents have mistakenly interpreted this to mean that a half-point reduction in SMD equates to a half-point reduction in IQ. This, however, is NOT the case. As the Harvard team has recently confirmed, a reduction of 0.45 SMD is “approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores.”

If Allukian and other fluoridation “experts” had read the Harvard study and understood the SMD concept, they would have known this. Instead, it appears they relied on second-hand accounts of the Harvard study, including an HSPH press release. After FAN Researcher Chris Neurath brought the error to HSPH’s attention, a correction was made. The “experts” however continue to repeat the error as if it were true. It goes without saying that experts and policy officials should not be basing public statements about the Harvard team’s findings without having read the study themselves. The lack of diligence by these “experts” and public officials on an issue involving permanent potential damage to some children’s brains is as breathtaking as it is appalling.

The relevance of the IQ studies to fluoridated populations

Another misleading claim made by fluoridation proponents is that the fluoride levels in the IQ studies were far higher than the fluoride levels to which children are exposed in the United States. Fluoridation proponents have reached this conclusion by (a) focusing on the highest water fluoride level (11.5 mg/L) studied in 1 of the 27 studies, and then (b) insinuating that this high level is representative of all of the studies. The Pew Children’s Dental Campaign (which now promotes fluoridation schemes across the U.S.) initiated this line of reasoning within days of the Harvard study’s release. According to the Pew campaign:

“In many cases, the high-fluoride areas were significantly higher than the levels used to fluoridate public water systems in the U.S. In fact, the high-fluoride areas in these foreign countries reached levels as high as 11.5 mg/L, which is more than 10 times higher than the optimal level used in the U.S.”

Other fluoridation proponents, including Sam Adams, the Mayor of Portland, Oregon, have since repeated Pew’s claim. What these proponents have failed to acknowledge is that only ONE of the studies that the Harvard team reviewed had fluoride levels as high as 11.5 mg/l. By contrast, the majority of the studies that the Harvard team reviewed investigated fluoride levels that are still considered “safe” in the United States. Of the twenty studies that investigated the effect of fluoride intake from water, twelve examined communities with a fluoride content less than 4 mg/l. This is a level that is still considered “safe” by the U.S. EPA. Every one of these twelve studies found reduced IQ in the “high-fluoride” community when compared to a low-fluoride community. Of these twelve studies:

• Seven studies found reduced IQs among children drinking water with fluoride levels between 2.1 mg/l and 4 mg/l — levels that 1.4 million Americans drink everyday.(Poureslami 2011; Seraj 2006; Hong 2001; Wang 2001; Lu 2000; Yang 1994; An 1992)
• Four studies found effects at levels between 1.8 mg/l and 2.0 mg/l — levels that about 600,000 Americans drink everyday. (Xiang 2004; Yao 1997; Yao 1996; Xu 1994)
• One study (sponsored by UNICEF) found reduced IQ at just 0.88 mg/l – a level within the “optimal” range of fluoride that is added to the drinking water of over 200 million Americans. (Lin 1991)

Far from being irrelevant to U.S. exposures, these fluoride levels are actually being consumed on a regular basis by millions of Americans. Further, the fluoride levels that have been detected in the children’s urine in five of these studies (1.5 to 3 mg/l) were found to be exceeded by many adults living in fluoridated populations in England. (Mansfield 1999) While there is a striking absence of urinary fluoride data among both children and adults in the United States, the high exposure to fluoride toothpaste among young children is almost certain to produce urine fluoride levels that match the levels documented in the Chinese children.

Another population at clear risk from fluoride are children born to women who drink large amounts of low-quality teas. Research from China has repeatedly found that high fluoride exposure during pregnancy can damage the brain of the fetus in ways that can permanently reduce the intelligence of the child. (Yu 1996; Dong 1993; Du 1992; Han 1989) Damage to fetal brain has been found in women with urinary fluoride levels of just 4.3 ppm. (Yu 1996). Notably, this is a level of fluoride that heavy tea drinkers in the U.S. and England are known to exceed. (Izuora 2011; Whyte 2005; Mansfield 1999). The neurological impact of heavy-tea consumption during pregnancy has never been studied.

The “Margin of Safety” problem

Fluoridation proponents’ dismissal of the IQ studies has also been based on a failure to address the “margin of safety” problem. The concept of a margin of safety is a deeply rooted cornerstone in all modern risk assessments; yet fluoridation proponents act as if they don’t even know the concept exists. As demonstrated here, this failure to address the margin of safety issue is a critically important omission.

In conventional risk assessment, the U.S. EPA uses a default margin of safety often. Translated, this means EPA seeks to limit exposure to chemicals to levels that are ten times less than the levels that cause adverse effects. With fluoride and IQ, however, the levels of fluoride (in water and urine) that have repeatedly been linked to IQ reductions are — at most — just two or three times more than tens of millions of American children now receive on a daily basis. From a risk assessment perspective, this is an extremely unnerving situation, one almost certain to cause neurological harm in an untold number of children. The situation is particularly unnerving, and particularly serious, for those children who have a heightened vulnerability to fluoride’s neurological toxicity.

While there are occasions where the EPA will accept a margin of safety lower than ten, it only does so when there is clear data demonstrating that the default margin of safety is unnecessary. This exception does not apply to fluoride and IQ because a safe level of fluoride exposure for the neurological health of all children has not yet been demonstrated.

Vulnerable children are being disregarded and ignored

Human studies have repeatedly found that some children are at a much greater risk of suffering neurological damage from fluoride than others. A UNICEF-funded study, for example, found that children with iodine deficiencies suffered reductions in IQ at fluoride levels of just 0.88 mg/L. (Lin 1991) Other research — both animal and human — has repeatedly confirmed that children with iodine deficiency suffer greater neurological disorders when exposed to elevated fluoride than they do from the iodine deficiency itself. This is a striking fact when considering that, according to the CDC, the rate of iodine deficiency in the U.S. has increased significantly in the past three decades, and now affects up to 12% of the population.

Since U.S. Health Authorities Aren’t Doing Their Job, FAN Will Do It for Them

It has become obvious in recent weeks that U.S. health authorities are more interested in convincing communities to fluoridate their water than honestly communicating the facts about fluoride and intelligence. Because of their systemic, ongoing failure to honestly address this serious public health issue, FAN has expended a significant amount of time and money searching for, accessing, and translating all studies on fluoride and intelligence, whether they be in English, Chinese, or other languages.

In total, FAN has identified 40 studies that have investigated fluoride’s impact on human intelligence, as well as 16 studies that — in carefully controlled laboratory conditions — have examined fluoride’s impact on the learning and memory capacity of animals. As we document here, 34 of the 40 human studies have detected reductions in IQ from fluoride exposure, while 15 of the 16 animal studies have found fluoride exposure impairs the ability to learn and remember.

To facilitate public understanding of this research, FAN is making all of its translations publicly available, including the studies that did not find a relationship between fluoride and reduced IQ. FAN’s summary of this research, as well as links to full-text copies of the studies, can be accessed at the following links:

* 34 human studies finding reduced IQ from fluoride exposure
* 6 human studies finding no association between fluoride and IQ
* 15 animal studies finding fluoride reduces learning and memory capacity

Other evidence that fluoride damages the brain

As part of FAN’s unprecedentedly comprehensive review, dozens of additional studies that address fluoride’s broader effects on the brain and thyroid gland have also been reviewed and summarized. This includes studies investigating:

* fluoride’s effect on the brain of the human fetus;
* fluoride’s neurobehavioral effects in humans and animals;
* fluoride’s direct toxic effects on animal brain;
* fluoride’s neurological and anti-thyroid effects in iodine deficiency;
* fluoride’s effects on thyroid hormones (particularly its effect on TSH).

Conclusion

At FAN, we believe that better information produces better results. For decades, proponents of water fluoridation have decided that it is better to convince communities to fluoridate water than inform the public about the true state of knowledge about fluoride’s toxicity, including the breathtaking uncertainties and reasonably looming hazards. As the public learns the deeply disturbing details that have been systematically omitted by fluoridation proponents we have no doubt that fluoridation of water will end. The fate of those who helped perpetuate this ill-conceived program is less clear.

Source: Waking Times

REFERENCES:
An J, et al. (1992). The effects of high fluoride on the level of intelligence of primary and secondary students. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 7(2):93-94. [See study]
Choi AL, et al. (2012). Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 2012 Jul 20. [Epub ahead of print] [See study]
Dong Z, et al. (1993). Determination of the contents of amino-acid and monoamine neurotransmitters in fetal brains from a fluorosis-endemic area.Journal of Guiyang Medical College 18(4):241-45. [See study]
Du L. (1992). The effect of fluorine on the developing human brain. Chinese Journal of Pathology 21(4):218-20. [See study]
Han H, et al. (1989). Effects of fluorine on the human fetus. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4:136-138. [See study]
Hong F, et al. (2001). Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environments. Chinese Primary Health Care 15(3):56-57 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41(2):156–60). [See study]
Izuora K, et al. (2011). Skeletal fluorosis from brewed tea. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 96(8):2318-24.
Lin F, et al (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Endemic Disease Bulletin 6(2):62-67 (republished inIodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7(3):24-25). [See study]
Lu Y, et al (2000). Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence of children. Fluoride 33:74-78. [See study]
Mansfield P. (1999). The distribution of urinary fluoride concentration in the U.K.Fluoride 32(1):27-32. [See study]
Poureslami HR, et al. (2011). Intelligence quotient of 7 to 9 year-old children from an area with high fluoride in drinking water. Journal of Dentistry and Oral Hygiene 3(4):61-64.
Seraj B, et al. (2006). [Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children’s intelligence]. [Study in Persian] Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2):80-86. [See abstract]
Wang X, et al. (2001). Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children’s intelligence and thyroid function. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 20(4):288-90. [See study]
Whyte MP, et al. (2005). Skeletal fluorosis and instant tea. American Journal of Medicine 118:78-82.
Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94. [See study]
Xiang Q, et al. (2003b). Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride 36: 198-199. [See study]
Xu Y, et al. (1994). The effect of fluorine on the level of intelligence in children. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 9(2):83-84. [See study]
Yang Y, et al. (1994). The effects of high levels of fluoride and iodine on intellectual ability and the metabolism of fluoride and iodine. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 15(4):296-98 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:336-339). [See study]
Yao Y, et al. (1997). Comparative assessment of the physical and mental development of children in endemic fluorosis area with water improvement and without water improvement. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 3(1):42-43. [See study]
Yao Y, et al. (1996). Analysis on TSH and intelligence level of children with dental Fluorosis in a high fluoride area. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 2(1):26-27. [See study]
Yu Y, et al. (1996). Neurotransmitter and receptor changes in the brains of fetuses from areas of endemic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 15:257-259. [See study]