How We Got Fluoridated

How We Got Fluoridated

by Philip Heggen

Preface

Throughout the world, and from the beginning, virtually all living creatures have been exposed to fluoride. It's nothing new. Fluoride is one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust - cumulative and toxic to all forms of life at remarkably low dosage.

Sixty years ago U.S. dental researchers had identified areas in sixteen states where disfiguring mottled enamel was a serious problem. Thirty years ago, the World Health Organization had noted that high concentrations of fluoride are found in areas of every continent and that dental fluorosis is a problem from Finland to South Africa and from England to Japan.

But fluoride affects more than just developing teeth. Even dinosaurs have ingested water and vegetation contaminated by fluoride from volcanic gases and ash - and suffered the consequence in terms of painful arthritic effects.

Industrial mining and manufacturing, like mini-volcanoes, bring up fluorides from the earth into the biosphere, with similar effects on human communities. In the past century or so, man has spawned these "mini-volcanoes" without fully understanding the consequences. Modern well-drilling equipment has provided much needed water from deep within the earth - and this, too, has resulted in fluoride poisoning.

Fluoridation has not been a conspiracy in the usual sense of the word ... but rather, a colossal blunder.

"The problem is enormous, unbelievable," says Andezhath Susheela of the Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation in Delhi, India. She has been unraveling the national story for a decade during which time her estimate of the number of people leading "a painful and crippled life" from fluorosis has risen from one million to 25 million and now to 60 million - six million of them children - spread across tens of thousands of communities. "In some villages three-quarters of the population are seriously affected."

This paper is a chronicle and overview spanning the history of modern industry. It shows the rise of fluoride pollution and how economic motives have overridden concerns for human health. We take you back to the early metal refinery pollution in Europe and show the record of lawsuits for fluoride damage. This reveals the basis for American industry's fear of being shut down by lawsuits. We also document the steps taken by industry to divert public attention away from fluoride air pollution. This chronicle shows that the origin of water fluoridation is in these fluoride fears of industry -- not in concern for children's teeth.

During the 1940s, the development of the atom bomb required handling huge amounts of fluoride in the production of nuclear weapons. Documented here is a major safety study by the Atomic Energy Commission. As a result of this extensive study, the federal government became involved in the suppression of information about fluoride poisoning. Formerly restricted government documents now made available under the Freedom of Information Act have filled in blank spaces in this chronology.

Thus, both big government and big industry, for different reasons, became involved in the cover up. The succeeding collaboration of industry and government is documented below in detail.

The difficulties in maintaining a deception over an extended time are sizable. This is especially true with an ongoing issue like fluoridation. A compounding of dishonest statements and actions is required to maintain the original deception. At a certain point, the truth of the situation becomes obvious. These consequences are now coming to bear on the defenders of fluoridation. The Epilogue deals with this coming confrontation.

Introduction

Case in point; the power line scare a few years ago.

Actually, the post you responded to shows how quacks attempt to discredit true facts, such as the fact that fluoride is a highly reactive toxin that is MORE toxic than lead. Those that promote fluoride as any sort of nutrient aren't just quacks, they are charlatans that are advoctating and recommending the ingestion of a substance that causes neurological disorders, skeletal fluorosis, lowered IQ, cancer, osteoporosis, and hip fractures.

There is ample evidence that demonstrates the highly toxic nature of this substance. Unfortunately, those whose chief concern is (or was as the case may be) their pocketbook have obfuscuated the facts concerning this toxin, and have promoted it as necessary for health and well-being. It has NO redeeming properties, as it is not part of any normal celluar process, it does NOT prevent cavities, and it is lethal in concentrations used in fluoride treatments if a young child were to swallow the gel.

Fluoride ions in the bloodstream interfere with electrolytes, robbing potassium and calcium from the normal celluar activity of neurons. Fluoride is possibly linked to mental illness such as depression and other illneses due to the change in electrolytes and body chemistry.

In a nutshell, fluoride IS a poison. To promote it, recommend it, and even PUMP it into our water supply, forcing populations to ingest a poison, is outright madness.

I have done a great deal of reading, and I still think that it's junk science.

And with whom exactly in post #43 do you disagree with, and what is it exactly that I've posted that you disagree with?

You say this is junk science, but you do not refute specific facts, you simply make ad hominem arguments.

Junk science is that used by those who claim this toxin is actually necessary for good health. In fact, those that promote such to be true are recklessly endangering the health and welfare of the people not just of this Nation, but the people of the world. In fact, there are MANY countries where they HAVE discontinued fluoridation as it is obvious to anyone with any scientific training that fluoride IS in fact a poison.

Let's see, I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me what solubility has to do with fluoride ion levels in the body.

Like duh Tom, you can't understand why it's a bad thing to have virtually unlimited solubilty (as in sodium fluoride) in the blood stream versus a limited solubility (calcium fluoride) of 16 ppm? Will you ever understand that 16 ppm in the blood stream is not as bad as 50 mg, as in the case of the 3 year old that died while having a fluoride treatment?

And you have yet to discuss the 3700 studies done since 1970 that show the safety and efficacy of fluoride, along with the 280 I posted.

Funny, in the other thread you claimed that there were 37,000, not just 3700...

Can you get your numbers staight Tom? Perhaps you should try linking those studies instead of just CLAIMING that they support your position. I've found one out of your list of 280 from the ADA website that DIDN'T support your position nor that of the ADA, yet it was claimed that it DID in fact support your position. Now THAT is TRUE JUNK SCIENCE, where you hope to dazzle with smoke and mirrors..

And I'm sure if we were to look at the list in DETAIL, that you've admitted editing in order to remove those studies that obviously don't support your position, we'd STILL find a whole bunch that state that fluoride is NOT a good thing...

Will you ever understand that 16 ppm in the blood stream is not as bad as 50 mg, as in the case of the 3 year old that died while having a fluoride treatment?

How do you get that 16 ppm? You seem to be pulling numbers out of thin air.

Funny, in the other thread you claimed that there were 37,000, not just 3700...

That shows me how well you read and endeavour to understand other's posts. I specifically said in post 393 that since 1970 there have been 3700 studies, whereas in post 406 in the history of fluoride investigation there have been 35000.

I've found one out of your list of 280 from the ADA website that DIDN'T support your position nor that of the ADA, yet it was claimed that it DID in fact support your position.

I deleted all the studies that were referenced in the ADA report that didn't support fluoridation, I missed one and apologized.

However, you use that as a convientient excuse to ignore the other 280 studies. Well, they are still there, they aren't going anywhere.

Well, go ahead. And you STILL haven't posted any epidemological studies showing the dangers of flouridation.

How do you get that 16 ppm? You seem to be pulling numbers out of thin air.

You really should lay off that 5000 ppm toothpaste Tom, it is rotting your mind.

If you remember, I had posted a table in the other thread that listed the maximum solubility of various fluoride compounds..

From Fluoridation: Aspects of toxicity

Table 1.

Fluoride	Maximum Solubility
Calcium fluoride	16 ppm at 18°C (c. 1-62,500)
	17 ppm at 26°C
Sodium fluoride	42,200 ppm at 18°C (c. 1-25)
Sodium fluosilicate	6,250 ppm at 17°C (c. 1-150)
Hydrofluosilicic acid	Miscible liquid

However, you use that as a convientient excuse to ignore the other 280 studies. Well, they are still there, they aren't going anywhere.

I specifically said in post 393 that since 1970 there have been 3700 studies, whereas in post 406 in the history of fluoride investigation there have been 35000.

In any event, I'm sure that MANY of those don't support your position, and you are simply throwing numbers around. In fact, the 3700 figure is unsupported by any evidence, although it might be possible, as there are obviously those who work for the ADA that absolutely insist that we ingest this poison and wish to ensure that we do.

In any case, post a study (or a link to it), then we'll discuss it. I could say there's n number of studies supporting my position, but that would simply be cheating, now wouldn't it....

Well, go ahead. And you STILL haven't posted any epidemological studies showing the dangers of flouridation.

Oh I have Tom. You have simply ignored them and claimed they don't exist.

If you remember, I had posted a table in the other thread that listed the maximum solubility of various fluoride compounds..

I'm aware of the chart, but it doesn't answer how you get from a measure of solubility to a measure of ionic concentration. I want you to explain what those solubility numbers has to do with the concentration of fluoride in water.

In any event,

In any event, you obviously don't even read my posts.

Sad.

I'm sure that MANY of those don't support your position, and you are simply throwing numbers around.

LOL You're SURE? Prove that statement. Seems like you're just throwing assumptions around.

In any case, post a study (or a link to it), then we'll discuss it.

Here's one at random.

Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries

I could say there's n number of studies supporting my position, but that would simply be cheating, now wouldn't it....

Of course not, but since there are many more studies showing the safety and efficacy of fluoride, it wouldn't work.

You have simply ignored them and claimed they don't exist.

No, the studies you have linked are either in vitro studies where you stuff a poor rat full of fluoride and yell when it gets sick, or in vivo studies, like the China studies, that investigate fluoride poisoning.

I'd like some studies of people in this country, drinking normally flouridated water, either natural or added.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.