How We Got Fluoridated

Stop Fluoridation USA ^ | Unknown | Philip Heggen

[FormerLurker]

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

[TomB]

We're not talking about 1 ppm water Tom. We are talking about what the MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION IS...

No, we are talking about flouridated water, we always have. And there, the concentration will be 1ppm.

Not if there is an accident, where they release WAY more fluoride than they should. And not in the case of fluoride treatments either Tom. You are mixing apples with oranges here... We are not talking about your "optimal limit". We are talking maximum possible concentations of fluoride ions from specific compounds...

For anyone interested in what this solubility discussion is really about,here is a post on the last thread where this subject was just brought up, you will see that all that is discussed is flouridated water.

[RadioAstronomer]

I guess you thought it was a good idea when they were adding mecury to vaccines also.

And just about every link I saw on a google search was either a rant against vaccines or a class action law suit. I personally have not studied this, but when I see class action suits my BS meter immidiately starts to peg. I want to see hard scientific peer reviewed double blind negative studies published in reputable journals, not internet sites.

[RadioAstronomer]

Are dental amalgams safe?

Yes. Dental amalgam has been used in tooth restorations worldwide for more than 100 years. Studies have failed to find any link between amalgam restorations and any medical disorder. Amalgam continues to be a safe restorative material for dental patients.

http://www.ada.org/public/faq/fillings.html#safe

Again, let us see the peer reviewed published double blind studies.

[FormerLurker]

No, you don't have "to account for the fact that the anion disassociated from the fluoride ion will need to be accounted for as far as the weight goes." This is all chemical nonsense. When fluoride concentration is measured in the water, the amount being referred to is the biologically available fluoride. When it's measured at 1 part per million, it doesn't make any difference whether it's fluoride that comes from naturally-occurring groundwater sources or from deliberate addition or whether it comes from sodium fluoride or calcium fluoride.

Ground water has been measured at up to 100 ppm fluoride levels. That blows your 1 ppm ideological argument "out of the water"...

I wasn't discussing 1 ppm levels to begin with BTW. I was talking about MAXIMUM concentrations in relation to the different fluoride compounds, specifically as to what would be available when a 3 year old boy weighing 30 pounds swallowed the fluoride gel containing 50 mg of sodium fluoride from a fluoride treatment. I was comparing that to what would be present in the way of fluoride ions if the compound had been calcium fluoride instead of sodium fluoride. The 3 year old boy in question died by the way.

$750,000 Given In Child's Death In Fluoride Case. Boy, 3, Was in City Clinic for Routine Cleaning

Perhaps you came into the discussion midway and didn't realize what we were talking about. I wasn't talking about what would happen with 1 ppm levels, although Tom was trying to divert the discussion in that direction.

One ppm fluoride from calcium fluoride is EXACTLY the same as one ppm fluoride from sodium fluoride.

While true that the number of fluoride ions is the same, the solution IS NOT THE SAME. In one, there are free calcium ions, and in the other, there are free sodium ions. With calcium fluoride, even if the fluoride ion bonds with another calcium ion in the bloodstream, it has put into the bloodstream another calcium ion from the original compound. So the net effect is that there is no loss of calcium ions. On the other hand, with a sodium fluoride solution, if a calcium ion bonds with a fluoride ion, there is a net loss of one calcium ion, and a gain of one sodium. Calcium ions are crucial for neurotransmitter activity, so when enough calcium ions are lost, there is at first neurological dyfunction, and then death in high enough concentrations of fluoride.

Fluoride Toxicity

The same holds true with potassium ions, although not to as great of a degree if the solute is calcium fluoride, as fluoride prefers calcium if it has a choice between the potassium and the calcium ion. With sodium fluoride as the solute, then there are less calcium ions available, so the fluoride ion bonds with potassium. Potassium is crucial for neuron celluar activity. In fact, these chemical reactions affect the electrolyte levels, which can cause mental illness..

ELECTROLYTES AND MENTAL ILLNESS

Suppose, for the sake of argument, you had one form of fluoride that completely dissociated in a given amount of water and another that was 60% soluble in the same amount of water and you wanted to end up with a certain concentration of free fluoride ion in the same amount of water (assuming that that concentration desired per unit volume of water was attainable given the solubility of the less soluble form), you'd have to add fewer moles of the more soluble form to equalize the concentrations of fluoride ions between the two containers--but in the end the concentrations would still be exactly the same.

We weren't talking about situations less than maximum concentrations, we were talking about what happens when you exceed the maximum concentration of calcium fluoride, which has a maximum solubility of 16 ppm, and sodium fluoride, which has a maximum solubility of 42,200 ppm. If had 50 mg of each compound, ALL of the sodium fluoride would dissolve, whereas only 32% of the calcium fluoride would. And of course, atomic weight DOES come into play when determing the amount of fluoride ions available from the dissolved compounds..

[blueriver]

And just about every link I saw on a google search was either a rant against vaccines or a class action law suit. I personally have not studied this, but when I see class action suits my BS meter immidiately starts to peg. I want to see hard scientific peer reviewed double blind negative studies published in reputable journals, not internet sites.

There is really nothing controversial about this. They use to put mercury in the vaccines, now they don't. Mercury is a poison, this is also an undisputed fact. There was never a valid reason for adding it to the vaccine mixture and surely no valid benefit for injected it into babies or children. This is why they don't do it anymore (at least I don't think they add it anymore).

[FormerLurker]

Are dental amalgams safe?
Yes. Dental amalgam has been used in tooth restorations worldwide for more than 100 years. Studies have failed to find any link between amalgam restorations and any medical disorder. Amalgam continues to be a safe restorative material for dental patients.
http://www.ada.org/public/faq/fillings.html#safe

That isn't even a study, it is simply their opinion. But it is a TRUE example of junk science, where simply because a trade organization with a vested interest spouts an opinion, people fall over themselves to believe it. You can see full well what happens to a neuron when exposed to mercury ions in post 140.

If you can't believe your eyes, then perhaps you should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why. Either you are very naive, or your understanding of this topic is less than that required to appreciate what is being presented. Perhaps you have a vested interest.

Anything coming from the ADA is junk science, and if you had read the main article, you'd see WHY that is...

Some people here are so against marijuana, which is INFINITELY safer than mercury, yet they'd prefer to permanently fry their brain cells with mercury if they get the chance. What a double standard, and how blatently dumb.

The video I linked should say; "this is your brain, and this is your brain on mercury." The thing is, instead of the video being a propaganda ploy using a skillet and some eggs, it uses REAL brain cells and REAL mercury. Sheesh...

[FormerLurker]

re: thimerasol

This is why they don't do it anymore (at least I don't think they add it anymore).

They've removed it from pediatric vaccinations, but it IS still present in some other vaccines, the flu shot being one of them. Up to 35 ug in that one I think...

[muawiyah]

No one ever has to go to the dentist. Your teeth will rot out on their own.

Frankly, I love the taste of fluride in the morning!

[TomB]

I wasn't discussing 1 ppm levels to begin with BTW. I was talking about MAXIMUM concentrations in relation to the different fluoride compounds, specifically as to what would be available when a 3 year old boy weighing 30 pounds swallowed the fluoride gel containing 50 mg of sodium fluoride from a fluoride treatment.

Here is another post (361) from the other thread that makes it clear we were discussing optimally flouridated water, NOT flouride treatments.

Tom: OK. Now that we have established that tap water with natural and adjusted fluoride are identical, how do you explain the lack of problems in comminities with naturally fluoridated water?

FL: Since a solution of calcium fluoride will be limited to a maximum solubility of 16 ppm, there will ONLY be 16 ppm of fluoride ions available in blood if the solute is calcium fluoride. With a maximum solubility of 42,200 ppm for sodium fluoride, the concentration of fluoride ions available could increase to 42,200 ppm, although a human would die well before that concentration was reached. And again, once the maximum solubility is reached, ie. the solution becomes saturated, any excess solute is simply held in aqueous suspension and is easily excreted.

So the problem with sodium fluoride is that there is virtually NO limit as to the number of fluoride ions available in the solution, where death will occur WELL before the solution reaches saturation.

[muawiyah]

Fluorine is good. Lead is bad. Oxygen is good. Helium is bad. Hydrogen is good. Iron is bad.

A mantra for the age of the Trial Lawyer!

[blueriver]

They've removed it from pediatric vaccinations, but it IS still present in some other vaccines, the flu shot being one of them. Up to 35 ug in that one I think...

Thanks for the info, also for all the info on fluoride. It is amazing how many things get put into the public domain as "safe" that are actually known poisons. I say you need to be your own guide in this world, don't take anything for granted. If it is a known poison, and can cause death or illness then it should not be ingested in any quantity or ppm. This appears to be common sense to me. Apparently most people lack what little common sense is required to avoid injesting poison.

[TomB]

Thanks for the info, also for all the info on fluoride. It is amazing how many things get put into the public domain as "safe" that are actually known poisons. I say you need to be your own guide in this world, don't take anything for granted. If it is a known poison, and can cause death or illness then it should not be ingested in any quantity or ppm. This appears to be common sense to me. Apparently most people lack what little common sense is required to avoid injesting poison.

So you didn't support Bush when he refused to lower the arsenic standards in drinking water?

[TomB]

On the other hand, with a sodium fluoride solution, if a calcium ion bonds with a fluoride ion, there is a net loss of one calcium ion, and a gain of one sodium. Calcium ions are crucial for neurotransmitter activity, so when enough calcium ions are lost, there is at first neurological dyfunction, and then death in high enough concentrations of fluoride.

I just checked my son's snack bag of cheetos, in a 1 1/8 oz bag it contains 350 mg of sodium. Using your logic, that should have put him in a coma.

1 ppm of NaF is a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount of sodium we get in our diets.

[FormerLurker]

No, we are talking about flouridated water, we always have. And there, the concentration will be 1ppm.

Not so Tom, in either of your statements. It is clear from the fact that anyone going to post 19 on THIS thread, they'd see that by clicking the "from another thread" link at the top of that post, that we were discussing MANY things on that thread. In fact, that link goes directly to post 407 on that thread, and several posts before that post were in reference to various fluoride deaths, the case of the 3 year old boy specifically in post 394.

In fact, in post 121 of this very thread, I referred back to post 394 after we began our conversation today ..

And as far as your ridiculous insistance on this imaginary 1 ppm figure, you have yourself posted information on water sources with fluoride levels exceeding 2.0 ppm, where although it is claimed to be naturally occuring, there is an obvious possibility of artificial fluorides seeping into the water from agricultural runoff or groundwater seepage.

In fact, let me refresh your apparently EXTREMELY poor memory, post 328.

In fact, we discussed ground water at levels of 100 ppm in post 374

In fact, let me post something here from the above link..

But wait, there's more. Although those water systems with "naturally occuring fluoride" DON'T fluoridate their water, they ARE subject to leeching from irrigation and ground water (which itself can have levels of up to 100 ppm of fluoride). They are also subject to air pollution and spillage from drains. As such, they sometimes have BOTH sodium fluoride AND calcium fluoride, and may have higher levels of fluoride than 4 ppm of BOTH compounds.

Fluoride Intake

In fact, THERE IS MORE than just that in post 374, as there I ALSO brought up fluoride levels in food...

From Total Daily Fluoride Intake

1977 "... Recent studies indicate that the total intake of fluoride is as high as 3 mg/day rather than the earlier figure of 1.5 mg/day, primarily because of increases in the estimated levels of fluoride in food. (1970) Balance data presented by Spencer also suggest a higher retention by bone, nearly 2 mg/day rather than the 0.2 mg/day indicated earlier. ... These findings are important . . . a retention of 2 mg/day would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 yr, based on an accumulation of 10,000 ppm fluoride in bone ash." [phase 3 Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis] Drinking Water and Health, Safe Drinking Water Committee, National Academy of Sciences, NAS/NRC, 1977 p. 371-372

Fluorine Excretion and Balances in Adult Men -- intake @4-14 mg/day, absorption =94% -- 40% retained Trace Elements In Human and Animal Nutrition, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (1987) p.378

1991 Estimated daily fluoride intake, adults in optimally fluoridated area: up to 6.6 mg/day .. in areas with 2 to 4 ppm fluoride in water: up to 7+ mg/day. Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, Department of Health and Human Services, February 1991 p17

As stated above, fluoride has a cululative effect, and builds up in both bones and tissues over time. There's more that just the forms of fluoride we've discussed. There's also (cryolite sodium aluminum fluoride), Na₃AlF₆, which is used as a pesticide in agriculture. It has HIGH concentrations in produce, and can have as much as 180 mg/kg in a head of lettuce...

Food and Beverage Sources of Fluoride Exposure

FLUORIDE IN FOOD

For anyone interested in what this solubility discussion is really about,here is a post on the last thread where this subject was just brought up, you will see that all that is discussed is flouridated water.

Are you being purposely misleading and deceptive again Tom?

[blueriver]

So you didn't support Bush when he refused to lower the arsenic standards in drinking water?

I have not been aware of all the things that are in our drinking water or what Bush has done or not done. All I know is that tap water tastes disgusting and now I am beginning to understand why.

[TomB]

Not so Tom, in either of your statements.

ANyone wanting to go back to the last thread can see what we were discussing. Since you are evading the question, I'll ask again. Seeing as how "natural" and "artificial" fluoride is identical, and, as you admit, many areas of the country have natural fluoride levels at or above the recommended level. Why don't we see elevated amounts of disease in the fluoridated areas vs. those without?

And if natural fluoride is so prevalent, how can it be such a damgerous toxin at the levels present.

[TomB]

I have not been aware of all the things that are in our drinking water or what Bush has done or not done. All I know is that tap water tastes disgusting and now I am beginning to understand why.

The current standard for arsenic is 50 parts per billion, you must have really sensitive taste buds.

[FormerLurker]

You are getting pathetic Tom, as you take my statements out of context and try to make it look like we were ONLY discussing fluoride in water supplies.

Here is another post (361) from the other thread that makes it clear we were discussing optimally flouridated water, NOT flouride treatments.

Hmmm. I wonder why you didn't post a link to post 361?

Perhaps it's because I was responding to your ridiculous assertion that BOTH calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride TOTALLY dissolve in ANY amount of solution. I had given you a boiling water analogy in post 346, and in post 361 I was responding to your statement in post 360, "So your boiled water example is backwards. Although I don't think it is valid anyway".

In fact, in post 361, you even asked me to give a link to calculations for solubility in relation to temperature, which I did give you in addition to the actual equation for a electrolyte solution in post 363.

I also had to straighen you out on terminology in post 348.

So no Tom., we weren't only discussing water supplies with 1 ppm fluoride..

Tom: OK. Now that we have established that tap water with natural and adjusted fluoride are identical, how do you explain the lack of problems in comminities with naturally fluoridated water?

BTW Tom, you didn't link my answer to THAT question.

From post 362:

Now that we have established that tap water with natural and adjusted fluoride are identical

And BTW Tom, we have NOT established that, we have established just the opposite. The tap water IS different obviously, as the tap water from a fluoridated water system is a solution of sodium fluoride, whereas the tap water from a naturally occuring source is a solution of calcium fluoride.

Nice try.

And again Tom, NICE TRY....

[FormerLurker]

Thanks for the info, also for all the info on fluoride.

You're welcome. Hopefully I've helped a few people here with this thread.

It is amazing how many things get put into the public domain as "safe" that are actually known poisons. I say you need to be your own guide in this world, don't take anything for granted.

It's amazing that there are those that openly advocate the ingestion of a known poison by ALL Americans, adults, children, and even infants (in the form of fluoride drops and fluoridated infant formula).

If it is a known poison, and can cause death or illness then it should not be ingested in any quantity or ppm. This appears to be common sense to me. Apparently most people lack what little common sense is required to avoid injesting poison.

Some people are quite warped it seems. Perhaps a bit too much fluoride and mercury. That IS a very real possibility..

[TomB]

I have not been aware of all the things that are in our drinking water or what Bush has done or not done. All I know is that tap water tastes disgusting and now I am beginning to understand why.

Are you saying you didn't write that post?

Here is another link. You are plainly discussing flouridated water and solubility:

Ok, you appear to have a valid point. That is the common argument in this matter. When the testing is done from a water supply, yes, the number of flouride ions are measured, and yield a certain value. BUT....

The argument falls apart when you consider the solubility of the compounds, sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride. It is when that water is BOILED that the difference between the two come into play. Water that has been treated with sodium fluoride has both Na+ and F- ions dissolved, whereas water with naturally occuring calcium fluoride has Ca+ and F- ions. As the water evaporates, the concentration of fluoride increases. Without going into the calculations for solubility in relation to temperature, where solubility of fluorides increase in relation to an increase in temperature, let's take a look at what happens in each case...

Flouridated water is what we've been discussing, if you keep insisting differently, I'll post EVERY word you said on the matter in the other thread.

Now quit playing games and answer the questions.