Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How We Got Fluoridated
Stop Fluoridation USA ^ | Unknown | Philip Heggen

Posted on 11/22/2002 7:33:34 PM PST by FormerLurker

 
 
 
                              stop fluoridation
 

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
home


       
 
 
 


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 401-420 next last
To: All; TomB
I think it's getting time to call it a night..

As far as sodium fluoride (NaF), the atomic weight of sodium is 23, and the atomic weight of fluorine is 19, so the proportion for sodium to sodium fluoride is 23 Na/42 NaF, so the amount of sodium in 1 mg of sodium fluoride is 0.55 mg fluorine.

181 posted on 11/23/2002 10:12:57 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
Now WHY would you want me to do that? It is clear that in a liter of water, calcium fluoride will stop dissolving at 16 ppm. Sodium fluoride will continue to dissolve in the same liter of water up to 42,200 ppm, or 42.2 grams. That means that 16 MILLIGRAMS of fluoride ion are available if the solute is calcium fluoride, whereas 42,200 MILLIGRAMS (42.2 GRAMS) of fluoride ions are available if the solute is sodium fluoride

It's been 15 years since I studied chemistry, but my recollection is that adding one mole of NaFl and one mole of CaCl to a sufficient quantity of water would have the exact same effect as adding one mole of CaFl and one mole of NaCl. If, of those four compounds, CaFl is the least soluble, then that would be the first substance to precipitate out.

While this suggests that injesting CaFl and NaFl will likely have similar effects (since the amounts of both Ca+ and Na+ from other sources far outweigh those associated with F-), it also points to three sources of likely biological significance of fluoride:

I am nowhere near enough of a chemist or biologist to know to what extent those three factors come into play in what circumstances. My conjecture would be that at low concentrations of fluoride, #2 would be the dominant effect, while at higher concentrations #1 and #3 would dominate. It may well be that fluoride is like arsenic in that some is necessary, but the amount needed is so small that, generally speaking, the less the better.
182 posted on 11/23/2002 10:21:12 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
If you only knew what it did, you might not want to do that...

Perhaps, though oddly nobody in this thread has distinguished between topical application of fluoride to dental surfaces versus systemic injestion of same. I would not be at all surprised if the former is good and the latter bad, and for the same reasons.

For example, it has been stated that calcium fluoride is not very soluble in water. While it's been ages since I've taken chemistry, my recollection is that it is less soluble in acid than some other calcium compounds, some of which may be present in teeth.

If this is the case, applying topical fluoride to the teeth may cause some of the calcium compounds there to turn into calcium fluoride which would in turn be more resistant to decay than the normal tooth enamel (somewhat analagous to bluing firearms).

If this is how fluoride works, however, then consuming it into one's bloodstream would not have this desired effect: the proper 'construction' of fluoride-constructed teeth requires that the calcium compounds be dissolved in the blood long enough to get where they're going, and only once there should they be treated with fluoride. Attempting to treat teeth with fluoride via systemic injestion would be like trying to create blued firearms by mixing the bluing compounds with molten iron before casting or forging. The amount of bluing compound normally required to blue a firearm would likely be ineffective when mixed in with all the metal, and if one did use enough to 'blue' all of the metal that went into a gun the effect would be disastrous.

My personal belief is that fluoride, applied topically, is a good thing but fluoride in drinking water is of questionable value at best; I certainly don't see any way it could operate in the same was as topical applications.

183 posted on 11/23/2002 10:33:37 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Actually, see my post 179 above as far as flouride ion levels per 1 mg of compound. The maximum solubility levels are concentrations where the solution will saturate, causing any furthur compound added to the solution to at first be held in suspension, then upon supersaturation will precipitate into crystals.

It may well be that fluoride is like arsenic in that some is necessary, but the amount needed is so small that, generally speaking, the less the better.

I totally agree. However, there IS no nutritional aspect of fluoride. The theory of a nutrional value of arsenic is dubious.

184 posted on 11/23/2002 10:41:34 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
Duh, I meant to say dihydrogen oxide

Uh, no, just hydrogen oxide or hydrogen hydroxide depending upon your point of view (actually, both terms are someone insightful in that hydrogen-almost-anything is an acid while almost-anything-hydroxide is a base; hydrogen hydroxide balances the properties of acids and bases).

The use of a quantitative prefixes in certain compounds is generally only done for cations which have multiple valence states. Al2O3 is not "di-aluminum tri-oxide", but rather just "aluminum oxide". In cases where anions have multiple valence states, the name of the valence state is used in describing the anion; FeO is "ferrous oxide" while Fe2O3 is "ferric oxide". N2O is "nitrous oxide", "NO" is "nitric oxide", and NO2 is "nitrogen dioxide".

185 posted on 11/23/2002 10:41:59 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: supercat
My personal belief is that fluoride, applied topically, is a good thing but fluoride in drinking water is of questionable value at best; I certainly don't see any way it could operate in the same was as topical applications.

In many cases, it has been shown that INGESTING fluorides result not only in dental fluorosis, but in skeletal fluorosis as well. That is in addition to neurological disorders, cancer, osteoperosis, and hip fractures. However, with topical application to dental surfaces, there MIGHT be some SLIGHT benefit as far as hardening, if you ignore the fact that it makes teeth more brittle and subject to cracks and chipping. Of course, at the levels used for topical applications, any ingestion would be very bad, as in potentially lethal for a small child swallowing fluoride gel during a fluoride treatment. Of course, at a near lethal dose (lethal if ALL or MOST of it is swallowed), it wreaks a lot of damage neurologically if ANY of it is swallowed.

186 posted on 11/23/2002 10:49:37 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Uh, no, just hydrogen oxide or hydrogen hydroxide depending upon your point of view (actually, both terms are someone insightful in that hydrogen-almost-anything is an acid while almost-anything-hydroxide is a base; hydrogen hydroxide balances the properties of acids and bases).

Looking at it as a valence bonded molecule, would you still call it an oxide?

187 posted on 11/23/2002 10:52:20 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
However, there IS no nutritional aspect of fluoride. The theory of a nutrional value of arsenic is dubious.

I don't know anything about any political leanings at www.webelements.com, but here's what it says about arsenic:

Arsenic, despite its poisonous reputation, may be a necessary ultratrace element for humans. It is a necessary ultratrace element for red algae, chickens, rats, goats, and pigs. A deficiency results in inhibited growth.
To be sure, the amount of arsenic that is needed is apt to be less than what people are going to get in any normal environment; I don't see any value in people supplementing their arsenic intake under anything resembling normal circumstances.

The view given there on Fluoride differs from that given here:

Fluorine as fluoride (F-) is probably an essential element for humans and certainly is for some molluscs. In some areas, fluoride ion is added to drinking water (in very low concentrations) since it renders tooth enamel relatively immune to bacteriological attack. It does this by replacing the OH group of hydroxyapatite with fluoride. In other areas, fluoride is not added to water, despite the benefits, as a consequence of protests from civil rights activists who object to the addition of anything to water.
Nice to have a statement of the supposed useful biological effect. On the other hand, I also noticed this:
Metal fluorides are very toxic. Organic fluorides are generally much less toxic and are often quite harmless
Into which of those categories would NaF fall?
188 posted on 11/23/2002 10:55:04 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
Looking at it as a valence bonded molecule, would you still call it an oxide?

Are not the oxides of nitrogen also valence bonded?

189 posted on 11/23/2002 10:57:50 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Uh, no, just hydrogen oxide

The use of a quantitative prefixes in certain compounds is generally only done for cations which have multiple valence states.

Ever hear of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

190 posted on 11/23/2002 10:58:44 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Into which of those categories would NaF fall?

Certainly not organic.

191 posted on 11/23/2002 11:00:06 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
However, with topical application to dental surfaces, there MIGHT be some SLIGHT benefit as far as hardening, if you ignore the fact that it makes teeth more brittle and subject to cracks and chipping.

The goal of fluoride isn't to harden teeth (protecting them from mechanical wear), but rather to protect them from bateriological or chemical decay. As to whether it makes teeth harder, softer, more or less brittle, I have no idea.

Of course, at the levels used for topical applications, any ingestion would be very bad, as in potentially lethal for a small child swallowing fluoride gel during a fluoride treatment. Of course, at a near lethal dose (lethal if ALL or MOST of it is swallowed), it wreaks a lot of damage neurologically if ANY of it is swallowed.

Given that children grow out of their first set of teeth, protecting them is of limitted value if doing so imposes other health consequences. Once people get older and have their permanent teeth, however, it would seem that the value of topical fluoride would increase while the risk (since people would be more disiplined and less apt to swallow it) would decrease.

To be sure, it may be that the topical fluoride products are more dangerous than people are letting on, but that should not prevent prudent people from using them safely. After all, there are many products in this world that are even more dangerous than fluoride toothpaste and yet most people manage to use them safely.

192 posted on 11/23/2002 11:05:35 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
Ever hear of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Yes, though as I've stated, common practice does not involve quantitative prefixes on anions.

BTW, oxygen itself is much nastier stuff than water. Indeed, inhaled water only causes problems biologically if it exists in such quantity as to displace oxygen, or if it is at an unsuitable temperature (e.g. steam). By contrast, oxygen at normal temperatures can have severe biological effects if inhaled at even twice normal concentrations [unless a person's lungs are in such poor shape that such atmospheric concentrations are needed to yield a normal blood-oxygen level].

193 posted on 11/23/2002 11:11:53 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I guess you're right. I myself thought that an oxide was more of a ionic reference, but hey, I can be wrong..

hydrogen (I) oxide, aka dihydrogen oxide, aka dihydrogen monoxide, aka water

194 posted on 11/23/2002 11:14:52 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I guess you're right. I myself thought that an oxide was more of a ionic reference, but hey, I can be wrong..

hydrogen (I) oxide, aka dihydrogen oxide, aka dihydrogen monoxide, aka water

195 posted on 11/23/2002 11:16:15 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Sorry about that double post, it appears that this thread has been moved to chat for some reason.

In any event, speaking of oxygen, atomic oxygen is deadly, where molecular oxygen is the stuff we breath. Funny how chemicals can behave in strange ways with the slightest thing differant about them...

196 posted on 11/23/2002 11:18:58 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: supercat
To be sure, it may be that the topical fluoride products are more dangerous than people are letting on, but that should not prevent prudent people from using them safely. After all, there are many products in this world that are even more dangerous than fluoride toothpaste and yet most people manage to use them safely.

I don't think it prudent to take a risk with the application of a highly toxic substance orally just to protect teeth from germs, if it even actually does, which is a dubious claim to begin with...

197 posted on 11/23/2002 11:22:30 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
hydrogen (I) oxide, aka dihydrogen oxide, aka dihydrogen monoxide, aka water

I'd not seen that page before. I would think, pedantically, that the density of water at 4°C should be described as "1000. m³" rather than "1000 m³", since the latter value is only claimed accurate to one significant figure and I think the value given is in fact accurate to more than that (probably at least to 1000.000 I would guess).

198 posted on 11/23/2002 11:30:00 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Are not the oxides of nitrogen also valence bonded?

Well, maybe not for nitrogen oxide as far at the bond between the nitrogen and the oxygen, where the valence bond is actually the between the two nitrogen atoms I think..

Whereas with H2O, the oxygen shares a valence bond with two hydrogen atoms.


199 posted on 11/23/2002 11:32:26 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

BTW, I found it interesting for Hydrogen(I) Oxide, they list "Synthesis" as "Not available". It seems they could have mentioned that water may be obtained in pure form by burning hydrogen with pure oxygen, and in impure form by turning on a tap.
200 posted on 11/23/2002 11:35:00 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 401-420 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson