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

Explain to me the properties of the substance depicted by the following diagram.

It is a diagram of NO2. It's an electron dot formula (sort of).

Give me an example of dipole-dipole bonding.

hydrogen chloride

What's the difference between that and hydrogen bonding?

A hydrogen bond (as in water) is just a particulary strong dipole-dipole bond.

What is a polyatomic ion

An ion that contains two or more elements (OH-)

Now, can we get back to flouridation?

We have now established that a portion of the country has had naturally fluoridated water for centuries. Where are the studies showing increased rates of disease or death in those areas vs areas with no fluoride?

People have been drinking this "poison", that is naturally occurring (Fluorine is the 13th most common element) in their water constantly now. If it is as "TOXIC!!" as you say (in the proper concentrations) why aren't people sick?

In addition, "artificial" fluoride has been added to municipal water supplies for 50 years now, where are the studies showing increases in sickness and death in those cities?

Hey aruanan! Lookie here, a chemistry quiz! I haven't had one of these in years. (thank G-d it was open book)

It is a diagram of NO2. It's an electron dot formula (sort of).

The diagram is called a Lewis diagram, otherwise known as a Lewis electron dot structure. The substance is nitrogen dioxide, and it's formula is NO₂. The peculiar thing about this compound is that a Lewis diagram cannot be properly drawn, as they all seem to end up with one unpaired, unbonded electron. That is what makes this compound a free radical.

From Lewis Electron Dot Structures

An other interesting configuration of electrons can result when the total number of valence electrons in a molecule is odd. In these cases, the octet rule cannot be obeyed--one atom must have too many or too few electrons. There simply aren't the right number of electrons to make everybody happy. A common example is nitrogen dioxide, NO₂, since N has five valence electrons and the oxygen atoms each have six, giving a total of 17.

The rest of your answers were all correct. So OK Tom, you know a bit of chemistry.

You HAVE always said that a FLUORIDE ION is the same no matter where it came from, right?

Central Nervous System Damage from Fluorides

And there is even more to this than simply looking at the problems specific to fluoride alone, as it has a synergistic affect with lead...

From Is Fluoride Safe for Everyone?

Lead poisoning in 280,000 Massachusetts children

The substances most widely used for water fluoridation programs are hydrofluosilicic acid and silicofluorides. A study of 280,000 Massachusetts children published in 1999 shows that the levels of lead in children's blood was significantly higher in Massachusetts communities using silicofluoride, hydrofluosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride, than in towns where water is treated with sodium fluoride or not fluoridated at all. The correlation with blood lead levels is especially serious because lead poisoning is associated with higher rates of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, substance abuse, and crime. (Sodium fluoride is utilized in only 10% of the nation's programs.) Of further concern is the interaction between fluoridation chemicals and the other additives used in water treatment for corrosion,turbidity, odors, pH balance, etc. For example, aluminum compounds are commonly used as clarifying agents in tap water. A long-term study published in 1988 showed that even low levels of aluminum fluoride in the drinking water delivered higher levels of aluminum to the brain than concentrated aluminum fluoride. In the same study,both the low levels of aluminum fluoride and the same amount of sodium fluoride as is found in "optimally" fluoridated water caused severe kidney damage and lesions to the brain similar to those found in humans with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. This is why fluoridation agents must be tested for interaction with the other 40+additives.

The diagram is called a Lewis diagram, otherwise known as a Lewis electron dot structure.

Climb off your high horse. According to General Chemistry: Principles and Structure 2nd Ed. (page 97):

Lewis structures

electron dot formulas

And that is what we called it.

You HAVE always said that a FLUORIDE ION is the same no matter where it came from, right?

Yes, and your link said nothing to rebut that fact.Mind you, that is a truism, not something to be debated.

And there is even more to this than simply looking at the problems specific to fluoride alone, as it has a synergistic affect with lead...

So, in other words, you can't find any studies that show a danger from drinking normally flouridated water.

Once AGAIN I ask the question. Since many areas of the country have been drinking naturally flouridated water for centuries, why aren't there any studies that show an increase in death or illness?

And since many communities have had their water supplies flouridated for 50 years now, why aren't there studies showing increased death or illness (or decreased IQ, in the case of lead) in these cities vs non-flouridated areas?

BTW, your Mass. lead study was a bust:

RESPONSE TO MASTERS AND COPLAN STUDY: WATER TREATMENT WITH SILICOFLUORIDES AND LEAD TOXICITY

In a study, Water Treatment with Silicofluoride and Lead Toxicity, published in the International Journal of Environmental Studies, (1999, vol. 56, pp. 435-449) by Dr. Roger Masters, Emeritus Professor of Government at Dartmouth University, and Mr. Myron J. Coplan, a retired chemical engineer of Albany International and principal of Intellequity Technology Services, have associated increased lead levels in the blood of children with the use of silicofluorides in fluoridated water supply systems. The paper presents results from an ecological study of community lead levels, drug use among arrested individuals, and the use of variety of chemicals for fluoridation of community water supplies. The authors conclude that fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride may be responsible for lower pH levels of drinking water, leaching lead from plumbing systems, and increasing lead uptake by children.

In very similar articles or proposed articles, (Poisoning the Well: Neurotoxic Metals, Water Treatment, and Human Behavior; A Dynamic, Multifactorial Model of Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Crime: Linking Neuroscience and Behavior to Toxicology; Neurotoxicity and Violent Crime: Silicofluorides and Enhanced Lead Uptake in Rural Georgia; Brain Biochemistry and Violent Epidemic: Toward a 'Win-Win' Strategy for Reducing Crime; Water Treatment Chemistry and Increased Lead Toxicity; and Environmental Pollution, Neurotoxicity, and Criminal Violence) they have also suggested that communities using silicofluorides also report higher rates of learning disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorder, violent crime, and criminals who were using cocaine at the time of arrest.

This response is focused on the study entitled Water Treatment with Silicofluoride and Lead Toxicity, but pertains to the other articles, or proposed articles, as well.

Epidemiologists for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that "This manuscript is poorly written and provides insufficient detail on study method to allow a full evaluation. Based on the information presented, this study used a flawed analytic approach, which undermines the validity of its conclusions. ....Much of the authors' contentions regarding the relation between fluoridation chemicals (or lead, for that matter) and crime rates is weakly supported, and is likely to highly confounded by complex social factors including, for example, unemployment rates, occupational chemical exposures, and socioeconomic factors not captured in this simplistic analysis." Also, they said, "This is a very poor conceived and developed piece of research. The review of the literature is highly selective and one of the key documents to support the author's point of view is authored by one of the authors."

Drs. Edward T. Urbansky, a physical inorganic chemist, and Michael R. Schock, a corrosion chemist, of the National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Cincinnati, Ohio have submitted an article to the International Journal of Environmental Studies. It has been accepted for publication. This paper examines the premise that Master and Coplan have proposed in their various papers.

Urbansky and Schock state: "Recent reports have attempted to show that fluoridated potable water is linked to increased levels of lead (II) in blood. ...Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation, or reactivity of lead (0) or lead (II) compounds". Dr. Urbansky has also stated: "Masters and Coplan's conclusions are unsupported even by their own limited data and are inconsistent with established scientific literature. The paper will not stand up to rigorous review by expert scientists experienced in the relevant disciplines. There are no credible data in any report or letter they have written thus far to suggest any link between fluoridation and anything else."

There is no basis for concern on the issue of using silicofluorides in fluoridated water supply systems. There has been much attention given to work of Masters and Coplan, but it does not stand up to rigorous review by scientists experienced in the appropriate field. Therefore, we believe that there is no reason that any community that uses or is planning on using silicofluorides in fluoridating their water supply has any reason for concern.

So, in other words, you can't find any studies that show a danger from drinking normally flouridated water.

I just did post a reference to one Tom.

Once AGAIN I ask the question. Since many areas of the country have been drinking naturally flouridated water for centuries, why aren't there any studies that show an increase in death or illness?

See the above answer. As far as your "artificial" / "natural" argument, it is purely a red herring, as your insistance all this time that a fluoride ion is the same no matter where it comes from totally negates any difference you try to portray between the effects of "natural" calcium fluoride and "artificial" sodium fluoride. If there is ANY fluoride in the water, then there is a problem according to your model.

Well the report I just posted shows that there IS increased death or illness between those using sodium fluoride and, hydrofluosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride.

A study of 280,000 Massachusetts children published in 1999 shows that the levels of lead in children's blood was significantly higher in Massachusetts communities using silicofluoride, hydrofluosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride, than in towns where water is treated with sodium fluoride or not fluoridated at all. The correlation with blood lead levels is especially serious because lead poisoning is associated with higher rates of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, substance abuse, and crime. (Sodium fluoride is utilized in only 10% of the nation's programs.)

In the same study, both the low levels of aluminum fluoride and the same amount of sodium fluoride as is found in "optimally" fluoridated water caused severe kidney damage and lesions to the brain similar to those found in humans with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. This is why fluoridation agents must be tested for interaction with the other 40+additives.

I just did post a reference to one Tom.

Hanging your hat on just ONE study?

THAT IS MY POINT EXACTLY! Because fluoride ions are identical, and fluoride ions are naturally occurring in many areas of the country, it is ridiculous to scream "POISON!" when it is added to other areas. People have lived with fluoride for centuries, with no ill effects. That more than adequately proves its saftey at normal limits.

If there is ANY fluoride in the water, then there is a problem according to your model.

So it follows logically , if there is ANY fluoride ion in the water, and there are no ill effects demonstrated (as in all the areas with naturally occurring fluoride), it is safe.

You simply ignore ALL evidence contrary to your ridiculous position. The constant daily exposure to foods, beverages, and air, ALL of which contain fluorides of some type, along with the multitude of other contaminants, ARE responsible for the DRASTIC increase in neurological disorders, including ADD/ADHD, depression, Alzeimer's, lower IQ, cancer, skeletal fluorosis, and hip fractures. Synergistic effects are numerous, as fluorine IS the MOST reactive electronegative element in the Periodic Table.

It is absurd to claim this toxin as some sort of remedy for bad teeth where in all actuality, it CAUSES bad teeth. I've posted enough information on this to fill at least a week's worth of reading. You obviously haven't bothered reading much of what I've presented, you only attempt to find ways to DISCREDIT what I say. It is CLEAR what your agenda is here Tom, and it has NOTHING to do with good intent towards the People of this Nation.

I really can't understand you people. To you profit is more important than the minds and bodies of little kids, as well as those of adults. I'd hate to be one of you when it's time to say hello to the Creator....

Ummm, how do I profit from fluoride? If I wanted to profit, I'd call for ending fluoridation so I could treat more cavities.

Anyone who was TRULY concerned with the health and welfare of humankind would IMMEDIATELY halt any practice that was thought to cause such problems listed in the various studies, and would IMMEDIATELY proceed to investigate the matter in earnest, without any bias.

LOL. The are very few things that have been studied MORE than fluoride/fluoridation. Aren't 35,000 studies enough? And yet the government wastes more and more money funding studies to make the vocal minority happy. How many more studies?

Like I said before, if fluoride was as toxic as you say at normal levels, there would be no problem demonstrating disease and death in all the areas it is prevalent. But that can't be done.

To continue to dismiss the evidence that these practices are destroying the minds and bodies of a significant portion of the population is insidious.

You say that, but you can't show me the people whose minds and bodies have been "destroyed". Where are all these people?

To continue to dismiss the evidence that these practices are destroying the minds and bodies of a significant portion of the population is insidious.

Come on! The one study you cite has been totally and completely slammed:

Urbansky and Schock state: "Recent reports have attempted to show that fluoridated potable water is linked to increased levels of lead (II) in blood. ...Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation, or reactivity of lead (0) or lead (II) compounds". Dr. Urbansky has also stated: "Masters and Coplan's conclusions are unsupported even by their own limited data and are inconsistent with established scientific literature. The paper will not stand up to rigorous review by expert scientists experienced in the relevant disciplines. There are no credible data in any report or letter they have written thus far to suggest any link between fluoridation and anything else."

There is no basis for concern on the issue of using silicofluorides in fluoridated water supply systems. There has been much attention given to work of Masters and Coplan, but it does not stand up to rigorous review by scientists experienced in the appropriate field. Therefore, we believe that there is no reason that any community that uses or is planning on using silicofluorides in fluoridating their water supply has any reason for concern.

And yet you persist. Remember Einstein's observation? To persist in the same behavior, expecting under the same conditions a different result than the one obtained, is insanity.

You say that, but you can't show me the people whose minds and bodies have been "destroyed". Where are all these people?

I've already posted the list of SOME fluoride deaths, including those due to accidental discharges from fluoride treatment equipment, children killed by fluoride treatments, and people killed by fluoride during dialysis.

I've posted evidence of long term fluoride poisonings related to various mental and physicial ailments, and I've demonstrated that MOST eminent scientists agree that fluoridation is insane and needs to be halted. The ONLY people advocating fluoridation and continued use of fluoride in dental products are those in various industries in collusion amongst themselves to promote a poison as a nutrient for their own selfish goals, caring not if they poison or cause the poisoning of the entire world as long as they make a few more bucks.

What a demented philosphy, where one cares not about ANYONE, not even their own offspring, so long as they can make a few more bucks, when they are already so filthy rich they couldn't go broke if they set fire to $100 or more an hour for the rest of their lives...

It should be pointed out that all those involve fluoride poisoning. You insist fluoride isn't safe at ANY level, yet you can't show ONE study, let alone the preponderance of evidence, that shows fluoride at proper levels is even remotely dangerous.

I've posted evidence of long term fluoride poisonings related to various mental and physicial ailments,

All lab studies stuffing animals full of fluoride. If flouride was dangerous in the long term, cities that have had their water flouridated for decades would have a lot of sick people.

and I've demonstrated that MOST eminent scientists agree that fluoridation is insane and needs to be halted.

WHAT!?!? Where did you do that? All you did was post a few dozen names.

Yes, I know, I'm getting rich of fluoride, but you can't tell me how.

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.