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

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

You really don't read my posts, do you:

From post 149 on this thread:

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

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 fluorid

And there we FINALLY have it.

OK. That is wrong because tap water from a flouridated water supply will have 1 ppm (there's that pesky number again) of fluoride ions from NaF (or sodium silicofluoride) which are indistinguishable from the 1 ppm of fluoride ions from CaF2 that is responsible for the fluoride levels in the "naturally" fluoridated water.

There, all that running around to get back to the central point, fluoride is 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.

Now you are really demonstrating to ALL that you are nothing more than a shill for the ADA, as I HAVE EXPLAINED this to you at least TWICE on the other thread..

From post 327:

Do you eat foods with salt in them? OF course you do. But chlorine is a toxin, yet I don't see anybody recommending we completely stop using salt.
And that is BECAUSE NaCl is a necessary NUTRIENT. Although it does decompose into Na+ and Cl-, the sodium and chlorine are VITAL to our wellbeing and are needed to form electrolytes and are critical to body chemistry and functions. Any excess chlorine is easy passed through our bodies and excreted. Fluorine has NO nutritional value, and IS simply a toxin. ~~It is NOT excreted~~ (Here I should have said, MUCH of it is not excreted. In fact, roughly 40% IS RETAINED in the body), and due to its highly reactive nature, bonds with calcium in our bodies.

And from post 329:

FL: And that is BECAUSE NaCl is a necessary NUTRIENT.
TomB: BUT IT'S A TOXIN!!! How can you let yourself consume it! How can something that is a toxin be good for you at the same time?
Boy you ARE dense. It is a NUTRIENT numnuts. Are you too lazy to click on the link I provided that explains that is is ESSENTIAL for vital body functions? Go back to the link I posted and READ IT. Here, I'll provide AGAIN in case you are too LAZY to go back and find the link in the previous post.
Ions: The Body's Electrical Energy Source

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

Your statement isn't any less ridiculous now than it was back when we first discussed it...

Salt is a vital substance. Without sodium in our diets, as well as chloride, our body would cease to function. With fluoride, the body DOES NOT use it for any necessary process. Fluoride DOES cause unwanted processes to occur however, and that is what makes it a POISON. In fact, it doesn't take a whole lot of fluoride to cause the body to CEASE to function altogether, although long term low level cumulative exposure WILL cause degeneration of vital organs and impairment of the central nervous system.

ANyone wanting to go back to the last thread can see what we were discussing.

That IS quite true Tom.

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?

First of all, although the fluoride ions are identical between natural forming calcium fluoride and artificial fluoride compounds, the metals that they bind to is obviously different. Let me enlighten you..

From post 144:

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

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

Even "natural fluoride" over long term exposure can cause cumulative effects, especially synergistically with artificial fluorides.

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.

You see, this is where my cheetos analogy comes in. With flouridated water, you are ingesting 1 ppm of sodium (assuming that is the compound used) into your body. That is a vanishingly small amount compared with the normal diet. IOW, the amount of sodium added through flouridated water has no appreciable effect on the daily intake of sodium. Also, the amount of calcium taken in during the day is vastly larger than the calcuim "lost". But since the majority offluoride bonding occurrs in the bone, it is a moot point.

Even "natural fluoride" over long term exposure can cause cumulative effects, especially synergistically with artificial fluorides.

And that is my point. Since there are areas of the country where people have been drinking naturally flouridated water for centuries, you should be able to show these areas have associated problems. I have yet to see an epidemological study showing anything like that.

aruanan, you're the pHd in nutrition (or whatever you're doing this month). What say you?

And there we FINALLY have it.

Oh? No you don't HAVE it Tom, as it is obvious that you are being misleading and deceptive. Fluoridated water is but ONE of the topics that we were discussing, but it was not the ONLY thing that we discussed, no matter how much you jump up and down claiming the contrary..

And you very well know that the EPA MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) for fluoride is 4.0 mg (4 ppm), NOT the imaginary 1 ppm that you fervently insist on.

EPA: Current Drinking Water Standards

And again, here you go with your 1 ppm fluoride ions = 1 ppm fluoride ions. That IS true, but you fail to mention that the SOLUTIONS of the different COMPOUNDS ARE DIFFERENT AND HAVE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES...

You are also trying to eliminate the fact that if you exceed a 16 ppm concentration, sodium fluoride stops dissolving while sodium fluoride will dissolve up to 42,200 ppm.

There, all that running around to get back to the central point, fluoride is fluoride.

And again, although a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, calcium fluoride is NOT sodium fluoride, and calcium fluoride in solution is NOT THE SAME AS sodium fluoride in solution.

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?

Why yes Tom, I AM saying that. In fact, you are either smoking fluoride, or you are simply LYING. And I'm sure that's obvious to ANYONE reading this thread....

To: TomB

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.

155 posted on 11/23/2002 6:41 PM PST by blueriver

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

MAN, you ARE getting desperate aren't you TOM? ANYONE going to that thread will see that water fluoridation WAS NOT the only topic that we were discussing....

You should try to avoid fluoridated water and toothpaste for awhile.

Shouldn't you be on DU with the rest of the environmental wackos?

So are you saying that only democrats haven't fried their brains on mercury, lead, arsenic, and fluoride? Hmmm, I don't know about that...

Anyway, arsenic is an essential nutrient in most mammals, including, most likely, humans.

Well then again, you say that fluoride is a nutrient. DO you think that lead and mercury are nutrients too?

BTW, the National Research Council has a bit to say about this subject..

EPA Needs More Stringent Standard for Arsenic in Drinking Water

So, is it a toxin, or is it a nutrient?

Well I know it's a toxin, why Tom? Would you like to eat some in your cereal?

You see, this is where my cheetos analogy comes in. With flouridated water, you are ingesting 1 ppm of sodium (assuming that is the compound used) into your body.

No you're not Tom. We've gone into that earlier on this thread, but for one, the level is up to 4 ppm. And for two, 1 mg of sodium fluoride does not make for 1 mg of sodium.

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.

So in one liter of this theoretical 1 ppm tap water, there'd be about 0.55 mg of sodium ions, as 1 ppm of a fluoride is seen as 1 mg of that compound in a liter of water.

That is a vanishingly small amount compared with the normal diet. IOW, the amount of sodium added through flouridated water has no appreciable effect on the daily intake of sodium.

That is correct.

Also, the amount of calcium taken in during the day is vastly larger than the calcuim "lost".

It is not so much the "calcium taken in" that is the issue, as it is the calcium ions attempting to transition a ion channel that I am talking about, as well as potassium ions trying to do the same. The more fluoride ions in the bloodstream, the less calcium and potassium is available for celluar functions at the celluar level. When potassium or calcium are needed it is not the next minute that they are needed in relation to a neuron ion channel transition, it is that they are needed that instant.

But since the majority offluoride bonding occurrs in the bone, it is a moot point.

It's not a moot point, as neurological damage IS one of the effects of fluoride. IN fact, speaking of potassium bonding with fluoride, you HAVE heard of potassium fluoride haven't you? It is HIGHLY toxic in it's own right. Perhaps it's simply due to the fluoride ion, I'm not sure...

In post 129, I inadvertently made a few typos and some labeling errors, but the results came out the same..

I'll just strike and add where I should..

Let's say that there is 1 mg of calcium fluoride. If we look at the atomic weight of fluorine, it is about 19. Calcium has an atomic weight of 40. Gaining or losing an electron doesn't significantly change the atomic weight of an atom, so a fluorine atom weighs pretty much the same as a fluoride ion.
SO that means in 1 mg of calcium fluoride, we have a proportion of (2 * 19 F)/59 CaF2 in relation to the weight of the fluorine atom to the calcium fluoride compound ~~atom~~, so that means we have about 0.64 mg of fluoride ions available in 1 mg of calcium fluoride.
As far as sodium fluoride NaF, the atomic weight of sodium is 23, so the proportion for fluorine to ~~calcium~~ sodium fluoride is 19 F/42 NaF, so the amount of ~~fluorine~~ flouride ions in 1 mg of sodium fluoride is 0.45 mg ~~fluorine~~.

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.