Posted on 11/22/2002 7:33:34 PM PST by FormerLurker
Because I'm a dentist, and it does a great job at reducing caries, especially among small children. I don't like doing restorations on small children.
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies.
Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C. Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as "professionals." The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for managements use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy.
I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then.
Summary of Recommendations
1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewer's independent determinations be reported to this Committee.
2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizerindustry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime.
3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children withd ental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders.
4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.
National Review of Fluoridation
The Subcommittees hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points:
1.) excessive and un-controlled fluoride exposures;
2.) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;
3.) the results and implications of recent brain effects research;
4.) the "protected pollutant" status of fluoride within EPA;
5.) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon Generals Panel on fluoride;
6.) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;
7.) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;
8.) the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and
9.) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation
10.) Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled. According to a study bythe National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of Americas childrenin fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure andfluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey donein the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.
Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a"cosmetic" effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. Thateffect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies canhandle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth aredamaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Children's bones and othertissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too muchfluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, arelooking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and othertissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b)showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption offluoridated drinking water.
Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we doknow that American children in large numbers are afflicted withhyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on therise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are onthe rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. Thereare biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed researchon fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures(e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of theseconditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if thereare links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure.
In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that anational moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There willbe a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries,but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) andmost European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting lettersfrom European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies inthe U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with nodiscernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who wantthe freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by othermeans.
Cancer Bioassay Findings In 1990, the results of the National ToxicologyProgram cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), theinitial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a specialcommission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in thesalvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidenceof carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report saysthat there is, "equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats,"changed from "clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats."
The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviserand Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle aboutthe issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, wonhis case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatorydamages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommitteedealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation.
We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of thetumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), withthe results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of theCongress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the originalreviewers of the study, and the "review commission" members should becalled, and an explanation given for the changed findings.
Brain Effects Research Since 1994 there have been six publications thatlink fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Twoepidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children(11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure ofanimals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which arehyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage inanimals given the "optimal" dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million(13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in thebrain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal.Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on thebrains pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals.Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New Yorkhas also been reported (6).
Given the national concern over incidence of attentiondeficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe thatthe authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee,along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American publicand the Congress can understand the implications of this work.
Fluoride as a Protected Pollutant
The classic example of EPAs protectivetreatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S.before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940's and 1950's asa major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPAs then DeputyAssistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views theuse of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphatefertilizer manufacture as,
"...an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-productfluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and airpollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source offluoride..."
In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as thepollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not intorivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter.
Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvertof the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and otherFederal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yetbeen received.
We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testifyon the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happyto assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. Forinstance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic ReleaseInventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy amongthe Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given therelative toxicities of these substances.
Surgeon Generals Panel on Fluoride We believe that EPA staff and managersshould be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 SurgeonGenerals panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, toexplain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon Generals panel(16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinkingwater standards for fluoride.
Kingston and Newburg, New York Results In 1998, the results of afifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York(un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17).In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dentaldecay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated cityshow significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in theun-fluoridated city.
We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of theCenters For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a SelectCommittee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among Americanchildren and the implications of that increase for skeletal and othereffects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fracturesand arthritis.
Findings of Fact by Judges In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest exceptfinding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony fromproponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findingsof fact. I cite one such instance here.
In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the SupremeCourt of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Boroughof West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas.Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated thebenefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. JudgeFlaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but theinjunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of factwere not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979letter to the Mayor of Aukland New Zealand wrote the following about the case:
"In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodiumfluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremelydeleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclosethat there was no convincing evidence to the contrary...
"Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, ifany, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that theproponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) theobjectivity of those who oppose fluoridation."
In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: "This record isbarren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies andor analysis of statistical data which would support the IllinoisLegislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is botha safe and effective means of promoting public health."
Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: "[That] the artificial fluoridationof public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City ordinanceNo. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, geneticdamage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dentalmottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravatemalnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of saidartificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay inman."
The significance of Judge Flahertys statement and his and the other twojudges findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond ofreciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC andthe American Dental Association, both of which have long-standingcommitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety andefficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants ofjustice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridationof water supplies is not justified.
Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there isno real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an openmind.
I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty andanother letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr.Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I amalso submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue ofthe Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law byJack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled "Highlights in North AmericanLitigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation ofPublic Water. Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before JudgeFlaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas).
We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee alongwith, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relatetheir experience as trial judges in these cases.
Hydrofluosilicic Acid There are no chronic toxicity data on thepredominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used tofluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate alink between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead inchildren's blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors ofthese studies has been submitted by them independently.
We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be calledbefore a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people whatthese papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation.
Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk In recent years, two prominent dentalresearchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announcedreversals of their former positions because they concluded that waterfluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and thatit poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun wasPrincipal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published hisreasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Headof Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change ofviews, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting acopy of Dr. Limebacks publications.
We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who havenot changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and HerschelHorowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on thereasons for their respective positions.
Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions.
CITATIONS
1.Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E, Eklund, S.A. and Burt, B.A. J. Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997).
2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992).
2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in theSurveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National CancerInstitute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department ofHealth and Human Services.1991: F1-F7.
3.Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten,P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177(1995)
4a. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality [editorial] N. Engl. J.Med. 322 845-6 (1990)
4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hipfracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst.Health. April 10, 1991.
5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A.aries Research 28 204 (1994).
6. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings afterten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell,K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956).
7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department ofNon-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO CollaboratingCentre, Malmö University, Sweden. URL:
8. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries onfluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W.Hirzy, P.O. Box 76082, Washington, D.C. 20013.
9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development ofdental caries and fluorosis. Burt B.A., Keels ., Heller KE. J. Dent. Res.2000 Feb;79(2):761-9.
10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N ratsand B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).
11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on childrens intelligence. Zhao,L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)
12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi,J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995).
13. Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to ratsin drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity.Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research784 284-298 (1998).
14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z.Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar andG. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).
15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water,to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acidas low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.
16.Transcript of proceedings - Surgeon Generals (Koop) ad hoc committee onnon-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes ofHealth. Bethesda, MD.
17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green,E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47.
18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century onartificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. and Morin,P. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999)Florida State University College of Law.
19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D.and Coplan, M.J. Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999).
20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J.Perspectives in Biol. And Medicine 41 1-16 (1997).
21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto.
22. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990.
Refer to the ones already referenced and posted.
quack \Quack\, n.
1. The cry of the duck, or a sound in imitation of it; a hoarse, quacking noise. - Chaucer.
2. [Cf. Quacksalver.] A boastful pretender to medical skill; an empiric; an ignorant practitioner.
3. Hence, one who boastfully pretends to skill or knowledge of any kind not possessed; a charlatan.
Quacks political; quacks scientific, academical. … Carlyle
Quackwatch is a nonprofit corporation founded by Stephen Barrett, who bills himself as a retired psychiatrist from Allentown, Pennsylvania. The stated purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies.
Quackwatch claims that water fluoridation "is supported by libraries full of articles that document its safety and effectiveness – more so than any other public health measure."
How often have you heard that "hundreds of studies" have proven water fluoridation safe and effective? Have you ever seen one? Can you name one?
In May of 1998 I joined Stephen Barrett's healthfraud list, posting a short message suggesting that fluoride may be an overlooked cause of arthritis and fibromyalgia. After much discussion I asked Stephen Barrett one simple question:
"Can you direct me to any published scientific articles demonstrating the safety of our current fluoride intake … or any studies which indicate that researchers used methods capable of detecting cases of chronic fluoride poisoning -- but failed to find them -- in any fluoridated U.S. cities in the past?"
Barrett claims there are "hundreds of pertinent articles," but he can't produce a single one. He can, however, remember some of the terms he learned in medical school. Rather than name one of his hundreds of studies, he simply told me he thinks I'm "delusional."
Stephen Barrett is not the problem … he is merely a part of the problem. Others are more than willing to put on the cloak of authority to dispense worthless advice on the merits of fluoridation.
What other "consumer protection" groups have managed to fool the public regarding their true purpose?
In June, 1978, the American Council on Science and Health incorporated in New York. Run by Elizabeth Whelan, A.C.S.H. is an independent affiliate of the National Council Against Health Fraud. Among its advisors are Stephen Barrett, MD; Michael W. Easley, DDS; Victor Herbert, MD; and William T. Jarvis, Ph.D.. The Directors are Fredrick J. Stare, MD, PhD; and Elizabeth Whelan, ScD, MPH.
A.C.S.H. is often referred to as a front group and mouthpiece for the food, chemical, sugar and drug industries (American Cyanamid, Archer Daniels Midland, Chevron, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exxon, General Mills, Johnson & Johnson, Monsanto, Pfizer, Union Carbide, Uniroyal, Proctor & Gamble, CocaCola, and The American Dental Association.) Michael W. Easley, D.D.S., M.P.H., is an editorial fellow for the A.C.S.H. whose board of scientific and policy advisors includes Stephen Barrett, William Jarvis and Victor Herbert, M.D., all members of Jarvis's N.C.A.H.F.
For more about Elizabeth Whelan and the American Council on Science and Health, see The Alar Rebellion of 1989, quoted from Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly, February 20, 1997.
According to some newspapers, Michael Easley is the national spokesman on fluoridation for the American Dental Association! He appears regularly with Stephen Barrett's book, The Health Robbers in hand, along with the the fraudulent ADA pamphlet, Fluoridation Facts. For years this pamphlet has misrepresented its own references and included "endorsers," who deny that they actually endorse fluoridation.
Even more alarming is the fact that Ian C. Munro, Ph.D., another of Barrett's cronies who represent the interests of Monsanto, had managed to place himself as chairman of the committtee on tolerable upper intake levels for the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) report from the Food and Nutrition Board at the National Academy of Sciences.
When the DRI report was introduced at a public meeting in the fall of 1997, Munro allowed American Dental Association spokesman, Herschel Horowitz, to read the segment on fluoride which attempted to turn back the clock with regard to the official NAS/NRC dosage figures for crippling skeletal fluorosis.
At that time the Food and Drug Administration was giving Monsanto's new arthritis drug Celebrex priority review. The news boosted shares of both Monsanto and its agreed-to acquirer, American Home Products Corporation, in heavy trading, as investors anticipated approval of the first in a new class of enzyme-blockers called "COX-2 inhibitors." Analysts say the drug could ring up $2 billion or more in annual sales. Monsanto's G.D. Searle & Co. unit and Pfizer Inc., New York will commercialize Celebrex. Obviously, it wouldn't be in the best interests of Ian Munro and/or Monsanto to eliminate one of the major causes of arthritis in this country by questioning the wisdom of water fluoridation. Better to ignore rising fluoride dosage levels.
With all substances, "dosage makes the poison" -- meaning that while very small quantities of fluoride may cause only minor damage, large quantities taken on a daily basis over a lifetime are known to cause arthritic changes to the musculoskeletal system, eventually causing crippling deformities of the spine and major joints. In 1993 the National Academy of Sciences corrected a long-standing error in calculating the crippling daily fluoride dosage. By ignoring this correction in arithmetic, as well as the 1979 correction by the erring NAS/NRC expert, Dr. Munro's committee could use the erroneous figures to create a bogus margin of safety. Crippling skeletal fluorosis is currently the only adverse health effect considered by EPA in setting their fluoride in drinking water regulation. The pre-crippling arthritic phase of this disease is not considered to be an "adverse" health effect. … just as severely mottled teeth with pits and brown stain are not considered to be adverse, but simply "cosmetic."
If ever there was a case of hiring a fox to guard the chickens, this was it! In one swoop, and without a shred of new scientific evidence, a daily dosage which had been determined to be capable of crippling after only ten years was being presented as "tolerable." The ADA's Horowitz dismissed concerns of members of the audience by claiming that fluorides don't accumulate -- contrary to all previous statements by NAS/NRC, as well as the World Health Organization, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and six decades of scientific observation throughout the world. Ian Munro, industry's hired gun, and advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, claimed to be unaware of the content of the 1993 NAS/NRC report on fluoride for EPA, Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride.
Unfortunately, although release of the DRI report was delayed for more than a year, and the erroneous fluoride dosage figures were only partially corrected and still others were injected in the final version, they have been published by several other individuals and groups, including the American Dietetic Association … all based on the internet pre-publication copy or the final equally flawed version.
Additional relevant items:
THE TARNISHED IMAGE OF DR. KOOP - Chicago Tribune October 30, 1999
CalciumOrganic:
Chlorine
Chromium
Copper
Iodine
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Sulfur
Water
Zinc
CarbonThe dose (and the mode of administration) make the poison. The problem is that anti-fluoridationists are using fluoride as a devil substitute, one onto which they can project all their fears ("I fear; therefore, I am"), one against which they believe they can take some kind of successful action, embuing their life with some degree of purpose and a sense of being able to fight back against malignant forces bent on their destruction. They think they're being scientific, but they're every bit as much engaged in trying to find the right mojo to avert danger as is a shaman reading pig entrails and casting bones to protect the tribe. Some people do this with food (the food fetishists of all varieties). Some people do this with politics (fear of the godless communists; the communist belief in destroying and rebuilding society; the anarchists' fight against all government and the IMF). Some people do this with religion (the infidels are against us and must be defeated for Allah). Some people do this with science/technology (the Luddites, old and new; Algore and the internal combustion engine as the most dangerous thing in the world today; the Unabomber). Some people do this with the environment (Earth First and other Greenie wackos). Some do it with fluoride. But in order to elevate their particular bugaboo into the supreme evil, they all have to minimize or ignore, by failing to apply the same criteria, all the other dangers posed by many other, often far more dangerous things.
Folate
Niacin
Vitamin A
Vitamin C
Vitamin D
Thiamine
That's a laugh:
hypocrite
In fact, in the response where I DID correct myself, I had to correct YOU as you were claiming that ALL of a calcium fluoride compound would dissolve in water. Your buddy is saying that NONE of it does. Do you think perhaps you are BOTH wrong?
Addressing the excretion issue, as well as calcium fluoride solubility
hypocrite
Idiot.
Ions: The Body's Electrical Energy Source
Your comparison of salt to bleach is absurd, as bleach is SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE, which uses the CHLORITE ION, ClO2-.
Sodium chlorite (NaClO2) is a poison, whereas sodium chloride (NaCl) is what we sprinkle on our food.
Safety data for sodium chlorite
Your junk science arguments are falling apart by the minute...
In other words, you knowlingly made false statements by saying that regular salt was a toxin.
From post post 179
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.
Since there are TWO fluorine atoms in calcium fluoride, the molecular weight of calcium fluoride is 78 ((2 * 19) + 40), not 59. So the amount of fluoride ions in 1 mg of calcium fluoride is (2 * 19) F- / 78 CaF2, or 0.49 mg.
In fact, the molecular weight was even given in the table that I posted in post 247. Seems to me Tom, in your zeal to trip me up and call me a liar, you would have pounded on me if you had any idea at all as to what you claim to be fairly expert at...
Furthurmore, as the maximum solubility of calcium fluoride is 17 ppm at 20 degrees Celsius, the maximum amount of fluoride ions available in a 1 liter solution at 20 C would be (17 * 0.49)mg, or 8.33 mg.
As to the availablity of fluoride ions in the bloodstream in relation to a accidental ingestion of calcium fluoride by a 30 lb. child, since it has been shown in a earlier post that the amount of water in the bloodstream is approximately 0.5 liters, the maximum amount of fluoride ions would be (0.5 * 8.33)mg, or 4.17 mg.
It has been shown that the lethal dose of fluoride is approximately 3.7 mg sodium fluoride compound (NaF), per kilogram of body weight. As there are (as shown in post 179) 0.45 mg of fluoride ions in 1 mg of sodium fluoride, and ALL of the sodium fluoride dissolves up to 9.45 grams of NaF in 0.5 liter of water, the amount of fluoride ions in a lethal dose is (0.45 * 3.7) mg, or 1.7 mg per kg body weight.
A 30 lb. child weighs 13.6 kilograms, so the lethal dose of fluoride ion for that child is (13.6 * 1.7) mg, or 23 mg F-.
As calcium fluoride will reach a maximum concentration of 4.17 mg in the bloodstream of that child, the child CANNOT die as a result of consuming calcium fluoride.
The child CAN die by ingesting sodium fluoride however, as up to 9,450 mg of NaF can dissolve in the bloodstream of that child, where (0.45 * 9,450) mg, or 4253 mg, of fluoride ions are available, WELL over the lethal limit.
$750,000 Given In Child's Death In Fluoride Case. Boy, 3, Was in City Clinic for Routine Cleaning
THAT is why calcium fluoride is MUCH safer than sodium fluoride.
Face it, you posted some information to scare people, and you got called on it.
The fact of the matter is that you work yourself up into a later convincing yourself that fluoride is a poison, yet miliions of people have been ingesting that "poison" for decades or even centuries, and you can't produce evidence that people are being harmed.
Face it Tom, you've been called on your lies. Either you are not THAT good at chemistry, thus you don't REALLY know what you are talking about, or you DO know a bit of chemistry, and you are deliberately LYING.
The fact of the matter is that you work yourself up into a later convincing yourself that fluoride is a poison,
What the heck is a "later". Fluorides OTHER than calcium fluoride ARE poisons Tom. In case you're too dense to understand what a poison is, a poison is that which will lead to death in sufficient quantities. Calcium fluoride CANNOT cause death, as it WILL NOT reach a sufficient FLUORIDE ION concentration in the bloodstream. Sodium fluoride, as well as all the other ARTIFICIAL fluorides, can and will lead to death in sufficient quantities.
Flouride ions are TOXIC, and DO cause physiological damage. Long term exposure can and usually DOES lead to various health problems and disorders.
yet miliions of people have been ingesting that "poison" for decades or even centuries, and you can't produce evidence that people are being harmed.
Er, I call a fatality "being harmed", for one. I've already posted links showing that the 3 year old boy who died from a fluoride treatment was NOT an isolated case. I've also listed references to studies that DO show fluoride's toxicity and its relation to various disorders. And I HAVE given a MULTITUDE of links and excerpts that DO show that fluoride is hazardous to your health.
Keep going Tom, you're on a roll. Perhaps I could show how you even tried to claim that I said something that I didn't say in a attempt to discredit me and call me a liar...
OK. You've said that a thousand times. Now, since millions of people have been drinking this "toxic" fluoride ion for decades, if not centuries, where are all the sick people?
Where are they?
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.
