Posted on 11/22/2002 7:33:34 PM PST by FormerLurker
![]()
How We Got Fluoridated
by Philip Heggen
PrefaceThroughout 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||
All?
Also, I noticed that most of the footnotes in that link you provided to the other study were all more than 8 years old. As a matter of fact, the newest source cited is from a 1994 article from "Health Natural", and most of those sources are from the 70's and 80's.
They are made by the top medical authorities in our nation based on the latest medical research.
![]() These are strong, deliberate statements. They are made by the top medical authorities in our nation based on the latest medical research. Their voices are not alone, look at a partial list of dentists & medical doctors, Environmental Protection Agency Scientists and even a number of State Dental Directors are critical of the benefits.
![]() |
"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association. |
"fluoridation ... it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has. " Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D. (Microbiology), Co-Discoverer of streptomycin |
Join voices with the following medical professionals
who see fluoride as a health hazard.
|
Some related links:
Fluoride is naturally occurring in most water supplies in this country, it always has. As a matter of fact, in many areas the concentration is many times the recommended level.
Fluoride is a toxin, so ANY amount is too much. Those areas that DO have naturally occuring fluoride in their water supply DO also have children with statistically significant lower IQ and develop skeletal fluorsis.
EFFECT OF HIGH-FLUORIDE WATER ON INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN
Effect of a High Fluoride Water Supply on Children's Intelligence
ALL the ethical ones are...
Also, I noticed that most of the footnotes in that link you provided to the other study were all more than 8 years old. As a matter of fact, the newest source cited is from a 1994 article from "Health Natural", and most of those sources are from the 70's and 80's. Many of that list of quotes are from the 60's.
Do you care to link that which you mention, or am I supposed to guess?
End: Fluoridation A 50-Year Old Blunder And Cover-Up |
Page last modified: 07Oct98
It goes beyond that. We are being told that a highly toxic, reactive poison is actually GOOD for us. That's like saying eating lead paint is GOOD for you, and you should sprikle lead paint chips and dust into your food...
First off, WHICH study, as there's several. Is it this one?
Fluoride in drinking water increases the risk of hip fractures in women
Out of the 99% US sources.
First off, cite the particular study that you are referring to.
There may be some valid research mixed in, but if you're trying to sell us something, which you are, you'd do better not to mix in crackpot sources and flawed studies (that Finnish study is flawed at worst, and highly inconclusive with a need for followup and replication at best) and try to pass the whole kit-and-kaboodle as legitimate science that is conclusive.
You STILL haven't answered my question as to WHO exactly in post #43 that you are referring to as "crackpots".
Might it be the Journal of the American Medical Association, could it be the United States Public Health Service, maybe Dr. Ludgwig Grosse, Chief of Cancer Research, U.S. Veterans Administration, or could it be Research Microbiologist, U.S. Army, Dr. B. J. Gallo, Environmental Chemist, J. Kupperschmidt Apollo Program Project Scientist, Dr. N.R. Mancuso, U.S. Army Natick Research Labs, A. Murray, Molecular Biologist, Dr. Strauss?
Maybe it's Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association, or Dr. Professor Albert Schatz, (Microbiology), co-discoverer of Streptomycin, the cure for tuberculosis and numerous other bacterial infections?
Might it be Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association, or Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, Children's Hospital, Boston?
Could it be Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A?
Or maybe it's the Centers for Disease Control, or perhaps Harold Slavkin, Director of National Institute of Dental Research?
WHO exactly do you think is wrong?
There may be some valid research mixed in, but if you're trying to sell us something, which you are, you'd do better not to mix in crackpot sources and flawed studies (that Finnish study is flawed at worst, and highly inconclusive with a need for followup and replication at best) and try to pass the whole kit-and-kaboodle as legitimate science that is conclusive.
I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. The reference that you acknowledged that you were talking about is in fact an AMERICAN study. Are you confused?
Fluoride in drinking water increases the risk of hip fractures in women, according to an October 1999 American Journal of Epidemiology study.
Thirdly, you have an agenda, and you are feeding us sources from websites that also have an agenda, who, like everyone else with an agenda, selectively pick and choose those sources and studies which support that agenda, without giving us any access to sources that do not support that agenda, and you expect everyone to just accept it without question?
No, YOU have an agenda. It is squashing the truth. My agenda, if you can call it that, is stopping that which harms the American people. Why do you find fault with that?
You have given NO facts, you ignore the FACTS, and it is YOU that has an agenda. And I might add, an agenda that is HOSTILE to the American People.
This is Free Republic for crying out loud. It's like you're asking us to accept the Village Voice as an unbiased, objective news source with no political agenda, interested in giving us only the facts.
You are either delirious, misinformed, or you HAVE an agenda.
I asked you these and other valid and reasonable questions about this study before you asked me anything, and you still refuse to answer and dodge the questions by asking me more questions. I asked you my questions first, and I won't answer any more of yours until you answer mine.
Namedropping will get you nowhere with me, I think I made that clear to you earlier. If the very first study I clicked on is full of unanswered questions, questions that you dodge and then start accusing me of being hostile to the American people because I'm asking them, then I'm going to take my perfect, cavity-free teeth and my healthy joints and bones, all exposed to a lifetime of flouride and move on...until you can answer my questions, and hold up better under tough but fair questioning without flying off the handle.
It might be helpful if you would provide a link to the original study, showing the actual correlation rate (between -1.00 and +1.00, and I know what a low positive correlation looks like as opposed to a significant positive correlation rate) and showing how all those variables I mentioned were controlled.
It would also be helpful to me if you could show me some research cited by the pro-flouride people as well. If you're so sure of your agenda, you won't mind citing your critics.
It would be helpful to you to throw out all references to those Chinese studies altogether, unless the same studies have been replicated in the United States.
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.