Flouridation

Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It has never received "FDA Approval" (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). It is listed as an "unapproved new drug" by the FDA, and as a "contaminant" by the EPA. Although calcium fluoride can occur naturally, the type of fluoride (sodium) added to municipal water is a hazardous waste product of the aluminum industry, phosphate fertilizer industry, and other industries.

The more serious health concern is that dental fluorosis is not the only harmful health effect that results from overexposure to fluoride. Fluoride has been linked in government and scientific reports to a wide range of harmful health effects, including: bone and tooth decay (including dental and skeletal fluorosis, bone pathology, arthritis, and osteoporosis) Alzheimer's, memory loss and other neurological impairment, kidney damage, cancer, genetic damage, and gastrointestinal problems. In addition, fluoride has been found to leach lead from old water pipes and soldering material, which has resulted in increased lead levels in people.

There is no margin of safety for fluoride exposure. In the 1940's, when fluoridation began, the "optimal" level of exposure for dental benefit was determined to be 1 milligram/day for an adult male. Even at that level, 10% of the population were expected to contract dental fluorosis. It was estimated that adult males drank 1 liter of water per day. At that time, other sources of fluoride were scarce.

Americans, even in unfluoridated communities, are suffering serious harmful health effects from overexposure to fluoride due to its widespread and uncontrolled use. Fluoride can be found in any food or beverage made with fluoridated municipal water. Less than 2% of Western Europe drink fluoridated water compared to over 60% of the United States population.

Isn't toothpaste supposed to be good for us? Haven't we been told for decades -- by the government, by the American Dental Association, by countless Crest and Colgate television commercials -- that fluoride is essential to fighting cavities? Isn't that why nearly two-thirds of the public water supplies in the United States are fluoridated?

A recent issue of the new environmental newsletter News on Earth challenges this and other fluoride orthodoxies. Fluoride is, after all, an extremely toxic compound that originally was sold as a bug and rat poison. A growing body of scientific research suggests that long-term fluoride consumption may cause numerous health problems, ranging from cancer and impaired brain function to brittle bones and fluorosis (the white splotches on teeth that indicate weak enamel). An estimated 22 percent of American children have some form of fluorosis.

Research is also beginning to show that the cavity-fighting power of fluoride may have been overstated. Recent studies in the Journal of Dental Research conclude that tooth decay rates in Western Europe, which is 98 percent unfluoridated, have declined as much as they have in the United States in recent decades. Indeed, it's only in the United States that fluoride is championed by the government; most European nations -- including Germany, France, Sweden and Holland -- prohibit fluoride on public health grounds.

Opposition to fluoride was once confined to far-right conspiracy buffs, as parodied in the movie Dr. Strangelove. But the new evidence against fluoride comes from credentialed scientists in such mainstream institutions as the Environmental Protection Agency and Harvard's Forsyth Research Institute. Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, which represents all the scientists, engineers and other professionals at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., has voted unanimously to co-sponsor a citizens' petition to prevent fluoridation of California's waters. (Local 2050 has also filed a grievance asking for bottled water at EPA headquarters, due to fears about fluoride.) The union's letter endorsing the petition, sent in 1997, read in part:

"Our members' review of the body of evidence over the past eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicates a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children ... there is substantial evidence of adverse health effects, and contrary to public perception, virtually no evidence of significant benefits."

"Would you brush your teeth with arsenic?" asks Dr. Robert Carton, a former scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency whose union is Local 2050. "Fluoride is somewhat less toxic than arsenic and more toxic than lead, and you wouldn't want either of them in your mouth."

Nevertheless, the official momentum behind fluoride is considerable. The Clinton administration's stated goal is to increase the number of Americans with fluoridated tap water from 62 percent today to 75 percent by 2000. The National Institute of Health supports this target. "We are for water fluoridation, of course, 100 percent," says Sally Wilberding of NIH's National Dental Research Institute. The same goes for the American Dental Association.

"I'm a very big supporter of appropriate use of fluorides," says Dr. John Stamm, dean of the School of Dentistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an official fluoride spokesman for the ADA. Stamm argues that fluoridation has significantly decreased tooth decay in the United States over the past 50 years. He attributes Western Europeans' shunning of fluoridation to "cultural differences" in the approach to dental care.

Fluoride's positive image in the United States may rest in part on the whitewashing of unwelcome research findings and the firing of scientists who dared question fluoride's benefits. Dr. William Marcus, formerly the chief toxicologist for the EPA's Office of Drinking Water, lost his job in 1991 after he insisted on an unbiased evaluation of fluoride's potential to cause cancer. Marcus fought his dismissal in court, proved that it was politically motivated and eventually won reinstatement. Marcus now declines comment on the episode beyond saying, "I was right about fluoride's carcinogenicity, and now we know that." An investigation by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 1991 supported Marcus' charges, documenting that government scientists had been coerced to change their findings and portray fluoride more favorably.

MOON LANDING A HOAX

Science supports anti-flouridation.

>>4
Science, lol, you mean the journal or the concept

I thought this was why people buy Bottled water?

people buy bottle water if their municipal water tastes and smells like shit, or if they have too much money and too little sense

sorry but i have but one concern. well i went to another website before and it stated this:

Fluoride is more toxic than lead and like lead in minute doses, accumulates in and can be damaging to brain/mind development of children, producing abnormal behavior in animals and reducing IQ in humans, especially in conjunction with deficiencies of key nutrients such as calcium, iodine and vitamins. It can also contribute to many disease processes. Because it is almost as toxic as arsenic, fluoride's ability to play havoc in the human body should surprise no one.

so i would like to know if its true so if you would like to see that i am spinning a tall tail then goggle "The Fluoride Debate" i would like to see a responce not to be bossy but it would be nice to recive an awser. and gest so you know im only 13 and know so much.

propbably horseshit, like anti-vaccinations, etc

<a href="http://www.buyaionmoney.com">aion kina</a>
<a href="http://www.buyaionmoney.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-money.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-money.com">aion money</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-aiongold.com">aion kina</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-aiongold.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.rs2accounts-rs2accounts.com">runescape gold</a>
<a href="http://www.rs2accounts-rs2accounts.com">runescape money</a>
<a href="http://www.aionkina-aionkina.com">aion kina</a>
<a href="http://www.aionkina-aionkina.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.benniuw.com">股票软件</a>
<a href="http://www.benniuw.com">股票分析软件</a>

<a href="http://www.buyaionmoney.com">aion kina</a>
<a href="http://www.buyaionmoney.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-money.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-money.com">aion money</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-aiongold.com">aion kina</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-aiongold.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.rs2accounts-rs2accounts.com">runescape gold</a>
<a href="http://www.rs2accounts-rs2accounts.com">runescape money</a>
<a href="http://www.aionkina-aionkina.com">aion kina</a>
<a href="http://www.aionkina-aionkina.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.benniuw.com">股票软件</a>
<a href="http://www.benniuw.com">股票分析软件</a>

About 25% of bottled water sold is simply re-processed/used municipal(city) water according to a 1999 study in the United States.[29] Both Aquafina from Pepsi-Cola Company and Dasani from The Coca-Cola Company are reprocessed from municipal water systems. Some bottled waters, such as Penta Water make unverified health benefit claims[citation needed]. While there have been few comprehensive studies, one analysis several years ago found that about 22 percent of brands that were tested contain, in at least one sample, chemical contaminants at levels above strict state health limits. If consumed over a long period of time, some of these contaminants could cause cancer or other health problems at rates higher than those considered tolerable by the regulatory body setting the standards.

The FDA reports that:"about 75 percent of bottled water sold in the U.S. comes from natural underground sources, which include rivers, lakes, springs and artesian wells." The other 25% comes from municipal sources, which are the “sources” of two leading brands of bottled water--Dasani (Coca-Cola) and Aquafina (PepsiCo). The FDA was quoting as saying, "Companies that market bottled water as being safer than tap water are defrauding the American public."

Bottled water processed with distillation or reverse osmosis lacks fluoride ions which are sometimes naturally present in groundwater. The drinking of distilled water may conceivably increase the risk of tooth decay due to a lack of this element. However, most people continue to cook with common tap water and this is thought to potentially provide sufficient fluoride to maintain normal prophylaxis in many instances. Any other minerals in tap water such as calcium and magnesium are present in such minuscule amounts that their absence is compensated for many thousands of times over by other dietary sources. On the other hand, some people wish to avoid exposure to fluoride, particularly systemic ingestion of fluoride in drinking water, and may choose such bottled water for this feature.

Bottled water is typically printed with expiration dates. However, industry associations claim "bottled water can be used indefinitely if stored properly."

Unlike tap water, where consumers are provided with test results every year, the bottled water industry does not disclose the results of any contaminant testing that it conducts. Instead, the industry hides behind the claim that bottled water is held to the same safety standards as tap water. But with promotional campaigns saturated with images of mountain springs, and prices 1,900 times the price of tap water, consumers are clearly led to believe that they are buying a product that has been purified to a level beyond the water that comes out of the garden hose.

To the contrary, our tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry's refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified.

Laboratory tests conducted for EWG at one of the country’s leading water quality laboratories found that 10 popular brands of bottled water, purchased from grocery stores and other retailers in 9 states and the District of Columbia, contained 38 chemical pollutants altogether, with an average of 8 contaminants in each brand. More than one-third of the chemicals found are not regulated in bottled water. In the Sam's Choice and Acadia brands levels of some chemicals exceeded legal limits in California as well as industry-sponsored voluntary safety standards. Four brands were also contaminated with bacteria.

Two of 10 brands tested, Walmart's and Giant's store brands, bore the chemical signature of standard municipal water treatment — a cocktail of chlorine disinfection byproducts, and for Giant water, even fluoride. In other words, this bottled water was chemically indistinguishable from tap water. The only striking difference: the price tag.

In both brands levels of disinfection byproducts exceeded safety standards established by the state of California and the bottled water industry:

    * Walmart’s Sam’s Choice bottled water purchased at several locations in the San Francisco bay area was polluted with disinfection byproducts called trihalomethanes at levels that exceed the state’s legal limit for bottled water (CDPR 2008). These byproducts are linked to cancer and reproductive problems and form when disinfectants react with residual pollution in the water. Las Vegas tap water was the source for these bottles, according to Walmart representatives (EWG 2008).

    * Also in Walmart’s Sam’s Choice brand, lab tests found a cancer-causing chemical called bromodichloromethane at levels that exceed safety standards for cancer-causing chemicals under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65, OEHHA 2008). EWG is filing suit under this act to ensure that Walmart posts a warning on bottles as required by law: “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer."

    * These same chemicals also polluted Giant's Acadia brand at levels in excess of California’s safety standards, but this brand is sold only in Mid-Atlantic states where California’s health-based limits do not apply. Nevertheless, disinfection byproducts in both Acadia and Sam’s Choice bottled water exceeded the industry trade association’s voluntary safety standards (IBWA 2008a), for samples purchased in Washington DC and 5 states (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and California). The bottled water industry boasts that its internal regulations are stricter than the FDA bottled water regulations(IBWA 2008b), but voluntary standards that companies are failing to meet are of little use in protecting public health.

Altogether, the analyses conducted by the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory of these 10 brands of bottled water revealed a wide range of pollutants, including not only disinfection byproducts, but also common urban wastewater pollutants like caffeine and pharmaceuticals (Tylenol); heavy metals and minerals including arsenic and radioactive isotopes; fertilizer residue (nitrate and ammonia); and a broad range of other, tentatively identified industrial chemicals used as solvents, plasticizers, viscosity decreasing agents, and propellants.

The identity of most brands in this study are anonymous. This is typical scientific practice for market-basket style testing programs. We consider these results to represent a snapshot of the market during the window of time in which we purchased samples. While our study findings show that consumers can't trust that bottled water is pure or cleaner than tap water, it was not designed to indicate pollutant profiles typical over time for particular brands. Walmart and Giant bottled water brands are named in this study because our first tests and numerous followup tests confirmed that these brands contained contaminants at levels that exceeded state standards or voluntary industry guidelines.

The study also included assays for breast cancer cell proliferation, conducted at the University of Missouri. One bottled water brand spurred a 78% increase in the growth of the breast cancer cells compared to the control sample, with 1,200 initial breast cancer cells multiplying to 32,000 in 4 days, versus only 18,000 for the control sample, indicating that chemical contaminants in the bottled water sample stimulated accelerated division of cancer cells. When estrogen-blocking chemicals were added, the effect was inhibited, showing that the cancer-spurring chemicals mimic estrogen, a hormone linked to breast cancer. Though this result is considered a modest effect relative to the potency of some other industrial chemicals in spurring breast cancer cell growth, the sheer volume of bottled water people consume elevates the health significance of the finding. While the specific chemical(s) responsible for this cancer cell proliferation were not identified in this pilot study, ingestion of endocrine-disrupting and cancer-promoting chemicals from plastics is considered to be a potentially important health concern (Le 2008).

Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of compulsory mass medication. They argue that consent of all water consumers cannot be achieved, nor can water suppliers accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, nor monitor their response. It is also argued that, because of the alleged negative health effects of such level of fluoride exposure, mandatory fluoridation of public water supplies is a breach of ethics and a human rights violation.

In the United Kingdom the Green Party refers to fluoride as a poison, claim that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972, violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Water fluoridation has also been criticized by Cross and Carton for violating the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999.[2] Dentistry professor David Locker and philosopher Howard Cohen argued that the moral status for advocating water fluoridation is "at best indeterminate" and could even be considered immoral because it infringes upon autonomy based on uncertain evidence, with possible negative effects.

In an analysis published in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, the authors examine the water fluoridation controversy in the context of the precautionary principle. The authors note that:

    * There are other ways of delivering fluoride besides the water supply;
    * Fluoride does not need to be swallowed to prevent tooth decay;
    * Tooth decay has dropped at the same rate in countries with, and without, water fluoridation;
    * People are now receiving fluoride from many other sources besides the water supply;
    * Studies indicate fluoride’s potential to cause a wide range of adverse, systemic effects;
    * Since fluoridation affects so many people, “one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventive actions.”

Fluoride's adverse effects depend on total fluoride dosage from all sources. At the commonly recommended dosage, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and is unlikely to represent any real effect on aesthetic appearance or on public health. Fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture (broken bones); it may result in slightly lower fracture risk than either excessively high levels of fluoridation or no fluoridation. There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma. Overall, other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion.[12] Individual studies have found associations with adverse effects such as cancer, however, and these individual studies may be cited by opponents.

Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L. In 2006, a 12-person U.S. National Research Council (NRC) committee reviewed the health risks associated with fluoride in the water and unanimously concluded that the maximum contaminant level of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Although it did not comment on water fluoridation's safety, three of the panel members expressed their opposition to water fluoridation after the study and the chair, John Doull, suggested that the issue should be reexamined. Because the report recommended lowering the MCL, opponents argue that fluoridation has a lower margin of safety than previously realized.

Because water fluoridation provides is not individually controlled, opponents express concern for vulnerable populations such as children, nutritionally deficient individuals, and renally-impaired individuals. National Research Council states that children have a higher daily average intake than adults per kg of bodyweight. Those who work outside or have kidney problems will also drink more water. Of the following health problems, osteosarcoma, a rare bone disease affecting male children, is strictly associated with the recommended dosage of fluoride. The weight of the evidence does not support a relationship. However, a study performed as a doctoral thesis, which is described as the most rigorous yet by the Washington Post, found a relationship among young boys, but then the Harvard professor who advised the doctoral students determined that the results were not highly correlative enough to have evidentiary value; the professor then was investigated but exonerated by the federal government's Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

An epidemiological connection between silicofluorides, an industrial byproduct which is used to fluoride much of the U.S. water, and lead was observed in a 2000 study. A 2006 U.S. CDC-funded study was unable to replicate the results, which the original researchers responded to in a 2007 rebuttal. Aside from the lead connection, concerns are raised as to whether silicofluorides might have different effects on the body than sodium fluorides, and silicofluorides have not been rigorously tested for safety.

Since 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters' union has expressed concerns about fluoride. In 2005, eleven environmental protection agency EPA employee unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service, called for a halt on drinking water fluoridation programs across the USA and asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. Among the union's concerns are what they contend is a cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with an elevated risk of osteosarcoma in boys, a rare but fatal bone cancer.[32] However, the professor accused of the cover-up was exonerated by the federal Office of Research Integrity.

In addition, over 1,730 health industry professionals, including one Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson), doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling for an end to water fluoridation in an online petition to Congress. The petition signers express concern for vulnerable groups like "small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, and people with poor kidney function," who they believe may already be overdosing on fluoride. Another concern that the petition signers share is, "The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion." The petition was sponsored by the Fluoride Action Network of Canton, New York, the most active anti-fluoridation organization in North America.

Their petition highlights eight recent events that they say mandates a moratorium on water fluoridation, including a 500-page review of fluoride’s toxicology that was published in 2006 by a distinguished panel appointed by the National Research Council of the National Academies. While the NRC report did not specifically examine artificially fluoridated water, it concluded that the EPA's safe drinking water standard of 4 parts per million (ppm) for fluoride is unsafe and should be lowered. Despite over 60 years of water fluoridation in the U.S, there are no double-blind studies which prove fluoride's effectiveness in tooth decay. The panel reviewed a large body of literature in which fluoride has a statistically significant association with a wide range of adverse effects.

A separate petition that calls on the United States congress to halt the practice of fluoridation has received over 18,900 signatures.

In his 2004 book The Fluoride Deception, author Christopher Bryson claims that "industrial interests, concerned about liabilities from fluoride pollution and health effects on workers, played a significant role in the early promotion of fluoridation.

Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the aforementioned report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards. Dr. Limeback is an associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto. He detailed his concerns in an April 2000 letter titled, "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water".

On April 15, 2008, the United States National Kidney Foundation (NKF) updated their position on fluoridation for the first time since 1981. Formerly a supporter of water fluoridation, the NKF now takes a neutral position on the practice.

Water fluoridation is used in the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and Australia, and a handful of other countries. The following developed nations previously fluoridated their water, but stopped the practice:

German Federal Republic (1952-1971)
Sweden (1952-1971)
Netherlands (1953-1976)
Czechoslovakia (1955-1990)
German Democratic Republic (1959-1990)
Japan (1952-1972)
Soviet Union (1960-1990)
Finland (1959-1993)

yes this is almost interesting

Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation. have you seen their goddamned teeth?

That's due to poor hygiene

THE NEED FOR WEED

Marijuana MUST be l_egalized.

BBCo^de MASTERS smoke WEED!