After voting for the fluoridation programme, there are some strange official statistics – and an important statement from the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People
Despite heated opposition, Sonoma County health officials are building their case that adding fluoride to public water supplies In a new report, county health officials now estimate the total cost of injecting fluoride into drinking water supplies at $587,000 per year, significantly less than the county’s previous estimate of $8.5 million for capital upgrades and $973,000 per year for operations
Published Nov 11
Santa Rosa NAACP Opposes Water Fluoridation as Greater Risk for People of Color
Resolution of the Santa Rosa-Sonoma County NAACP Opposing Fluoridation of Our Public Water Supply
Whereas, studies have found that in fluoridated communities, African-American and Latino children are at greater risk for dental fluorosis (discolored teeth from damaged tooth enamel caused by fluoride exposure) and,
Whereas, a blue-ribbon panel of scientists has identified kidney patients and diabetics as being especially susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides and African-Americans suffer disproportionate amounts of kidney disease and diabetes in America, and
Whereas the Centers for Disease Control says that babies under 6 months should get NO fluoride and if the public water supply is fluoridated powdered formula would have to be mixed with bottled water.
Whereas, Harvard University researchers concluded in July 2012, that results “support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment and concluded that “children in high fluoride areas “had significantly lower IQ’s than those who live in low fluoride areas” and,
Whereas, commonly used fluoridation chemicals cause increased absorption of lead, and this lead- absorbing effect is more pronounced in black & Latino populations (which are already over-exposed to lead) and,
Whereas, it is estimated more than 24 tons of fluoride per year would pass into the environment through irrigation of home yards and parks and whereas fluoride has a variety of adverse environmental impacts on aquatic organisms, and
Whereas, new state data shows unfluoridated Portland, Oregon kids actually have lower cavity rates than kids in Oregon’s fluoridated cities, and
Whereas, former Ambassador Andrew Young, one of many civil rights leaders opposed to fluoride, has pointed out that: “we…have a cavity epidemic today in our inner cities that have been fluoridated for decades”
Now Therefore Be it Resolved that the Sonoma-Santa Rosa NAACP opposes the addition of fluoride to our public drinking water as citizens have no choice in the matter and research indicates that people of color are disproportionately negatively affected by fluoride, and
Further Be It Resolved, the Sonoma-Santa Rosa NAACP calls attention to the fact that this is a Civil Rights Issue that damages people of color disproportionately to whites, and
Further Be It Resolved, that we call for adequate dental care for all children but oppose the addition of toxic fluoride to our drinking water because of known hazards, and lack of adequate research into the unknowns, particularly regarding the impact on children, and
Finally be it Resolved, that the Sonoma County-Santa Rosa NAACP will forward this Resolution to our Board of Supervisors in hopes they will further study the issue of fluoridation and the negative impact upon special populations.
Coalition of African American Pastors Oppose Water Fluoridation
Published in the Sonoma Gazettte together with the resolution above:
As President of the Coalition of African American Pastors I am writing to document our opposition to water fluoridation. In learning about the developments surfacing now, we cannot support the idea of adding the chemical fluoride to drinking water. There are several reasons for this.as piublished ion the Sdonoma Gazette together with the above resolutiuon. Full text here:
Reverend William Owens
The Coalition of African American Pastors
What Fluoridation Case is Being Made?
By Larry Hanson
A good response
The Press Democrat printed an article written in the December 2nd issue saying that Sonoma County is, “Making a Fluoridation Case,” for adding fluoride into the drinking water for Sonoma County residents. But has the county made a case or have they simply made weak or empty assertions?
The first part of the case states there is an “urgency” because 51% of Sonoma County kids experience tooth decay. Really, an urgency? Hasn’t this condition been around for decades and the solution to tooth decay known? It is indisputable that tooth decay results from sugary drinks and foods and from not flossing and brushing regularly. When I was a teacher in elementary schools we had dental programs that provided education on taking care of one’s teeth which include what foods to not eat. This was effective in reducing incidences and levels of decay in children’s teeth. This is a solution that is not controversial and treats the problem directly without exposing everyone else to potential health problems and those that do not have tooth decay problems. This safe and viable alternative was not properly considered by the county.
Safe for Infants?
Another part of the county’s case states that, “We think it’s very safe, extremely healthy measure…” What is really “extreme” is the assertion that adding an FDA unapproved and untested drug is “extremely safe” when added to water the public will be drinking at unknown quantities. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that infants are susceptible to the effects of low dose fluoride. The county does not recommend that infants drink the water. Mothers, in addition, should not drink this water because it will be in mother’s milk. Rather, unbelievably, they say mothers and other care givers of babies need to get their water for baby consumption elsewhere. When this was explained to the Board of Supervisors at a meeting, the Supervisors apparently thought this was acceptable. How will they warn all mothers in Sonoma County so unintentional fluoride intake can be averted? In addition, there are hundreds, possibly thousands of residents who have weaker immune systems that compromise their health where fluoride ingestion on a regular basis is not safe. And for the rest of us totally healthy individuals, independent studies have indicated that fluoride ingestion over time may adversely effect normal function compromising our immune systems. All of this is left out of the county’s case for fluoride and the PD’s coverage of this.
Wise use of tax dollars?
Regarding cost, the county’s assertion that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars is a cost effective method to deal with tooth decay is very weak. Thousands are spent now on a study and thousands will be spent to buy the fluorosilicic acid (fluoride additive) processed from industrial waste. This cost will all be borne by the tax payer, you. Why did the article not include these facts?
Tried and rejected?
Not mentioned in the county’s case is that the experiment for adding fluoride to drinking water has been done in many other places in the world and rejected in many places like much of Europe and recently in Ireland and Israel. Is it irrelevant that whole populations of people have undone their treatment of water because they deemed it unsafe or ineffective? The county thinks so because they don’t mention it.
What about the Healdsburg experiment?
Finally, there is an assertion that because Healdsburg has fluoridated its drinking water for decades that it is “essentially safe”. What was not mentioned is that if this Healdsburg experiment was so effective, why is there no evidence and no studies to support the effectiveness of ingesting fluoride and the safely of the total health of the Healdsburg community. Are Healdsburg residents’ oral and other health better than other residents in the rest of Sonoma County? You would think if this were true, they would be touting this fact. But this is unknown. Could Healdsburg residents be experiencing more than average health problems? Again, unknown.
The county seems to be making blind assertions about fluoride effectiveness and safety when there are safer and known effective alternatives. You have to ask yourself, why would they do this?
.. but probably in vain, for now.
Sonoma County supervisors on Tuesday approved a trio of actions aimed at improving dental health in Sonoma County, including a contract to complete a study on fluoridation of the county’s drinking water.
The draft engineering study, which includes a cost analysis for adding fluoride to the county’s water system, was commissioned by supervisors in February 2013 for $103,000 but it has yet to be publicly released.
Extract from: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/3193304-181/sonoma-county-approves-more-money
Major campaign aims to remove poison from public drinking water lead by Ivan Esteves starting in Dallas that votes in January.
Campain advert with Ed Begley jnr.
Citizens meet to stand against water fluoridation
Carroll County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water met Tuesday night to discuss ways to stop the fluoridation of water in Carroll and Boone counties early next year. The Arkansas legislature passed a law in early 2011 requiring fluoridation of water in cities and counties of more than 5,000 people.
Eureka Springs Alderwoman Joyce Zeller was among one of the speakers who adamantly opposes industrial-strength fluoride in the local water supply. Zeller and other speakers at the meeting said that the chemicals that are used to fluoridate water are a byproduct of smelting ore and are not sold in the United States. Alderwoman Mickey Schneider told the Citizen in an interview last month that the fluoride comes from countries like China and Mexico but that the Carroll-Boone Water District had located a European company that could possibly provide a better grade of fluoride.
Citizens at the meeting questioned how Delta Dental, which they say is paying for equipment to fluoridate Arkansas water, can be classified as a non-profit organization since Delta Dental is also an insurance corporation. ‘We would like to know how a non-profit can also be an insurance company,” said Becky Gillette, who spoke at the meeting. “I’ve been a business reporter for several years and this doesn’t make sense.”
Further investigation by the Citizen revealed that Charity Navigator shows Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas is listed as a 501(c)(4) organization. According to the Internal Revenue Service, 501(c)(4) tax exemption status “provides for the exemption of two very different types of organizations with their own distinct qualification requirements.” According to the IRS website, organizations that engage in substantial lobbying activities sometimes also are classified as social welfare organizations. Corporations were allowed to give unrestricted contributions to political campaigns and 501(c)(4)s grew exponentially as a result of the Citizens United case.
According to the speakers at the meeting, Delta Dental provided grants that paid for the water fluoridation equipment at CBWD. Dentists Suing Delta Dental of Missouri
Extracts from article http://www.lovelycitizen.com/story/2143614.html
and one comment Posted by nyscof;
Other issues raised by the plaintiffs in the complaint include:
Delta Dental opened offshore bank accounts “for unknown purposes in Turks and Caicos.”
With little discussion, the Kalama City Council voted 5-0 Wednesday night to abide by a Nov. 4 advisory vote, in which 68 percent of the ballots cast favored retaining fluoride
Members of the advocacy group Fluoride Free Kalama have promised to continue to seek its removal.
The Newton County Quorum Court passed a resolution at its Nov. 3 meeting opposing the state law mandating fluoride in community water supplies and suggesting that fluoridation be voluntary according to the wishes of the individual water board.
FAN reviewing 2014 victories, called 2014 ‘a good year’.
‘The fluoride-free movement has continued to grow throughout the world at a staggering pace. We have had more than 400 communities end existing fluoridation programs or reject new efforts to fluoridate either by council vote or citizen referendum since 1990. In 2014 alone we’ve confirmed that at least 30 communities providing water to more then 9,961,111 residents rejected or ended fluoridation. Some of 2014’s victories include:
- Bucks County, Pennsylvania 385,000
- Hernando County, Florida 173,422
- Bolton, U.K. 276,790
- Southampton and parts of
- Hampshire County, U.K. 195,000
- Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada 76,550
- Prince George, British Columbia, Canada 71,970
- Rotorua, New Zealand 70,000
…With the fluoridation ban in Israel the victory numbers jump up substantially, adding countless more communities throughout the nation without fluoridation and bringing the number of people freed from the practice in 2014 to nearly 10 million, making 2014 the best year yet for the fluoride free movement! In comparison, last year we saw about 1 million freed from the practice. …This also brings the official number of countries in the world with 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water down to 10, and leaves Ireland as the only country with mandatory fluoridation’
Prince George, B.C.
Short local news video: ‘fluoride is on its way out’ The new Council had to deal with the results of the fluoride referendum question. Because of a legislative quirk, Council will still have to discuss the referendum results at an upcoming meeting.
On Monday, December 1, the city council of La Prairie–a suburb on the South Shore of Montreal (population of 20,000)—passed a resolution to end fluoridation after 42 years of adding fluoride to the drinking water
A legal opinion on the situatiuon nation-wide gives cause for some guarde optimism.
Anti-Fluoride In Drinking Water: Litigation Update
: December 2
Article by Meredith James
Will citizen group litigation and the threat of personal liability stop fluoridation of drinking water in Ontario?
In our earlier blog post, we described a threat by an advocacy group called Concerned Residents of Peel to End Water Fluoridation (Concerned Residents) against Peel municipal councillors. The group threatened the councillors with personal liability if they did not stop the Region from adding fluoride to the Region’s drinking water. The Region decided to defer the issue until after the municipal election. The group now claims that it has launched a lawsuit against the province of Ontario and Peel Region.
A press release from the Fluoride Action Network states that the claim alleges:
“[T]he risk of harm posed by water fluoridation greatly exceeds its speculative benefits, and that water fluoridation is both unconstitutional and a violation of the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Claim also alleges that the Region’s use of fluorosilicic acid to fluoridate drinking water is negligent because fluorosilicic acid often contains dangerous contaminants, including arsenic, a known carcinogen.
Although we were not able to find a copy of the Claim online, it is likely similar to a Memorandum prepared for Concerned Residents by Nader Hasan of Ruby, Shiller, Chan, Hassan, Barristers. Mr. Hasan argues that such a lawsuit could succeed because [footnotes omitted]:
Skeptics about the viability of a successful legal challenge to Ontario’s fluoridation program will point out that since the Supreme Court’s 1957 decision Toronto (Metro) v. Forest Hill (Village), which was superseded by legislative action (see supra at 10-11), all other legal challenges to fluoridation programs in North America have failed. For the following reasons, I do not regard these cases as barring a legal challenge in Ontario.
In Canada, there have been unsuccessful challenges to fluoridation programs in Alberta and British Columbia: see, e.g., Millership v. Kamloops (City); Locke v. Calgary (City). Those cases, however, are distinguishable on at least three different grounds.
First, those challenges were brought by self-represented litigants. While it appears that these individuals did an admirable job at marshaling the evidence and the arguments, novel constitutional challenges such as this are highly complex and require the assistance of counsel.
Second, the scientific evidence about fluoridation is improving. More information than ever before is known about fluoridation. At the time that Millership (2003) and Locke (1996) were decided, for example, the NRC Report had not yet been published. Nor had the Harvard study on the association between osteosarcoma and artificial fluoridation been completed.
Third, Canadian constitutional law under s. 7 of the Charter has developed significantly over the past five years. The principle of fundamental justice of “gross disproportionality” is a fairly new principle in Canadian constitutional law. Prior to the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in PHS and Bedford, there was some doubt over whether this principle was indeed a principle of fundamental justice and also some doubt over what “gross disproportionality” actually meant. In my view, the best argument against fluoridation relies on the principle of gross disproportionality. This argument was not available to the claimants in Locke and Millership. Each of these factors suggests that these other cases will not bar a successful constitutional challenge to fluoridation in Ontario
Whether the claim could be successful depends on the evidence. Can the group prove that the potential harm of fluoridation is grossly disproportionate to its benefits? It seems unlikely.
The NRC Report referred to in Mr. Hasan’s Memorandum –Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards ( 2006 ) – did not “evaluate nor make judgments about the benefits, safety, or efficacy of artificial water fluoridation. That practice is reviewed only in terms of being a source of exposure to fluoride.” Further, it concluded with a recommendation to lower the maximum contaminant level goal, rather than a ban on water fluoridation (at p. 352). The Report also summarizes the benefits of fluoridation (at p. 16):
Public health agencies have long disputed these claims [that the potential harm caused by fluoridation outweighs the benefits]. Dental caries is a common childhood disease. It is caused by bacteria that colonize on tooth surfaces, where they ferment sugars and other carbohydrates, generating lactic acid and other acids that decay tooth enamel and form a cavity. If the cavity penetrates to the dentin (the tooth component under the enamel), the dental pulp can become infected, causing toothaches. If left untreated, pulp infection can lead to abscess, destruction of bone, and systemic infection (Cawson et al. 1982; USDHHS 2000). Various sources have concluded that water fluoridation has been an effective method for preventing dental decay (Newbrun 1989; Ripa 1993; Horowitz 1996; CDC 2001; Truman et al. 2002). Water fluoridation is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as one of the 10 great public health achievements in the United States, because of its role in reducing tooth decay in children and tooth loss in adults (CDC 1999). Each U.S. Surgeon General has endorsed water fluoridation over the decades it has been practiced, emphasizing that “[a] significant advantage of water fluoridation is that all residents of a community can enjoy its protective benefit…. A person’s income level or ability to receive dental care is not a barrier to receiving fluoridation’s health benefits” (Carmona 2004).
We will continue to monitor this case.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
In full ;
Clean Water for Life Foundation ( Australian Fluoride Action)
New organisation based in Sydney with basic facts easy to read. web site:
Celebrity chef Pete Evans backs fluoride-free water campaign Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2863994/Now-fluoride-menu-Celebrity-chef-Pete-Evans-reveals-family-doesn-t-drink-tap-water-doctors-say-views-Stone-Age.html#ixzz3LUlzyIjz Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
PRESS RELEASE Fluoride Information Network for Dentists 1/12/2014
NZ FLUORIDATION REPORT MISLEADING, INTERNATIONAL REVIEW CLAIMS
A NZ report on the science of fluoridation conducted this year by the NZ Royal Society at the request of concerned city councils was of poor quality and misleading, according to an international critical review released today.
Contributors and peer reviewers of the critique include international experts in fluoridation science, toxicology, and risk assessment, some of whom took part in the biggest review of the health effects of water fluoridation, conducted by the U.S. National Research Council in 2006.
The Royal Society report failed to meet minimum standards of scientific reviews, designed to guard against bias in the selection and interpretation of evidence, says Dr. Stan Litras, convener of the independent dentist study group Fluoride Information Network for Dentists (FIND).
Its conclusions are totally at odds with major metadata studies, and offer unsupported claims of safety.
The review aimed to give some balance to the Royal Society report by highlighting research which was overlooked or misrepresented, in the public interest. It was commissioned by Fluoride Free New Zealand and also includes details released under the Official Information Act.
Councils who are considering whether or not to put artificial fluoride in their citizens’ drinking water, a measure endorsed by the dental association, are urged to consider this paper in conjunction with the Royal Society report during their decision making.
It is crucial that decisions which can affect the public health are made on the basis of accurate and uncompromised information, Dr. Litras says.
The Ministry of Health is seeking submissions, by 9 January 2015, on a proposed amendment to the regulations (Medicines Regulations 1894) made under the Medicines Act 1981. The proposed amendment would have the effect of providing legal clarity that the fluoride substances used to treat drinking water are not medicines. Consultation on Proposed Amendment to Regulations under the Medicines Act 1981 http://medsafe.govt.nz/consultations/medicine-regulations-fluoride-in-drinking-water.asp#ftn1
14 minute video
‘ No one in the industry thinks fluoride is a good thing’
Published on 3 Dec 2014
After working for the City of Sacramento for 12 years, a Water Treatment insider discusses the truth about water fluoridation
FAN: Paul Connett’s informed optimism How could fluoridation end in 2015 – let me count the ways.
By Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network
- The Peel (Ontario, Canada) lawsuit.
This case, being brought by citizens in the Peel district of Ontario, and being fought by one of Canada’s most prestigious law firms (Ruby Shiller Chan Hasan), has perhaps the best chance of any lawsuit to end fluoridation. Under the Canadian constitution the government does not have the right to force medication on it is citizens. Unlike theU.S.,local authorities do not have the “police powers”(see note 1 below) to override constitutional provisions. This lawsuit could end fluoridation in two ways.
- A) If the case is won it would end fluoridation herewith. However, even if
- B) the case makes it into court it would ring the death knell around the country.
Why? In the latter situation the proponents will have to have their expert witnesses cross-examined under oath. When this happens the “authority” of local Medical Officers of Health (MOH), which currently bedazzles local councils, will melt away. Currently these MOH are forced to do the bidding of Health Canada with little independent thought or analysis. Under cross-examination it will become abundantly clear that they simply do not have the science to back either their claims for safety or effectiveness. Once the assumed “authority” of these experts is exposed for what it is then local councils will be forced to review the science and arguments of opponents of fluoridation on their merits and not simply dismiss them out of hand.
Needless to say if fluoridation ends in Canada it will have a huge impact on the US and other English speaking countries.
- If the FDA is forced to take responsibility for regulating fluoride for ingestion.
After nearly 70 years of fluoridation, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never done this. Were it to do so it would spell the end of fluoridation, because again under a scientific spotlight no justification could be given for swallowing fluoride. There is no evidence that there is any known biochemical process that needs fluoride, but there is plenty of evidence that many biochemical processes are harmed by it. Moreover, a carefully administered randomized control trial (RCT) using bottled water with and without fluoride should be undertaken. An RCT is by far the best way to quantitatively determine the size of the benefit ascribed to fluoridation. Right now, with more and more evidence indicating harmful effects at doses within the range of common exposure in fluoridated countries the ‘claimed’ benefit could neither justify the risks being taken nor justify forcing it on people without their informed consent.
- If the EPA Office of Water were to do an honest health risk assessment for fluoride in water using the latest scientific evidence of harm.
While the FDA has jurisdiction over the administration of drugs (whether delivered as ADDITTIVES to the water supply or in tablet form) the EPA does not. However, the EPA does have jurisdiction over the regulation of CONTAMINANTS in the water supply. For these, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA must determine safe drinking water goals (MCLG or maximum contaminant level goal) and standards (MCL or maximum contaminant level). Since 1986, the EPA has set both the MCLG and MCL at the ridiculously high level for fluoride at 4 ppm. This was based on the use of crippling skeletal fluorosis as the most sensitive end point (clearly politically motivated since crippling skeletal fluorosis is the last stage of this disease not the first, which has symptoms almost identical to arthritis).
In 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) review panel (hired by the US EPA to re-examine these standards), concluded that the 4 ppm goal and standard for fluoride were not protective of health and recommended that the EPA perform a new risk assessment to determine a new MCLG and MCL. After 8 years the EPA has not finalized a new goal or standard.
In 2011, prompted by the fact that dental fluorosis rates (an indicator of over-exposure to fluoride) were reaching epidemic proportions, the EPA and the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) held a joint press conference indicating two things,
- a) the HHS was recommending that the so-called optimal level of fluoride to reduce tooth decay (without causing too much dental fluorosis) should be lowered from the range of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm to a single value of 0.7 ppm, and
- b) the EPA announced that it had started its determination of a new MCLG which it was going to base on severe dental fluorosis as the most sensitive end point of fluoride’s toxicity. They also announced that they wanted to protect children’s teeth (i.e. protect the fluoridation program), even though that it is illegitimate under the Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA). The EPA is required to determine a SAFE level for fluoride under the SWDA,and that determination should not be compromised by any other issues.
This is where the honesty comes in. In the EPA’s announcement there was no mention of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, including the many studies that have found a lowering of children’s IQ at fairly modest exposure levels. If the EPA were to examine these studies they would find that many of the children who had their IQ lowered had less than severe dental fluorosis (either moderate or mild). Thus they cannot legitimately claim that severe dental fluorosis is the most sensitive endpoint of fluoride’s toxicity, but rather fluoride’s ability to lower IQ.
Thus if a way could be found to “force” the EPA,
- a) to acknowledge these IQ studies;
- b) study the full body of literature on fluoride’s neurotoxicity (see FluorideAlert.org/issues/healht/brain );
- c) determine the lowest observable adverse level, or LOAEL, and thence
- d) the no observable adverse effect level, or NOAEL, and thence
- e) the safe reference level to protect the whole population (RfD) and thence
- f) the MCLG (safe drinking water goal), and
- g) finally the MCL (safe drinking water standard), which takes into account the economic costs of removing naturally occurring fluoride, it would force an end to fluoridation. For while the MCL might be set above 1 ppm, the MCLG could not be set higher than 0.1 ppm and more likely at zero –see the discussion below.
The lowest level at which IQ has been lowered (with borderline iodine deficiency) was at 0.88 ppm (Lin et al., 1991) or at 1.26 ppm (without iodine as a complicating factor). It is very clear that there is no margin of safety to protect all children drinking water in the range 0.7 to 1.2 ppm, and given current exposures from other sources (dental products and pesticides) the MCLG should be set at zero. Because, as far as lowering IQ is concerned our children are already consuming too much fluoride from other sources and thus they should not be exposed to any additional fluoride in drinking water. Of especial concern is protecting children from low-income families (whose IQ has a greater potential to be compromised)who are bottle-fed with formula made up with fluoridated tap water.
This scenario is the kind of thing that would happen in a world in which public health policy was determined by the rational application of science. Sadly, fluoridation is a practice where politics constantly overrules science, so while we can hope that someone (Congress?) will force the EPA to do an honest job, we can’t bank on it.
However, this is not rocket science. We desperately need to find journaliststo pursue and expose this issue. Meanwhile, we have to continue to work on at least two other fronts.
- A) To reach individuals one open mind at a time and
- B) Communities one community at a time.
We must continue to seek two tipping points:
- TIPPING POINT 1. The number of people (scientists, academics, doctors, dentists and decision-makers) that read the literature with an open mind reaches the point when newspaper editors no longer recycle the false claims from fluoridation proponents and fluoridation promoters can no longer dismiss the arguments against fluoridation with disdain and ridicule without risking acute embarrassment.
- TIPPING POINT 2. The number of communities ending fluoridation at the local, state, or federal level increases until the point that health agencies in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and USA are forced to acknowledge that the practice is untenable both ethically and scientifically. This has happened in Israel and it is happening in Ireland. It could well happen in Canada soon, back to point 1 above.
Fluoride and Thyroid
An authoritative review of the facts
I am a longtime fan of Dr. Joseph Mercola. I’ve been a reader of the Mercola.com health website for years. So you can imagine my surprise when the Mercola group contacted me about writing this article for Hypothyroid Mom. I nearly fell off my chair in shock. It is an honor to include health experts who have made such a difference in people’s lives, including mine.
Written by Elaine Rosales, a writer for Mercola
Thyroid dysfunction is one of the most prevalent endocrine diseases in the United States today. At least 4.6 percent of the U.S. population age 12 and older has hypothyroidism (a sluggish or underactive thyroid). According to PubMed Health, women over age 50 are at the highest risk of developing this condition.
There are numerous risk factors for hypothyroidism, but there’s one found in so many homes that many people aren’t aware of. Chances are you could even be drinking it right now – it’s none other than fluoridated water.
How Fluoride Affects Your Thyroid Function
Water fluoridation is an unnatural industrial process that was once heralded as “the solution to dental caries.” But now, this practice is under scrutiny, as ingesting fluoride – a poisonous industrial waste product – has been linked to many health problems, including hypothyroidism.
According to a 2006 report by the National Research Council of the National Academies, fluoride is an endocrine disruptor that can alter normal endocrine function and mess up your:
- Thyroid glands
- Parathyroid glands
- Pineal glands
- Adrenal glands
- Pancreatic glands
- Pituitary glandsEven more alarming are the effects on children, as their frail bodies are more at risk of fluoride side effects. According to the EPA, children weighing 14 kilograms (30 pounds) who consume more than 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per day are at risk of endocrine dysfunction. However, children in this weight range, usually one- to three-year-olds, are consuming over 1.5 milligrams of fluoride daily – that’s more than twice the amount necessary to alter thyroid function!Despite these strong evidence linking fluoride to altered endocrine function and other health problems, many local government agencies and “health experts” refuse to listen, and continue to promote fluoridation.Your thyroid gland produces the master metabolism hormones that influence every function in your body. It’s found in front of your neck and is part of your endocrine, or hormonal, system. The thyroid gland is responsible for maintaining your body’s overall metabolic rate, as well as for regulating normal growth and development.Aside from exposure to fluoridated water, other lifestyle factors that can cause hypothyroidism include consuming a diet composed mostly of processed foods, having frequently elevated stress levels, and insufficient iodine in your diet. Gluten and food sensitivities, which cause inflammation, are also a common cause of thyroid dysfunction. Consuming unfermented, genetically modified soy, which is high in isoflavones (potent anti-thyroid agents), is also damaging to your thyroid gland.Fluoride has been classified as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity,” according to scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. Clearly, it is NOT meant to be ingested.You can also help end the practice of water fluoridation by supporting the anti-fluoride movement in your community and around the country. Many people are now standing up for their right to fluoride-free water, and one significant victory was seen last May 21, 2013, in Portland, Oregon, where residents successfully voted to keep fluoride out of its pristine water supply – making it the largest non-fluoridated city in the US.Elaine Rosales is a writer for Mercola, one of the top natural health websites in the world. She is researching the damaging effects of water fluoridation on human health, such as hypothyroidism and dental fluorosis. She hopes to share this information with people who do not have access to fluoride-free water, so that they may protect themselves and their families from this damaging neurotoxin.http://hypothyroidmom.com/is-your-drinking-water-putting-you-at-risk-of-hypothyroidism/
- Hypothyroid Mom has 1,250,887 monthly pageviews with 369,806 monthly unique visitors from 203 countries in the world. (Photo by: Helle Sydendal/PH Medier)
- In full: pulished April 16
- To protect yourself from hypothyroidism and other forms of thyroid dysfunction, make sure that you only drink fluoride-free water by installing a water filter that can effectively filter fluoride and other contaminants. You should also opt for fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. Although these are not made to be ingested, they can be accidentally swallowed, especially by children.
- Stand Up for Your Right to Fluoride-Free Water!
- Your thyroid hormones interact with all your other hormones, including cortisol, insulin, and sex hormones like progesterone, testosterone, and insulin. Since almost all active cells need the thyroid hormones to function properly, there’s no doubt that a dysfunctional thyroid can have a severe impact on your health.
- Hypothyroidism Can Have a Significant Impact on Your Health
- There are also many studies that confirm the link between fluoride ingestion and reduced IQ in children, as well as a high risk for dental fluorosis – the very problem that fluoride is supposed to be preventing in the first place.
- Studies found that fluoride intake as low as 0.05 to 0.1 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) can lead to altered thyroid function. This is disturbing, considering that the latest estimates of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) say that an average American consumes almost three milligrams of fluoride daily, with some ingesting as much as six milligrams of fluoride per day.
Full length video
FLUORIDEGATE AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY (1:05:05) A DOCUMENTARY FILM. By Dr. David Kennedy