Dangers of fluoride in water
How about the small amount of fluoride compounds added to watersupplies to bring the total fluoride content to about one part permillion in order to prevent tooth decay? Too little to do any harm?
First, fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on earth, on parwith arsenic and lead. It has no proven biological use inside the humanbody (teeth included). There is no minimum daily requirement forfluoride. And second, it is a cumulative poison. Only about half ofwhat we consume is excreted. The other half collects in the teeth andbones, making them dense, but brittle. Those little white spots visibleon the teeth of many children are called dental fluorosis, a conditionwhich not only predisposes them to decay, but also provides a sign thatsystemic fluoride poisoning is taking place. Dental fluorosis appearsto serve as a red flag for future bone fractures as well.
The neurotoxic nature of fluoride is also linked to motordysfunction, IQ deficits and learning disabilities. In the year 2000,a group of Boston physicians concluded: “Studies in animals and humanpopulations suggest that fluoride exposure, at levels that areexperienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinkingwater is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain.”
An interesting question is: How did we get tricked into poisoningourselves in the first place? Fluoride was crucial to the H-bombmakers. It was needed to help process uranium; tons of it were needed.During the mid-1940s the DuPont Corporation supplied the U. S.military’s Manhattan Project with the fluoride it required. There was abig problem, however. The area in New Jersey surrounding the DuPontplant was being contaminated by toxic fluoride emissions. People weremade ill, cattle and horses were crippled, and crops were eithercontaminated or completely wiped out.
In preparation for an impending court battle–and to head off anynegative publicity which might negatively impact the fluoride/bombproduction–the Manhattan Project authorized the military to conduct itsown fluoride studies. Not only did they want information which wouldhelp diffuse the farmer’s anger, but they also needed to know to whatextent the fluoride workers were being damaged from fluoride exposure.
Some of the lab studies were performed at Strong Memorial Hospital,the same facility which injected toxic, radioactive plutonium intounsuspecting human guinea pigs. Research from that time showed thatfluoride had a negative impact on the central nervous system. Thiscorroborates recent research showing the same thing–to the extent thatthe IQ’s of children in fluoridated areas are lower than normal. Otherinformation and studies from the 1940’s are apparently still”classified” or have “disappeared.”
The aluminum industry was also eager to get the fluoride bandwagonrolling. They had been marketing their fluoride waste as a rat poisonand insecticide and were looking for a larger market. Therefore, aten-year test was planned to prove to the public that fluoride in waterwould reduce the incidence of cavities. Before the test was completed asplanned, and despite the fact that there was no clear evidence thatfluoride was either safe or effective, water fluoridation was declared a”triumph for public health”.
Today, when fluoride’s safety is questioned, people with legitimateconcerns are often treated with disdain. They are told that fluoride in”optimal” amounts is safe–the studies say so. The promoters anddefenders of this toxin need to be asked: “What studies?” When oldand/or faulty research (by today’s standards) is tossed out, includingthat from other countries like England’s recent York Review (offluoridation) in which important data was omitted or misinterpreted,there remain no reliable studies confirming the safety of waterfluoridation. None. Zero. Not even are there any double-blind studiesshowing fluoride’s effectiveness. There are, however, over 500peer-reviewed studies showing adverse effects from fluoride.
Hardy Limebeck, head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry forthe University of Toronto, once belonged to a group of dentalprofessionals giving talks to promote the benefits of waterfluoridation. He was one of Canada’s primary promoters of publicfluoridation–until he began to take a closer look at the research. Nowhe states: “For the past 15 years, I had refused to study thetoxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoningour children was the furthest thing from my mind.”
He adds: “Your well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50years of misinformation from public health and the dental association.Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong.”
