The "f" in your tap. get HFSA OUT. Vote OUT Fluoride

Here's some reputable info on fluoride:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/fluor-eng.php

Quote:

The use of fluoride for the prevention of dental cavities is endorsed by over 90 national and international professional health organizations including Health Canada, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Food and Drug Administration of the United States and the World Health Organization.

Fluorides protect tooth enamel against the acids that cause tooth decay. Many studies have shown that fluoridated drinking water greatly reduces the number of cavities in children's teeth. Fluoride is used in many communities across Canada, spanning most provinces and territories. About 40 percent of Canadians receive fluoridated water.

Cheers,

Why did some people think that flouridation was a communist plot?

I believe it was this flouride issue that started David Suzuki on the path to activism. I think his father was a chemist in Trail and he was told that unrefined flouride waste was shipped to Seattle for water treatment when the idea was new. It certainly is not pharmaceutical grade. Why wouldn't you get your flouride in your toothpaste? Then I wouldn't have had a life with the symptoms of an over-dose.

I saw the "Vote Out Fluroide" pamphleting at the Eaton Centre the other day, but I really thought it was some kind of viral marketing stunt for something else.  Anyway, love to help but I'm really busy denying the moon landing.

E.P.Houle wrote:

I believe it was this flouride issue that started David Suzuki on the path to activism. I think his father was a chemist in Trail and he was told that unrefined flouride waste was shipped to Seattle for water treatment when the idea was new. It certainly is not pharmaceutical grade. Why wouldn't you get your flouride in your toothpaste? Then I wouldn't have had a life with the symptoms of an over-dose.

I'd love to see a source for this claim.

Yiwah wrote:

I have never seen any reputable facts that actually support the claims made by the anti-flouride crowd.

Seconding this. 

Truth is, progressive people should support fluoridation because it's basically dental insurance for the poor: if you can't afford to take your kids to the dentist, fluoridation means they will have stronger teeth than they otherwise would have.

My dentist explained it thusly: I asked him about wisdom teeth, and why so many people need to have them out.  He explained that the natural thing to happen is that at least some of molars in front of your wisdom teeth would be rotten by the time you were eighteen, so then these late-emerging teeth meant that you entered adulthood with some functioning molars.  Modern dentistry and fluoridation meant that more people were keeping their molars, so the wisdom teeth get crowded out and have to be removed.

Our natural state is to die before we're 40 with a mouthful of rotten teeth. 

Michelle, perhaps diet/nutrition protect against tooth decay as well as obesity and diabetes. 

Sineed wrote:

Our natural state is to die before we're 40 with a mouthful of rotten teeth. 

Sineed, many skulls of pre-colonial peoples show sets of perfect caries-free teeth. 

From the Material Safety Data Sheet on Sodium Fluoride:

http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Sodium_fluoride-9927595

Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans: 

Quote:

Acute Potential Health Effects: 

Skin: Causes skin irritation and possible burns, especially if skin is wet or moist. 

Eyes: Causes eye irritation and burns. May cause chemical conjunctivitis and corneal damage. 

Ingestion: Harmful if swallowed. Causes digestive (gastrointestinal) tract irritation and burns. May cause severe 

and permanent damage to the digestive. Ingestion of large amounts may cause salivation, thirst, nausea, 

vomiting, hypermotility, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. May affect behavior/central nervous system/nervous 

system (headache, nervousness, dizziness, seizures, convulsions, tremor, muscle weakness, somnolence), 

respiration (respiratory depression, dyspnea), cardiovascular system (weak pulse, hypotension, dysrhythmias, 

cardiac arrest), liver, urinary system (polyuria, polydypsia) 

brain, metabolism (loss of appetite, hypcalcemia, hyperkalemia, hypomagnesia, ), teeth, bones, and blood 

(changes in red and white blood cell count, interference in blood coagulation) 

Inhalation: Causes irritation and chemical burns of the respiratory tract with coughing, breathing difficulty and 

possibly nasal septum perforation and coma. May affect bones. 

Chronic Potential Heath Effects: 

Chronic ingestion may cause fluorosis. Effects of fluorisis may include joint pain, weakness, limited joint mobility, 

brittle bones, ossifications on x-ray, thickening of long bone cortices, calcificaiton of ligaments, osteomalacia, 

osteosclerosis (skeletal (bone and teeth) abnormalties) and mottled tooth enamel. Other symptoms may include 

anemia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or constipation, kidney damage and weight loss/anorexia. 

Chronic inhalation may cause bronchitis to develop with cough, phlegm, and/or shortness of breath, liver (hepatic enzymes increased, jaundice)."

Tigana wrote:

Sineed wrote:

Our natural state is to die before we're 40 with a mouthful of rotten teeth. 

Sineed, many skulls of pre-colonial peoples show sets of perfect caries-free teeth. 

How old were they when they died?

This notion that the modern Western diet is responsible for tooth decay, and that pre-colonial people had perfect teeth, is, like human teeth without dentistry and fluoride, pure rot.

I agree. If you want flouride, buy toothpaste.

Wouldn't the small amount of fluoride in water qualify it as "homeopathy", and shouldn't that make it appealing to the anti-science crowd?

You can pretend it's just been watered down and watered down and watered down, but  through the miraculous "memory" of water it can protect you from fluoride poisoning!

If that doesn't help, pretend it's a magic healing crystal that realigns your chakra from the inside.

How about tackling a really good progressive issue: clean water for Canadian Natives? 

with Vit C and milk.

pfft. Milk is good for everyone. The government says so. Whoever said it isn't is probably a quack. They probably believe nobody landed on the moon, either ! HAW. HAW. They probably wear tinfoil hats ! HAW. HAW.

Anyway, if the majority of us decide we want milk in our water system, we shall have milk. The others will get used to it. They can thank us later.

Tigana wrote:

But Vitamin C, in large doses, can stop viral illnesses and make withdrawal from heroin and some other drugs possible without Methadone and without cold turkey.

Ummmmmmm......actually, no.  The viral illness link has been debunked since Linus Pauling was still alive.  As to the other, my methadone patients would be extremely grateful if this were true.

Jenny is not needed to expose the fraud that Big Science is, you only have to read the paper to see the number of drugs that are causing damage, yesterday there was an article about a commonly prescribed drug responsible for increased fractures in women and an increase in pneumonia and Clostridium difficile.  What the article doesn't mention is that these drugs, Nexium, Prilosec, Protonix, Losec, Zegerid, Precacid and Omeprazole also stop the absorption of Vitamin B.

Last year in Canada there were 21.1 million prescriptions for this drug and we are talking sales of 1.4 billion dollars.  Profit before health is the way of our death management system.  I am grateful for the coverage of this issue, the article confirmed the correctness of my decision not to take this drug when it was prescribed for me,  I feel badly for those who still trust and are now suffering as a result of taking this drug.

I think a greater engineering question is whether fillings can pick up radio signals.  Such a nefarious use of technology would give evil fiends all over the planet the means to evade conventional detection equipment.

Historic City of Brantford Ontario Canada - letters needed before May 25

Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:16:01 -0400
From: Carole Clinch <[email protected]>

May 12, 2010

Brantford, Ontario (population over 90,000) ? Historic first city in Canada to artificially fluoridate and one of the original 4 ?trials? of artificial water fluoridation in the world - needs letters sent before Tuesday, May 25, 2010.

May 25, 2010 at Brantford City Hall, meeting of the Committee of the Whole ? Operations and Administration, commencing at 6 pm in council chambers.

Fluoridation in Brantford?s Water System 

THAT the General Manager, Engineering and Operational Services, (Selvi Kongara, M.Sc., P Eng, Water and Wastewater Engineer, <[email protected]> phone at (519) 759-4150 ext. 2365.
BE REQUESTED to prepare a report for Council?s consideration on the municipality?s plans for the continued use of fluoride in Brantford?s water system. 

Mayor and Council:

<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, 

A formal complaint to Health Canada has been filed by a Brantford citizen. The following letter was sent to city council on Monday.

PROHIBITION ON THE SALE OF ALL UNREGULATED, UNAPPROVED, FLUORIDE PRODUCTS, categorized as drugs and/or natural health products according to Health Canada and the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities, intended for therapeutic use (prevention or treatment of cavities), whose medical ingredients are listed under Schedule 1 of the Natural Health Products Regulations 2004, until they are regulated by Health Canada OR proven to be safe and effective. This is consistent with the recent position statement by National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities requesting that unapproved marketed health products no longer be sold in Canada.

ttp://www.napra.org/Content_Files/Files/Position_Statement_Sale_of_nonapproved_marketed_health_products_January2010.pdf

THESE PRODUCTS SHALL NOT BE CALLED SAFE & EFFECTIVE by any individual, any organization, or by any government agency, until a determination of safety and efficacy is made by Health Canada, according to the requirements of the Food and Drug Act. See Front Page Article in Waterloo Chronicle: http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news/article/207371 

-- 
Carole Clinch BA BPHE
307 Normandy Ave
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2K 1X6
519-884-8184

Spokesperson & Research Coordinator 
People for Safe Drinking Water
Website: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2009/10/26/people_for_safe_drinking_water.htm

The following was sent to:

<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,

Dear Mayor and Council,

We have all been vigorously subjected with the pro fluoride dogma for over 60+ years now. Brantford's consideration to stop the deliberate contamination of its water with industrial waste fluoride in the drinking water is a extremely progressive step. I am sure that after a review of this matter you will base your decision on sound science rather then dogma!

In a nutshell: collateral damage form fluoride to the liver, kidney, brain, bones, thyroid, heart etc. is too high - turning it off will save our health, environment and taxes.

Surely it is common sense, in that, we should not medicate anyone unless the dose is appropriate to the patient. Hence mass fluoride medication cannot be the same for a thirsty diabetic with comprised kidneys, a 3-year-old toddler and a 35-year-old construction worker. All should require different amounts of medication and not be subject to the same tolerances of this (or any) medication. 

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for someone he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance, which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some people say that it can reduce tooth decay in children'." 

-- Dr Peter Mansfield, Director, Templegarth Trust

Clearly this dosage responsibility lies with each individual and her/his practitioner to determine for themselves.
 
You may want to question how our health authorities claim that such differing dosage safe for all? 
 
Also the pro fluoridation deputations never address the real concerns of the community namely: the collateral damage such as "impairments to the liver, kidney, brain, bones, pineal gland, thyroid, heart and even teeth*. These too are clearly dependent on dosage and have severe effects on those with compromised health and/or immune systems.

You may want to question why these major health impairments continue to trump the paltry, if not outright questionable, benefits to teeth?

Then ask how the Dental Societies and the Health Units call so many Health damages as health benefits?

* They tell us that mottled teeth from fluoridation of water is just a cosmetic effect. When in fact this is a proof positive sign of bone damage. In the British Medical Journal (B.M.J.), October 7, 2000 it is reported that 48% of children who live in fluoridated communities have developed dental fluorosis due to fluoride overdose. Now then, if the bone is damaged how are you going to get fewer cavities? This demonstrates that ingesting of fluoridated water to reduce tooth decay is clearly a myth. 

What expertize do they have with regard to Fluoride's toxicity let alone on the untested waste substance hydrofluorosilcic acid and/or Sodium silicofluoride(used to fluoridate) that contains variable quantities of arsenic, lead among other toxic residues? 

We are not allowed to adulterate our foods with any amount of lead, arsenic etc. Ask them to show why such adulteration of water can be an exception?

Most health units are panicking about lead, are they not aware that Fluoride is more toxic then lead?

If yes than why do they want to put such a toxic substance in our water?

If you think that lead damages the brain then see Retardation, Low IQ & Depression From Fluoride here.

Then ask yourself why you should allow adding Fluoride which is more toxic than lead for some perceived health benefit dogma at the exclusion of all its major deleterious health effects? 

Why do kidney dialysis patients have to remove fluoride from city water in their machines**? 

**If this is not done, it could kill some of then obviously this is a good demonstration of short term adverse reaction to the low level of fluoride in water. Hence it follows, that long term potential health hazards must be far worse and effect a much larger population... Our bodies work on trace amounts of minerals so how can "such low levels of fluoride" be an exception?

Examples of Fluoride poisoning linked to kidney dialysis patients can be viewed @

• Fluoride linked to death in Annapolis Dialysis Patient
• Fluoridation, Dialysis, & Osteomalacia

Just because something is low in concentration, it does not follow it is safe.

If fluoridation is so safe then why is it banned in so many enlightened European countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Italy, France etc.? Have they seen past the deception? Then why not you?

Why have the costs form so many health impairments, not considered? 

These costs are passed on to the constituents, employers and other health bodies.
 
Then ask them again why the damage from fluoride is so harshly and recklessly ignored and covered up over the real threat to the people, they are supposed to protect, let alone call it a health benefit?

If this is not enough ask them why they are violating the following?

1) Medical ethics as one dose does not fit all - ie mass medicating without a prescription  

2) Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, section 20(1,3) -

3) Food and Drug Act also the Food Adulteration Act

4) The fisheries act by polluting our lakes streams and rivers etc.

The question is - who is forcing these agencies to dispose industrial waste in our water and our environment surely they are not so incompetent that they can't see what everyone with any sense can? Why do we need so called experts to tell us to put substances that are even more poisonous then lead in our water?

Given these comments and questions Dental and our health units are either dishonest or compromised in some way as it is hard to believe they all should overlook such compelling health concerns and put us in harms way.

Fluoride is now everywhere.  It is in the air we breath and in the food and beverages we consume.  It is impossible to eliminate our body's systemic ingestion of fluoride so why do we need to add more to our bodies? 

"In 1997, the EPA estimated that Americans were ingesting nearly five times more fluoride than in 1971 - from food and drinks alone."
Smith G. 2001, Why Fluoride Is An Environmental Issue, Earth Island Institute, 22nd meeting of the ISFR, August 24-27

Here is a list, not complete by any means, on the adverse health effects (click each title for ref.):

Fluoride And The Brain
Fluoride And Cancer
Fluoride And Children
Fluoride And Dental Fluorosis
Fluoride And Hypersensitivity
Fluoride And Kidneys And Liver
Fluoride And Skeletal Fluorosis
Fluoride And Thyroid Function
Fluorosilicate Toxicity - also known as Hydrofluorosilicic acid
Fluorosilicates Increase Blood Lead Levels
Fluoride and Cardiovascular System

The above is bad enough, adding insult to injury, an untested industry waste product Hydrofluorosilicic acid which includes traces of arsenic and lead is being used to fluoridate the water - Fluoride also increases the up take of Aluminum and possibly other toxic metals. 

Given the above we simply don't want this toxin in our water so why are we being subjected to it against our will? 

Regarding tooth protection here is what Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH, Aesthetic Dentistry of Bellevue, Bellevue, Wash. has to say... See his 5 minute video here."

As a dentist with a master's degree in public health for more than 25 years, I promoted water fluoridation and fluoride supplements. Current research has shifted, finding fluoridation in developed communities is unnecessary. Most European dental associations no longer recommend it. Dentists are puzzled and can't explain why fluoridation no longer appears to reduce dental decay. One theory is the total fluoride intake from all sources, such as pesticides, dental and medical products and post-harvest fumigants, has reached high enough levels to provide the so-called "optimal" dose. [halo effect]

Significant increase in dental fluorosis in children, from 22 percent to 32 percent, supports this theory. Another theory is fluoridation never did reduce tooth decay, and flawed historical studies are at fault. The evidence is strong - fluoridation no longer reduces tooth decay.. Evidence for fluoridation intervention is lacking.

Dental expenses are a good example. After 60 years of fluoridation, people fluoridated should show a reduction in dental expenses if fluoridation were effective. Several studies have shown either no reduction in dental expenses or slight increases.

Non-fluoridated Portland, Ore. (19 percent of Oregon is fluoridated) had $210 average, annual dental expenses per person. Across the river, fluoridated Vancouver, Wash. (46 percent of Washington was fluoridated at the time) had $215. Add the cost of bottled water for infants and those who choose not to have fluoridated water, medical risks and cosmetic treatments for dental fluorosis damage, fluoridation equipment, chemicals and maintenance, and fluoridation makes no cents or sense, unless you own the company profiting.

Public health agencies are marching soldiers and do not question their orders. They have been told to "promote fluoridation," and they do so, regardless of the evidence." 

Even one health effect in the incomplete list above, is reason enough to remove this toxin from the water given that anyone can get fluoride if they wish but, no one can avoid it!

So Why do we need to deliberately ADD toxins to our drinking water?

Chris Gupta P. Eng
919 Plantation Rd
London, Ont.
Canada
N6H 2Y1 

The cat's out of the bag. See: One of the Biggest Health Frauds EVER Perpetrated on the American People?

Search for Fluoride Teeth Atom Bomb

http://www.fluoridealert.org/wastenot414.htm

"Much of the proof of fluoride's safety in low doses rests on the postwar work performed by the University of Rochester, in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury.

Fluoride and the Cold War.

Delegating fluoride safety studies to the University of Rochester was not surprising. During WWII the federal government had become involved, for the first time, in large-scale funding of scientific research at government-owned labs and private colleges. Those early spending priorities were shaped by the nation's often-secret military needs.

The prestigious upstate New York college, in particular, had housed a key wartime division of the Manhattan Project, studying the health effects of the new "special materials," such as uranium, plutonium, beryllium and fluoride, being used to make the atomic bomb. That work continued after the war, with millions of dollars flowing from the Manhattan Project and its successor organization, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). (Indeed, the bomb left an indelible imprint on all U.S. science in the late 1940's and 50's. Up to 90% of federal funds for university research came from either the Defense Department or the AEC in this period, according to Noam Chomsky's 1996 book "The Cold War and the University.")

The University of Rochester medical school became a revolving door for senior bomb program scientists. Postwar faculty included Stafford Warren, the top medical officer of the Manhattan Project, and Harold Hodge, chief of fluoride research for the bomb program.

But this marriage of military secrecy and medical science bore deformed offspring. The University of Rochester's classified fluoride studies -- code- named Program F -- were conducted at its Atomic Energy Project (AEP), a top-secret facility funded by the AEC and housed in Strong Memorial Hospital. It was there that one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War took place, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. Revelation of this experiment in a Pulitzer prize-winning account by Eileen Welsome led to a 1995 U.S. Presidential investigation, and a multimillion-dollar cash settlement for victims.

Program F was not about children's teeth. It grew directly out of litigation against the bomb program and its main purpose was to furnish scientific ammunition which the government and its nuclear contractors could use to defeat lawsuits for human injury. Program F's director was none other than Harold C. Hodge, who had led the Manhattan Project investigation of alleged human injury in the New Jersey fluoride-pollution incident.

Program F's purpose is spelled out in a classified 1948 report. It reads: "To supply evidence useful in the litigation arising from an alleged loss of a fruit crop several years ago, a number of problems have been opened. Since excessive blood fluoride levels were reported in human residents of the same area, our principal effort has been devoted to describing the relationship of blood fluorides to toxic effects."

The litigation referred to, of course, and the claims of human injury were against the bomb program and its contractors. Thus, the purpose of Program F was to obtain evidence useful in litigation against the bomb program. The research was being conducted by the defendants.

The potential conflict of interest is clear. If lower dose ranges were found hazardous by Program F, it might have opened the bomb program and its contractors to lawsuits for injury to human health, as well as public outcry.

Comments lawyer Kittrell: "This and other documents indicate that the University of Rochester's fluoride research grew out of the New Jersey lawsuits and was performed in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury. Studies undertaken for litigation purposes by the defendants would not be considered scientifically acceptable today, " adds Kittrell, "because of their inherent bias to prove the chemical safe."

Unfortunately, much of the proof of fluoride's safety rests on the work performed by Program F Scientists at the University of Rochester. During the postwar period that university emerged as the leading academic center for establishing the safety of fluoride, as well as its effectiveness in reducing tooth decay, according to Dental School spokesperson William H. Bowen, MD. The key figure in this research, Bowen said, was Harold C. Hodge-- who also became a leading national proponent of fluoridating public drinking water. Program F's interest in water fluoridation was not just 'to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents,' as Hodge had earlier written. The bomb program needed human studies, as they had needed human studies for plutonium, and adding fluoride to public water supplies provided one opportunity."

"A review of current FDA regulations reveals that the injection of fluoride into public water supplies is a violation of both state and federal law.

The claimed "benefits" of fluoride make it a "drug" under federal law, and it is highly illegal to dump drugs into the water supply (especially without the consent of those who are drinking it).

Read more in my eye-opening report just published today:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028913_fluoride_chemicals.html

I don't want to imagine what would happen to a pharmacist who advocated adding LSD to the water supply...  for our own good.