Do You Use Floride?

by sammielee24 76 Replies latest jw friends

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    I'm a believe in non-floridation because I believe that the introduction of toxins into our bodies does nothing but harm us in the long run. Fluoride has shown up in the blood of newborn babies and given that it affects the neurological systems, and given the fact that parents are warned not to mix formula with tap water in some areas or allow children under the age of 6 to use fluoridated toothpaste, you have to wonder who is making all the money on the product.

    I watched a report on this just the other day where a dentist was saying that cavities are down in the popuation but what she didn't point out was all the casualities showing up now with tooth enaml wore off, tooth discolouration, bone loss and some cancer links. Anyway, I was reading with interest all the experiments that the USA has done on it's citizens (and you think that 9/11 couldn't possibly be an inside job?????), including the Manhattan project and I just shake my head. Instead of adding it to all the drinking water, perhaps it would have been more honest and ethical in promoting a fluoride tablet that one can then purchase for their own consumption if they wanted. Freedom of choice and all that stuff.

    This is part of an article I found of interest - it was too long to copy completely - sammieswife.

    Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents. Massive quantities-millions of tons-were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the US atomic bomb program, both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal.

    Other revelations include:

    • Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defence contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the American A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.
    • Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive US study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water, conducted in Newburgh, New York, from 1945 to 1955. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F", they secretly gathered and analysed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens with the cooperation of New York State Health Department personnel.
    • The original, secret version (obtained by these reporters) of a study published by Program F scientists in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association1 shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)-considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies-for reasons of "national security".
    • The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester-site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mindset, in which "national security" was paramount.
    EVIDENCE OF FLUORIDE'S ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS

    The US Government's conflict of interest and its motive to prove fluoride safe in the furious debate over water fluoridation since the 1950s has only now been made clear to the general public, let alone to civilian researchers, health professionals and journalists. The declassified documents resonate with a growing body of scientific evidence and a chorus of questions about the health effects of fluoride in the environment.

    Human exposure to fluoride has mushroomed since World War II, due not only to fluoridated water and toothpaste but to environmental pollution by major industries, from aluminium to pesticides, where fluoride is a critical industrial chemical as well as a waste by-product.

    The impact can be seen literally in the smiles of our children. Large numbers (up to 80 per cent in some cities) of young Americans now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure according to the US National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases.)

    Less known to the public is that fluoride also accumulates in bones. "The teeth are windows to what's happening in the bones," explained Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St Lawrence University, New York, to these reporters. In recent years, paediatric bone specialists have expressed alarm about an increase in stress fractures among young people in the US. Connett and other scientists are concerned that fluoride-linked to bone damage in studies since the 1930s-may be a contributing factor.

    The declassified documents add urgency: much of the original 'proof ' that low-dose fluoride is safe for children's bones came from US bomb program scientists, according to this investigation.

    Now, researchers who have reviewed these declassified documents fear that Cold War national security considerations may have prevented objective scientific evaluation of vital public health questions concerning fluoride.

    "Information was buried," concludes Dr Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies which Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990s indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin and might adversely affect human brain functioning even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished IQ in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995 in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.2

    During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous US studies of fluoride's effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), when an NIH panel flatly told her that "fluoride does not have central nervous system effects".

    Declassified documents of the US atomic bomb program indicate otherwise. A Manhattan Project memorandum of 29 April 1944 states: "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect... It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor." The memo, from a captain in the medical corps, is stamped SECRET and is addressed to Colonel Stafford Warren, head of the Manhattan Project's Medical Section. Colonel Warren is asked to approve a program of animal research on CNS effects. "Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure... This is important not only to protect a given individual, but also to prevent a confused workman from injuring others by improperly performing his duties."

    On the same day, Colonel Warren approved the CNS research program. This was in 1944, at the height of World War II and the US nation's race to build the world's first atomic bomb.

    For research on fluoride's CNS effects to be approved at such a momentous time, the supporting evidence set forth in the proposal forwarded along with the memo must have been persuasive. The proposal, however, is missing from the files at the US National Archives. "If you find the memos but the document they refer to is missing, it's probably still classified," said Charles Reeves, chief librarian at the Atlanta branch of the US National Archives and Records Administration where the memos were found. Similarly, no results of the Manhattan Project's fluoride CNS research could be found in the files.

    After reviewing the memos, Mullenix declared herself "flabbergasted". "How could I be told by NIH that fluoride has no central nervous system effects, when these documents were sitting there all the time?" She reasons that the Manhattan Project did do fluoride CNS studies: "That kind of warning, that fluoride workers might be a danger to the bomb program by improperly performing their duties-I can't imagine that would be ignored." But she suggests that the results were buried because of the difficult legal and public relations problems they might create for the government.

  • Priest73
    Priest73

    It's in the water supply in most US municipalities. So I guess yes. Yes I do.

  • changeling
    changeling

    Are you in the UK? Why do they have notoriously bad teeth over there? Could it be the lack of flouride?

    Public water in the US is flouridated. Is it in the UK as well?

    changeling

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    I live in the USA where most public water is fluoridated - and I'm not a believer in it. You have allowed the US government to put a dangerous toxin in your public drinking water - water is necessary to life - in the belief that you will have fewer cavities. That end result could just as easily be reached with good oral hygiene and a good diet and then if desired by individuals, purchased in tablet form and used on a personal level. Dental fllurosis is the result of fluoride in the water and there are a lot of people affected by it - the enamel on your teeth becomes thin and spotty and discoloured. A lot of diseases that continue to appear now that did not rear their ugly heads much prior to the 60's need to be examined for links to these types of things - Parkinsons, Alzheimers, MS, Autism - ....I don't recall many of my friends having tons of cavities before fluoridation - how would anyone born or having kids born after that time even have a clue about the health of their kids teeth without public fluroridation? sammieswife.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    Hmmm...a possible link to the obesity epidemic since it affects the thyroid?

    'Second Thoughts about Fluoride,' Reports Scientific American

    Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:48am EST
    NEW YORK, Jan. 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland," reports Scientific American editors (January 2008). "Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift," writes author Dan Fagin. "Fluoride, the most consumed drug in the USA, is deliberately added to 2/3 of public water supplies theoretically to reduce tooth decay, but with noscientifically-valid evidence proving safety or effectiveness," says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. Fagin, award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, writes, "There is no universally accepted optimal level for daily intake of fluoride." Some researchers even wonder whether the 1 mg/L added into drinking water is too much, reports Fagin. After 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, a National Research Council (NRC) committee "concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid -- the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism," reports Fagin. Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly, "The thyroid changes do worry me." Fluoride in foods, beverages, medicines and dental products can result in fluoride over-consumption, visible in young children as dental fluorosis -- white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. We can't normally see fluoride's effects to the rest of the body. Reports Fagin, "a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ." "(E)pidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics," writes Fagin. Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old "Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis... than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state," writes Fagin. Levy will study fluoride's effects on their bones. Over 1200 professionals urge Congress to cease water fluoridation and conduct Congressional hearings because scientific evidence indicates fluoridation is ineffective and has serious health risks. Support them; write your 

  • horrible life
    horrible life
    "Information was buried," concludes Dr Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies which Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990s indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin and might adversely affect human brain functioning even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished IQ in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995 in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.2

    Reminds me of the JW's.

    Sammielee, I am a Dental Professional. Fluoride has saved many many lives, in that it prevents cavities, hence has saved children and adults, from cavities, abscesses, and even death. These articles, are so far left of proven scientific fact. These articles can be torn apart, just like the JW"s response to the NBC pedophile story. You could take each paragraph, and show the inconsistencies, and half lies.

    Just like the Watchtower, I see no refrences, and the first article doesn't even have a source.

    (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished IQ in children.)

    I live and work in some of the poorest counties in the US. There is no fluoride in this area of the country. It is very expensive to add fluoride to municipal drinking water. The cavities are unbelievable. It is not uncommon AT ALL for a child of 2-5 years of age, to have to have all of his baby teeth extracted because of rampant decay. These are teeth, 20 of them, 8 will be replaced at age 6-7 and 12 won't be replaced until they are 12 years old Baby teeth hold the place in the jaw for the permanent teeth. When you pull the baby teeth too early, The jaw slows in growth, and the permanent teeth are a disaster in positions when/if they erupt.

    They have never had fluoride in this large area of my state. IQ?? Very low. 50 miles to the North, Fluoride in water, and a very good school district.

    So the above quote, may be true. Low fluoride, Diminished IQ. But that isn't how they want you to read it, is it?? It depends on who wants to get their agenda in the news, or on the internet.

  • franzy
    franzy

    thanks sammielee, for posting this info

    horrible life posts a devastating picture of poor areas where dental problems
    are unchecked because of the unfortunate unavailability of fluoride....

    a simple response to this depressing scenario is-
    what other more likely factors are responsible for the dental problems described?
    have you analyzed the lifestyle of these people?
    what is their diet, for example?
    quality of hygiene?

    sammielee's info raised serious questions regarding the inclusion of a neurotoxic "drug"
    into the human diet. horrible life ignored the points, but did make a swipe at the
    lack of "refrences".

    it is quite likely that damage to the human body due to intake of fluoride far overshadows
    any slight "benefit" in cavity deterrence.

    i've lived in eugene, oregon for five years. thankfully, this water supply is not fluoridated.
    my son is nine, breastfed til he was four, and has no cavities. he has never consumed
    fluoride.

    ever wonder about that warning label on fluoride toothpaste?
    that's a red flag on the tip of the iceberg.

  • Must obey!
    Must obey!

    It's a poisonous petro-chemical by-product and is NOT the same as natural fluoride found in mother nature. They used to put warnings on toothpaste when they first started adding this toxic muck to it in the 1950's because it was considered risky for children!!

    Dentists have a vested interest in promoting the lies about this stuff. The reason kids in poorer areas have bad teeth is because of poor diet, junk food, and ignorance of the parents in disciplining their children to brush their teeth regularly etc....nothing to do with the water being fluoridated or not.

  • worldtraveller
    worldtraveller

    I agree and I often question the flouride in the crap they insist coats our teeth at the dentist. I don't drink tap water unless it's filtered as well. The chloramine in our tap water is gross and smelly. At 52 I do have only one tooth gone bad (split), so I cannot tell you if it helped though.

  • horrible life
    horrible life

    Must Obey, if you don't read anything else I ever write, Please tell me what you mean by this statement???? My eyes almost bugged out of their sockets, with this statement!!! There aren't enough Dentists in the US to handle all of the dental needs we have. Your teeth are directly related to your health. Do you think that Dentists want you to use this, so that it will rot your teeth?

    Do MD's want you to smoke, so you can get lung cancer, so they can operate, and take out a lung?

    Did car manufactures put air bags into cars, to help the Dr's make money for the broken noses it causes??? Seems the Dr, if he were a medical or a dental Dr, would like to get rid of the air bags, so their teeth would be all busted up, and the plastic surgeons would love to do some reconstructive surgeries. $$$$$$$ Now that would be more likely be more money, than investing in fluoride.

    Do you think if 100 or a 1000 dentists have stock in Proctor and Gamble, is going to make a difference to the dentist? Proctor and Gamble Corporation make so many products, they could drop their toothpaste lines, and it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket money wise.

    Do dentists want you to brush, and floss to line their own pockets?????

    Dentists have a vested interest in promoting the lies about this stuff.

    I'm really not in the mood, or have time to write a thesis, or hand in a research paper, But these farout theories, just really tick me off. Kinda like having cancer, and having a 90% chance of recovery, with surgery and radiation. But you opt to go the herbal way, because somebody told you to. Who cares about the Dr. who has been trained, and has the scientific proof.

    poisonous petro-chemical by-product

    Where is your source???? I Will research this, to see where you came up with this.

    They used to put warnings on toothpaste

    The warnings are STILL there. Just like aspirin, antibiotics,and food, there is a good amount, and there is a bad amount. When Fluoride is ingested, your teeth, THAT ARE FORMING, absorb it, and make it stronger. Biology lesson needed. Too many fluoride ions absorbed, isn't good. The enamel matrix is able to substitute some fluoride ions, making it stronger. Too many, and the structure of the matrix is compromised. Thus, you get fluorosis. We want just the right amount of fluoride. Teeth are forming on/in a child, from in- utero, until about the age of 10. With the exception of 3rd molars. We want just the right amount of fluoride, in these children. In West Texas, they have too much naturally occurring fluoride. Many, many people have brown spotted teeth. Most are very strong, but some break down, because of not having that basic enamel matrix.

    Remember the Titanic, it sunk because of a weak metal mixture. A little more of this, and less of that, would have made it stronger. The iceberg, may have dented it otherwise, not ripped a huge hole. .

    We want the topical fluoride toothpaste, to strengthening weak areas of the tooth, but it doesn't do a thing systemically. You spit it out. That is where fluoridated water comes in. If a child swallows fluoride toothpaste, on a regular basis, or sits down to have a meal of it, YES, it will cause harm.

    When my daughter was little, and I wasn't sure she was spitting enough, I regulated the toothpaste. I only used 1/2 the size of a pea. She got the topical fluoride she needed, and I gave her a tablet supplement for her forming teeth.

    All of my daughters teeth are formed. She is 16, and has had her 3rd molars extracted. If she wants to sit around eating toothpaste now, more power to her!!!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit