Friday, April 17, 2015

Fluoride & Health from Fluoride Action Network


Fluoride & Health


introductory comments
Fluoride is a highly toxic substance. Consider, for example, the poison warning that the FDA now requires on all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. or the tens of millions of people throughout China and India who now suffer serious crippling bone diseases from drinking water with elevated levels of fluoride.
In terms of acute toxicity (i.e., the dose that can cause immediate toxic consequences), fluoride is more toxic than lead, but slightly less toxic than arsenic. This is why fluoride has long been used in rodenticides and pesticides to kill pests like rats and insects. It is also why accidents involving over-ingestion of fluoridated dental products–including fluoride gels, fluoride supplements, and fluoridated water–can cause serious poisoning incidents, including death.

The debate today, however, is not about fluoride’s acute toxicity, but its chronic toxicity (i.e., the dose of fluoride that if regularly consumed over an extended period of time can cause adverse effects).
Although fluoride advocates have claimed for years that the safety of fluoride in dentistry is exhaustively documented and “beyond debate,” the Chairman of the National Research Council’s (NRC) comprehensive fluoride review, Dr. John Doull, recently stated that: “when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began.”
In this section of the website, we provide overviews of the scientific and medical research that implicates fluoride exposure as a cause or contributor to various chronic health ailments. In 2001, the union of scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Headquarters Office in Washington D.C. stated: “we hold that water fluoridation is an unreasonable risk.” The research in this section helps to demonstrate why EPA’s own scientists reached this conclusion, and why a growing number of health professionals do so as well.
The primary concerns with fluoride’s impact on human health can be summarized as follows:
  • Current safety standards only protect against the most obvious forms of harm: Current safety standards for fluoride are based on the premise that severe dental fluorosis and crippling skeletal fluorosis are the first adverse effects that fluoride can have on the body. These effects represent the crudest, most obvious harm caused by fluoride. In the words of American University chemistry professor, Dr. William Hirzy, it would be a “biological miracle” if fluoride did not cause other harm prior to producing these end-stage forms of toxicity. Research already shows, in fact, that fluoride can cause arthritic symptoms and bone fracture well before the onset of crippling fluorosis, and can affect many other tissues besides bone and teeth, including the brain and thyroid gland.
  • The current “safe” daily dose for fluoride fails to withstand scrutiny: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) states that anyone over 8 years of age — irrespective of their health condition — can safely ingest 10 milligrams of fluoride each day for their entire life without developing symptomatic bone damage. Ten milligrams, however, is the same dose that the IOM concedes can cause clinical signs of skeletal fluorosis within just 10 to 20 years of exposure. People with clinical signs of fluorosis can suffer significant symptoms, including chronic joint pain and overt osteoarthritis. The IOM’s safety standard instills little confidence in the medical understanding that currently underlies fluoride policies in the U.S.
  • Some people are particularly susceptible to fluoride toxicity: It is well known that individual susceptibility to fluoride varies greatly across the population, and yet, the National Research Council has recently found that breathtakingly large gaps still exist in the safety literature on the effects these populations may be experiencing as a result of current fluoride exposures. The bewildering degree of uncertainties identified by the NRC stands in stark contrast to the IOM’s conclusion that 10 mg/day is so definitively safe that no “uncertainty factor” needs to be applied to protect vulnerable members of the population.
  • The margin between the toxic and therapeutic dose is very narrow: The NRC concluded that the allegedly “safe” upper limit of fluoride in water (4 mg/l) is toxic to human health. While the NRC did not determine the safe level, their conclusion means that the safe level is less than 4 times the level added to water (0.7-1.2 mg/l) in community fluoridation programs. This is far too slim a margin to protect vulnerable members of the population, including those who consume high amounts of water.
See also:

5 comments:

  1. There have been several studies showing the link between Fluoride and Cancer. Here is the question: If our Board of Health and School system promote water fluoridation does that make them accessories to murder? Please think about this question as people who are opposed to fluoridation feel that this may indeed be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So how many blue tabs have you clicked on and checked out for yourself?
    With all the towns and cities stopping the use of flouride ask yourself WHY?
    Was it because they didn't have the Board of Health we do who spin the same old same old?
    As we look into this issue more every day things come out about the use and the after use results.
    Do the reports after reports mean anything? Are you a lucky one not to have a family member sick with no reason.
    Look in the mirror and ask youself 2 questions.
    What if it were the flouride getting people sick.
    Did you check out any facts or reports from the information provided to you.
    After telling the mirror NO.
    Can you look youself in the eyes and say it again. NO.
    Don't look away it's your fault you didn't.
    You owe it to your children to look at the facts if you allow them to be poisioned.
    Now click and learn for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are big bucks made by selling this stuff, and that is one reason we will not see a recall of fluoride. Just think of the repercussions of finally admitting the truth. All of the toothpaste, and mouthwash companies would take a big hit. Our dentist who have convinced parents to have their kids treated, would be proven wrong. This would pretty much affect the majority of the people in the United States !! Do you think for one minute, anyone with money invested in all of these companies would allow that to happen ?? It would probably take a major die off, of a large proportion of our citizens to get that done. Since this is one of those things that is pretty much hidden, people will not react. To have the member of our Board of Health defend the town using this crap in the town water, is sad. I will bet no member has checked to see what kind of fluoride they use. All of this will come out in the wash, but it will take so long I may not be around to see the day. Julie and Pete will know in their hearts, they tried to tell people, they just chose to not listen. Bev.

      Delete
  3. I agree Bev that there is big money behind water fluoridation. Water fluoridation is a world wide policy to get rid of a toxic waste through the water systems. Fluoride was the most litigated pollutant of all time poisoning and killing the life around industries that used this enzymatic poison in their manufacturing process. If we can all agree that health occurs when there is an ample flow and interchange of electrons in your cells then fluoride as the most powerful oxidant on the periodic chart is contrary. Please support the citizen's petitions to help get this poison out of our water supply.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ask questions about the system that adds the flouride to the water. How old is it and how often has it malfunctioned.
    Do we get a qualified tech to check the system out for operation or do we have Driscoll do it?

    ReplyDelete