Emergence of Fluoridegate (Part II)

Ben Nelms's picture

“We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” — Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations” (Propaganda, 1928, ch.1)

If there’s no problem with fluoride, then why is the warning label on you tube of toothpaste? Unless you use fluoride-free toothpaste, you are supposed to call your doctor or poison control if you, or your child, swallow more than a pea-sized amount. The reason: fluoride is a poison.

The accepted level of daily fluoride intake was established by federal government agencies nearly a half-century ago at .7-to-1.2 parts per million (that’s about a milligram in 33 ounces of water). Meantime, the Maximum Contaminant Level is four parts per million (EPA, April 2010).

That means if you drink four liters of water or drinks made with fluoridated water (not to mention the many foods and medicines containing fluoride) you will have reached the MCL and quadrupled the daily intake.

And the daily intake level is the same for a 50-pound little girl and a 250-pound man? That’s right, according to our “leaders” at the CDC, EPA and the American Dental Association.

Just last Friday, for the first time in nearly a half-century, an agency of the federal government (EPA) recommended reducing the daily intake of fluoride to the pre-established minimum of .7 ppm/day. That decision only took about 50 years.

Below are just a few of the problems with the fluoride compounds in drinking water and fluorine in general:

• The U.S. is one of only 30 countries in the world that use any fluoridation and one of only eight where more than 50 percent of the population is fluoridated (Connett, et al, 2010). And while CDC and ADA say fluoridation has reduced the rate of tooth decay, the research says different, indicating that tooth decay is decreasing over time in fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries and with the most dramatic decreases coming in countries that do not fluoridate (Nature 322:125-129; World Health Organization, 2004 at www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html; Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93, etc.).

• Fluorine is highly toxic and it’s the most reactive element found in nature. As such, it chemically binds with endless other elements to form new compounds that have delighted industry and consumers for decades (like Scotchguard, Stainmaster and Teflon).

• The fluoride compound added to your water is a drug, according to the FDA (www.fluoridealert.org/re/fda.letter.to.calvert.dec.2000.pdf). This drug, which has never been subjected to random clinical trials, is one for which you cannot give informed consent. Yet for decades the “leading authorities” have supported and promoted fluoridation in defiance of medical ethics.

• Due to its chemical nature, about 50 percent of the fluoride that enters your body stays there (bioaccumulates) and builds up in bone, bone marrow, the thyroid gland, the pineal gland in your brain and likely in other organs and brain centers (Murphy, 2008).

“Recent information on the role of the pineal gland in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, post menopausal osteoporosis, cancer and psychiatric disease.” (National Research Council, 2006).

• There are concerns that fluoride is linked to some cancers, including bone cancer in young males (Bassin, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, 2001).

• CDC in 1999 acknowledged that fluoride’s predominant mechanism of action is “topical,” not “systemic.” Hence, it may work on the surface of teeth but not from inside the body (Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 48, no. 41, Oct. 22, 1999).

Yet, CDC and ADA continue to support adding fluoride to our waters supplies even though such a route bypasses our teeth (topically) and goes straight into our bodies (systemically) where it can be absorbed into our bones, thyroid gland, brain and other areas.

• CDC says 40 percent of American children have dental fluorosis (an excess of fluoride).

• And perhaps as potentially devastating as any of the above are the studies suggesting a link to lowered IQ (brain damage) in children. There have been a number of studies in this area. One of the most recent “indicated that fluoride in drinking water was highly correlated with serum fluoride, and higher fluoride exposure may affect intelligence among children” (Environmental Health Perspectives, Dec. 2010 and Zhang, et al, 2010).

Among the heavily documented resources for those who are interested in the fluoride topic are “The Case Against Fluoride” (2010 — comprehensive and easy to read), “The Fluoride Deception” (2004 — documents the government/industrial interests in fluoridation), “The Devil’s Poison” (2006 — written by Illinois orthodontist Dean Murphy and, though heavy into biochemistry, it’s easily the most disturbing book I’ve ever read).

Other resources include the exhaustive website Fluoride Action Network (www.fluoridealert.org), Daniel Stockin’s website (http://spotsonmyteeth.com) and the Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children at www.poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/ that includes symptoms of fluoride poisoning and the contents of fluoride in foods and medications.

So why was fluoride introduced, who benefitted and why do powerful groups like CDC and ADA continue to support it? The answer involves not conspiracy, but business and the benefits to industry and profits, not to workers and citizens.

“Up until about 1940, fluorine’s effect on life was always deemed poisonous. It was determined to be altering enzymes used by a living organism to carry out a multitude of tasks. Around World War II, sporadic then increasingly more common articles were appearing that fluorine ‘might’ be good for teeth and even bones. The change in direction is profound and a researcher cannot miss the abrupt about-face.” (Murphy, p.8)

Decades ago, fluorine was a toxic byproduct of the aluminum industry (with lawsuits piling up beginning in the 1930s), then it was used to enrich uranium in the nuclear industry and now it’s a waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. And from there, as before, it goes straight to public drinking water.

Bryson in “The Fluoride Deception” (p. 148) notes the work of the Paley Commission, set up by President Truman in 1950 (William Paley was head of CBS television.). Fluoride had been declared a strategic and critical material. The commission called fluoride “an essential component of enormously vital industries. Without this little known mineral ... little or no aluminum could be produced; steel production would be reduced substantially; the output and quality of important chemical products such as refrigerants, propellants for insecticides and plastics would be significantly reduced.”

And finally, there was (Forsyth Dental Center-Harvard University) toxicology researcher Phyllis Mullenix, the developer of the Computer Pattern Recognition System. She was the scientific sweetheart of giants like 3M, Exxon, Colgate-Palmolive, DuPont, NutraSweet and Procter & Gamble until she discovered the truth about fluorine’s effects on the central nervous system.

“I thought how odd,” Mullenix said of her presentation at the National Institutes of Health, one of her last acts before being dropped by academia and industry. “It’s 1990 and they’re talking about the miracle of fluoride, and now I’m going to tell them that their fluoride is causing neurotoxicity that’s worse than that induced by some cases of amphetamines or radiation.”

What is coming is Fluoridegate and it will likely make the deleterious health issues involving tobacco, lead and asbestos combined pale in comparison. Those of you who have bothered to research these issues know what I’m talking about.

And for those of you who have not, you can laugh or you can mock, but just make sure you remember where you heard it.

(The expanded version of the Emergence of Fluoridegate can be found in the Government & Corporate Accountability section at http://questionsunanswered.com.)

[Staff reporter Ben Nelms may be reached via email at bnelms@TheCitizen.com.]

Gator
Gator's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/19/2006
Fluoride?

I say "Bring back hexachlorophene".

ginga1414
ginga1414's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/01/2008
Unconscionable

There is a wealth of information here. I truly hope everyone will read this article instead of ridiculing Mr. Nelms. He is passionate about this issue as we all should be.

The fact that our government has given us no choice as to what we consume in our drinking water is unconscionable. That alone should be enough for outrage.

Our government has been poisoning us for more than fifty years all to the benefit and profit of business.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
conscious

I thought you were going to say, all to the benefit of liberals!

Have you checked your food content labels lately?

I would estimate that preservatives kill forty to fifty times as many as fluoride does. That and cholesterol and cigarettes.

normal
normal's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2009
You know ginga

It is like everything the government does. Most everything is a waste of time and especially money. Anytime the government tells us we have to do something it will come back to haunt us. Thats one reason I wont ever get a flu shot if the government says we should. Years down the road it will come out that it did more harm than good. Federal spending has to be reduced, cut federal pay and benefits, we need to cut all money that is sent over seas. Very little of it gets to the people anyway. Their governments steal it. So I think I will go drink some government mandated fluoride now.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
normal

Yeah it would help the population explosion greatly if we had a few plagues these days such as the black one, diphtheria, small pox, measles, mumps, polio, flu, pneumonia, strep, and several others!

I think you already have that disease that makes foxes and dogs mad as a hatter.

If you want NO GOVERNMENT I suggest you go to Yemen or Somalia.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Ben Nelms and his BLADDER OF STEEL™
Ben Nelms and his BLADDER OF STEEL™ wrote:

The accepted level of daily fluoride intake was established by federal government agencies nearly a half-century ago at .7-to-1.2 parts per million (that’s about a milligram in 33 ounces of water). Meantime, the Maximum Contaminant Level is four parts per million (EPA, April 2010).

That means if you drink four liters of water or drinks made with fluoridated water (not to mention the many foods and medicines containing fluoride) you will have reached the MCL and quadrupled the daily intake.

Isn't Science Fun?

Mr. Nelms is correct on both salient points: Typical Fluoride level in drinking water and maximum contaminant level.

If you drink 4 liters of water, you will have reached the maximum contaminant level for the day.

And oh noe! The level is the same for a nine year old girl as well as an adult man!

What Scaremonger Ben fails to mention is that there is a salient third point: the human bladder and kidneys.

consider this: Can you drink one gallon (4 liters) of water without going to the bathroom?

I am among the manliest of men and must admit that I cannot.

Like a Joe Kawfi post, the principle of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) applies: fluoridated water comes in, fluoridated water goes out.

Fluoride is water soluble (obviously, or it wouldn't be in the water supply!) and your kidneys are capable of filter virtually all of the fluoride from water intake and depositing it into bladder as waste via the kidneys.

Healthy kidney can process 30 to 40/ml per minute, even people with kidney disease in stages 1 through 4 can successfully filter fluoride out of the body. Stage 5 kidney disease (aka "End Stage Kidney Disease") cannot filter fluoride, these folks should not be drinking fluoridated water.

Children show adverse effects of fluoridated water at concentrations of 2ppm, meaning they'd either have to drink (in one sitting) TWO gallons of water or one gallon of incorrectly fluoridated water. Lowering the concentration to .7 ppm means kids would have to drink 3 gallons of water to show adverse effects.

Worst case scenario: chug a gallon of fluoridated tap water in one sitting and you'll likely overwhelm your kidneys for a short period of time, fluoride will be dumped into bone marrow instead of your bladder.

Drink a gallon of water evenly throughout the day and you'll never hit the max.

Drink less than a gallon of water and you'll never hit the max.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Fluoride and "some cancers"

• There are concerns that fluoride is linked to some cancers, including bone cancer in young males (Bassin, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, 2001).

What a wonderful example of "weasel wording"!

Nelms' artfully worded sentence implies fluoride causes cancer.

The reality is somewhat different.

As I stated earlier, prolonged excessive fluoridated water intake can momentarily overwhelm the kidneys. In those rare instances where this occurs, fluoride enters the blood stream and is eventually deposited into bone marrow.
This has been scientifically proven.

Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) originates in the bone marrow, therefore it is logical to investigate whether or not fluoride buildup, however slight, in the bone marrow might excaberate bone cancers.

There have been FIVE major studies regarding fluoridated water and osteosarcoma in the past fifteen years. FOUR of those studies found NO identifiable link between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma (Operskalski et al., 1987; McGuire et al., 1991; Moss et al., 1995; Gelberg et al.; 1995)

That leaves the cherry-pickers with the Bassin study.

The Bassin study (which was actually a doctoral thesis) took the previous study data and systematically discarded variables that did not fit the desired conclusion.

First, subjects over the arbitrary age of 20 were discarded.
Secondly, female subjects were discarded.

Now, there are 900 cases of osteosarcoma a year in the USA. 40% were adults. Discarding adult data brought the sample size down to about 500. Discarding females brought the sample size down 50% more, to around 250. Subjects were then segregated by age, about 25 subjects by year, and on this ridiculously small sample it was noticed that there was a chance that 1 in 20 boys with bone cancer had elevated flouride levels in their bone marrow.

You CANNOT make a coorelation on a data sample that small (that's the "fallacy of small sample" logical fallacy) and Bassin doesn't even try to do so (the dissertation would have been laughed out of the review committee).

What Bassin concludes is that it is "biologically plausible" that fluoride in bone marrow might have an effect on boys who develop bone cancer between ages 6 and 8 years of age.

It's also "biologically plausible" that someone under five feet tall could dunk a basketball. It strains credulity to believe that this is in any way shape or form common.

If you want to read an unbiased account of the science and politics behind water fluoridation, I'd recommend reading The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America's Longest Running Political Melodrama. It describes what the anti-fluoride zealots get right, and where they get it wrong. The Amazon reviews of the book are very amusing, too, it seems the anti-fluoride zealots do not tolerate dissent!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ah Yes Bacon

but we will all die of cancer with good teeth!!

Thanks for taking care of us again, we need to have even more like you looking out for us poor humble masses.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Nelms Fluoride?

Now we have a columnist bringing up a 50 year old "scary" point used by fringe elements years ago to try and impress "scared" groups of people who will believe anything they don't understand.

The reference Nelms uses at the bottom of his scientific study is his very own web site! He knows nothing about fluoride in drinking water.

Just as the Midwestern college columnist on here apparently teaches strange stuff to special students, and odd religious groups gather here advertised heavily in the paper, now we have fluoride threats!

I am sincerely getting scared of these "constitutional" radicals!

We allowed Mr. Bush and the Oil, Insurance and banking industry to come as close as could be to destroying our great melting pot of a country by credit manipulation and environmental destruction, but we don't need to continue the avoidance of our majority vote system of leadership by extreme
right-wing, royalty desiring groups who only want more money than they can carry.

What is next here, a long scientific treatise by a columnist about the benefits of hydro-carbons to the world, referring to other nuts' treatises as proof?

I don't like to offend people on this forum with facts and will likely pay for it (watch) but I must say what I know to be true.