TRUTH DECAY
Challenging New Labour's propaganda on
water fluoridation
or
A few things you might want to know about FLUORIDE
before Tony Blair adds it to your drinking water
Spencer Fitz-Gibbon
for the
Green Party of England & Wales
August 2002
Published by Spencer Fitz-Gibbon
for the Green Party of England & Wales
1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ.
Tel 020 7561 0282. Fax 020 7272
6653.
media@greenparty.org.uk
www.greenparty.org.uk
“Water
fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century,
if not of all
time.”
Dr Robert Carton, former President of the Union of
Government Scientists
at the US Environmental Protection Agency
“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
“Children under
three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And
baby formula should never be made up using fluoridated water.”
Professor Hardy Limeback, Professor of Dentistry at the University
of Toronto
"In point of fact,
fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it
faster, than any other chemical."
Dean Burk, Chief
Chemist Emeritus, US National Cancer Institute
“I think a lot
of people with arthritis may actually be suffering from early symptoms of
skeletal sclerosis as a result of drinking fluoridated water.”
Tony Lees, dentist
“It has long
been known that excessive fluoride intake carries
serious toxic
effects. But scientists are now debating
whether fluoride
confers any benefit at all.”
UNICEF
TRUTH DECAY
Challenging New Labour's propaganda on
water fluoridation
or
A few things you might want to know about FLUORIDE
before Tony Blair adds it to your drinking water
Spencer Fitz-Gibbon
for the
Green Party of England &
Wales
August 2002
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks to Cllr Craig Simmons (Green Party,
Oxfordshire County Council),
Felicity Mawson (Green Party Anti-Fluoridation
Coordinator),
George Glasser and Jane Jones (National Pure Water
Association).
Thanks also to Mark Westcott and Trish Schofield for
additional research, and
Lucy Williams and Peter Saunders for editorial assistance.
Contents
Introduction
1. Fluoride is harmful to health
2. Fluoride doesn't necessarily stop tooth
decay
3. Scientific advisors who aren't being
scientific
4. Environmental risks of fluoridation
5. Widespread opposition to fluoridation
6. Consumer choice - or compulsory mass
medication?
7. Don't fluoridate - educate
What can you do?; Useful contacts;
Web resources; Books
Appendix:
The case against fluoride: scientific references
Tables
1.
Comparison of toxicity levels of two cumulative poisons, fluoride and lead,
with their maximum allowable level in drinking water.
2.
Comparison of decayed missing and filled teeth (DMFT) in 12-year olds in
European countries compared with the Republic of Ireland.
3.
European countries which have tried and abandoned fluoridation.
Introduction
1. In
1931 a chemist identified fluoride as a harmful pollutant and toxic to
children’s teeth. But Tony Blair's
government has decided that putting fluoride in your drinking water is a
"good thing", claiming that this will reduce tooth decay in
under-fives. In pursuit of this,
ministers say that they are already holding talks with the water companies
about water fluoridation.
2. In addition to the 10% of British people who are already
compelled to drink water dosed with
fluoride,
mainly in the West Midlands and the North-East, people in four new areas are on
Mr Blair's fluoride hit list in this new drive for fluoridation: Inner London,
North-West England, Northern Ireland and the West of Scotland.
3. But ultimately the government wants this mass medication for the
whole country to be
administered with the full knowledge and co-operation of the
medical profession.
4. The Green Party wants to prevent this:
- because it's scientifically, medically
and ethically unsound and an infringement of
human rights to force medication on
people without their consent.
- and because it is harmful to humans,
animals, and plant and aquatic life.
5. The
government claims that fluoridation is a "safe and effective" way of
reducing inequality in
dental
health. However, there is evidence that
enforced fluoridation will not solve this problem. Mass studies in North America and New Zealand reveal no
significant difference in levels of decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT)
between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.
And in England, fluoridated Gateshead suffers the same level of DMFT as
non-fluoridated Liverpool. Less than 2% of continental European countries
fluoridate - so where are all the toothless Europeans?
6. In
October 2000, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York University
published a report on fluoridation, commissioned by the Department of Health in
1999. The York Review was called an
"independent review", although it was paid for by the government and
carried out by the NHS, a government body that was already committed to
fluoridation - which is hardly independent.
It was called a "scientific" review, although the health
secretary who launched it said he wanted a review which would "prove once
and for all that fluoride is safe and effective". In other words, the review's intended conclusion
was decided in advance by a politician, which is hardly scientific.
7. The
York Review's terms of reference were widely criticised for being too narrow
and thus excluding much important evidence against fluoride. For example, exposure to fluoride through
the skin (dermal exposure) was ignored, as were all biochemical studies. So was the intake of fluoride through food
and beverages, although seafood and tea, for instance, contain very high
fluoride concentrations. The review
even ignored all results of animal experimentation; which, while pleasing the
Green Party (which believes animal experimentation is unethical and often
produces inaccurate results), nonetheless prompts the question: why did a
government committed to animal experimentation decide, on this occasion, to exclude it? - other than the fact that animal
experiments with fluoride have shown disastrous effects on the animals
concerned, which would not have helped the government's case.
8. Despite
this narrow brief - and contrary to the impression given by New Labour spin
doctors
and the
well-financed fluoride lobby - the study
found "little evidence" to show that fluoride reduced dental health
inequalities. Moreover its chair, Professor Sheldon, stated that "the review did
not show water fluoridation to be safe".
He also noted that: "It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public
about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by
the British Dental Association, British Medical Association, the National
Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation
Society". (Our emphasis. Source: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk). The Medical Research Council is doing
further research and a report is expected shortly.
9. We
all know that tooth decay is caused by poor dental hygiene and high consumption
of
refined
sugar products. Enforced fluoridation
does nothing whatsoever to address either of these problems. If anything, it could
even be counter-productive, by diverting people's attention away from the real
issues. Indeed, this is something that the UK sugar industry appears to have
recognised. Both Tate and Lyle and the Sugar Bureau support fluoridation, with
the former claiming that: "The use of fluoride in either toothpaste or
drinking water is the single most effective method of reducing tooth
decay" (http://www.tate-lyle.co.uk
"Sugar and you").
10. In
any case, medicating everyone on the grounds that this will debatably help a
small
percentage
of the population is simply not logical. It's even worse when we consider the
wealth of scientific evidence that fluoride may have adverse side effects
ranging from cancer to cavities in tooth enamel. Fluoride is, in fact, highly
toxic, and this report outlines the long list of health problems associated
with it. It is a cumulative poison - we only excrete about 50% of what we
ingest, and the rest stays in our bodies and accumulates. So the effects of low-dose exposure from
this mass medication may not yet be realised.
Warnings from the World Health Organisation as early as 1953, and
repeated in 1994, that total fluoride levels in people should be
determined before any more is added, have been ignored.
11. The
Green Party is opposed to mass medication. We are opposed to the destruction of
consumer
choice in a matter so basic as drinking water. We believe the precautionary
principle should be applied - that if you can't prove conclusively that
fluoridation is harmless, then you shouldn't fluoridate. And we believe in
strong, sensible measures to improve health.
12. The Greens want to improve dental health through education. There
is no other viable way
that
we know of. We intend to exert ourselves in alerting the public to the full
story of fluoridation, and help communities and individuals fight against
enforced mass medication.
1.
Fluoride is harmful to health
1.1 Where
does the fluoride which is added to drinking water come from? This is a
"commercial secret". The New Labour government doesn't want you to know the answer. The Green Party does.
1.2 ‘Fluoride’ in drinking water is hexafluorosilicic acid - a
toxic and corrosive industrial waste
by-product
derived from the scrubbings of the factory chimneys of the super-phosphate
fertiliser industry. Fluorides are medically categorised as protoplasmic
poisons, which is why they are used in commercial rat poisons.
1.3 The
fluoride added to water is described by its manufacturers’ safety data as a
“hazardous
waste”.
It is illegal to dump it at sea. One supplier's Safety Data Sheet for
hexafluorosilicic acid clearly states: "DO
NOT let this chemical enter the environment.
Dispose of this product as hazardous waste. Consult the supplier to see if he will take it back. Readily
filters into soil. Recover cleaning water and dispose of at a specialist
site." (Source: Rhone Poulenc).
1.4 Worse still, the hexafluorosilicic acid used is not a pure
compound of medical quality but is
itself
contaminated with other poisons such as arsenic and cancer-causing heavy metals
like cadmium and even mercury. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
recently admitted that it doesn’t fully understand what happens to fluoride
when it is added to drinking water.
1.5 If fluoride is added to drinking water at 1ppm (part per
million), this means that every litre of
water
you drink will contain 1 milligram (one thousandth of a gram). Fluoride is more
toxic than lead and only marginally less poisonous than arsenic. We all know about the efforts to remove lead
from drinking water. Table 1 shows that fluoride is more toxic, yet the
government forces six million people in fluoridated areas of the UK to drink a
cumulative poison more toxic than lead at twenty times the maximum allowable
level for lead.
Table
1. Comparison of toxicity levels of two cumulative poisons, fluoride and lead,
with their maximum allowable level in drinking water.
Cumulative
poison Toxicity level Maximum
allowable level (MAL)
in drinking water (parts per
million)
Lead 3 0.05
Fluoride 4 1.00
(Maximum
toxicity on this scale = 6. Source for toxicity data: "Clinical Toxicity
of Commercial Products", Gosselin et al.)
1.6 Blood
fluoride levels rise continuously with prolonged use of fluoridated toothpaste.
The
amount
of fluoride contained in a family-size tube of fluoridated toothpaste is enough
to kill a 25-pound child.
1.7 A
private care home in Workington is distilling drinking water rather than
allowing residents to drink fluoridated water as the owner regards it as a slow
poison.
1.8 Scientific
papers have argued that:
Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and
leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage,
lungs, kidney and trachea.
Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood.
Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in
the body.
Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body's own tissues, and increases the tumour growth rate in cancer-prone individuals. A recent study found that in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland, 40% more people contacted bone cancer than in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland.
Fluoride kills red blood cells and damages gastric mucosa,
resulting in the symptoms of
irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Even fluoridated toothpaste
can cause IBS.
Fluoride is implicated in genetic disorders.
Fluoride is implicated in low IQ levels in children.
Fluoride is implicated in premature ageing.
Fluorides have been used to modify behaviour and moods of
human beings.
Fluoride is implicated in thyroid disorders by displacing
iodine in the body.
Fluoride induces pitting and cavity formation on the
surface of tooth enamel (cavities distinctly different from those formed as a
result of dental caries).
People who ingest fluoride risk problems as the muscles,
connective tissues and bone tissue undergo degenerative changes.
In conjunction with the alum (aluminium sulphate) used to
clarify tap water, fluoride
causes
serious damage to brain and kidney cells. Fluoride is implicated in pre-senile
dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
Fluoride causes fluorosis. A study has found that there is
more than double the rate of
fluorosis
is fluoridated communities than in those that are not fluoridated. Fluorosis
affects teeth before they have erupted, so babies and young children are most
at risk. Besides being unsightly, fluorosis can have a psychological impact,
and cosmetic dentistry is expensive.
As fluoride consumption by human beings increases, so does
the general cancer
death
rate.
Calcium
levels in the body decrease as fluoride levels rise. Fluoride increases the
density of bones but changes their internal architecture. This makes bones more
brittle and prone to fracture. (Eight
papers published in reputable medical journals have described the increased
risk of hip fracture in elderly people living in fluoridated areas.)
Chemicals
added to drinking water, including fluoride, promote Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
(For
sources see Appendix:
The case against fluoride: scientific references).
1.9 Artificial
fluoridation is not the same as natural fluoride, nor is it just "topping
up" natural
levels
of fluoride. Fluoride does occur
naturally in some UK water supplies, but in the form of calcium fluoride, and
then generally at extremely low levels of around 0.01 to 0.03 ppm. What’s more,
this is relatively insoluble and passes relatively harmlessly through the gut.
Even then, at slightly higher levels it is toxic. (In India, where the level of
naturally occurring calcium fluoride is from 0.7 to 13.0 ppm, millions of
people are crippled by skeletal fluorosis by the time they are 40 years of
age). The hexafluorosilicic acid added to drinking water is a considerably more
toxic compound - which is also more readily absorbed by the body's tissues.
1.10 Bottle-fed children in fluoridated areas are, of course, taking fluoride from their first day of life onwards. In Ireland, Europe's most heavily fluoridated country, this is now being recognised as a problem: "The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) Scientific Committee has confirmed that bottle-fed infants are receiving unsafe fluoride levels. They reported, as long ago as 3rd October 2001, that, 'the assessment indicates that infants below the age of four months are exposed to doses of fluoride that exceed the recognised "no observable effect" level'." The US Academy of General Dentistry has also warned about feeding fluoride to babies. In fluoridated areas, they advise, "it is recommended that parents use low fluoride bottled distilled water (labelled as 'purified' or 'distilled baby water) or tap water with a reverse osmosis home water filtration system attached that removes most of the fluoride." (Source: John Gormley TD, press release 25.2.02, "Gormley accuses government of misleading information in fluoridation debate" srawson@oireachtas.irlgov.ie ).
2. Fluoride doesn't necessarily stop tooth
decay
2.1 It
is now widely thought that the main action of fluoride on teeth is a topical
one, i.e. at the surface of the teeth, and not a systemic one as
previously thought. Fluoride is not about children’s teeth - it’s about
industry ridding itself of crude hazardous waste products for a profit.
2.2 Large-scale
studies of the official school dental data of tens of thousands of children in
the
USA,
New Zealand and Canada show that there is no difference in the incidence of
decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) between fluoridated and
non-fluoridated areas.
2.3 Table
2, covering 16 European states, illustrates what proportion of their population
was
fluoridated at given times, compared to their level of
DMFT. Note the following:
a. The
Republic of Ireland has been fluoridated for 37 years. Its DMFT level is worse than four countries
which have no fluoridation and one which has only 10% fluoridation. Its DMFT level is only very marginally better
than non-fluoridated France and Switzerland, where only one city is fluoridated.
b. Most
countries have experienced major declines in DMFT without fluoridation. Several
have achieved sharper reductions in tooth decay without fluoridation than
Ireland has achieved with fluoridation.
Table
2. Comparison of decayed missing and filled teeth (DMFT) in 12-year olds in
European countries compared with the Republic of Ireland.
Country year DMFT year DMFT fluoridation status (%)
Ireland 1972 5.4 1992 1.9 66
Finland 1975 7.5 1991 1.2 not
fluoridated
Denmark 1978 6.4 1992 1.3 not fluoridated
UK
(GB&NI) 1973 4.7 1993 1.4 10
Sweden 1977 6.3 1994 1.5 not fluoridated
Holland 1974 6.5-8.2 1991 1.7 not
fluoridated
Switzerland 1963-1975 2.3-2.9 1987-1989 2.0 one city
fluoridated
France 1975 3.5 1993 2.1 not
fluoridated
Norway 1973 8.4 1991 2.3 not
fluoridated
Spain 1968-1969 1.9 1993 2.3 one fluoridation plant
Germany
(E) 1973 6.0 1994 2.5 not
fluoridated
Germany
(W) 2.6 not
fluoridated
Belgium 1972 3.1 1991 2.7 not fluoridated
Austria 1973 1.0-3.5 1993 3.0 not
fluoridated
Italy 1978-1979 4.0-6.9 1985 3.0 not fluoridated
Portugal 1979 4.6 1989 3.2 not fluoridated
(Source:
NPWA, table compiled by T.J. Moore BSc, 1996 using data from World Health
Organisation, Non-communicable Disease Division)
2.4 The
incidence of DMFT is as high in fluoridated Gateshead as in
directly-comparable, but
non-fluoridated,
Liverpool. European children don't generally have worse teeth than those in
fluoridated parts of Britain.
2.5 A
recent UNICEF report said: "Fluoride inhibits enzymes that breed
acid-producing oral bacteria whose acid eats away tooth enamel. This
observation is valid, but some scientists now believe that the harmful impact
of fluoride on other useful enzymes far outweighs the beneficial effect on caries
prevention".
2.6 Over
a 30-year period Professor Teotia and his team in India have examined the teeth
of over 400,000 children. They have found that tooth decay increases as
fluoride intake increases and concluded that tooth decay results from a deficiency
of calcium and excess of fluoride.
2.7 The National Pure Water Association (NPWA) has repeatedly
asked the UK Department of
Health to cite one scientific or laboratory study from
anywhere in the world which proves that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in humans. They have failed to do
so. The NPWA comments: "There is
not a single scientific or laboratory study from anywhere in the world which
proves that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in humans. There are, however, hundreds of published
scientific papers which show that water fluoridation is dangerous to human,
animal, plant and aquatic life, which is no surprise, since fluoride is more
toxic than lead and only marginally less so than arsenic."
3. Scientific advisors who aren't being
scientific
3.1 The UK Department of Health insists that "Water fluoridation
is safe and effective and no
adverse
effects have ever been found." In view of the wealth of evidence available
from around the world, this is astonishing.
3.2 Frank Dobson, the Labour Health Secretary who commissioned the
York Review, said he
wanted
a review that would prove once and for all that fluoride was safe and
effective. This was nothing more than
concluding in advance what the scientists were intended to find - hardly good scientific
practice.
3.3 In
fluoridated Birmingham, a recent study found 34% of primary school children
showed
symptoms
of dental fluorosis - in other words, damage to their teeth caused by fluoride
(Professor Rock, 1997 cited by the NPWA).
The Department of Health prefers to dismiss this as merely cosmetic; but
in fact it's the first sign of fluoride poisoning and causes psychological
distress. Even the York review found that 48% of people living in fluoridated
areas have dental fluorosis, and 12.5% of them have fluorosis which is
sufficiently serious to be a cause for concern. And nearly 50% of all children in the Republic of Ireland now
suffer.
3.4 Surprising
as it may seem, the NHS even lacks a facility for testing fluoride levels in
blood
and urine.
No wonder it doesn't spot the adverse effects of fluoride when it isn't looking
for them - or perhaps more accurately, is looking the other way.
3.5 In
1998 Dr Peter Mansfield, Director of the Templegarth Trust, tested over 200
volunteers
from
the fluoridated West Midlands. He found that 60% of them were ingesting up to
four times the amount of fluoride considered by the government to be safe. He
sent the results to the very highest levels at the Department of Health - and
was ignored. But leading fluoride
promoters have attacked him. He commented: "They have no results of their
own and are not willing to replicate my tests.
It is obvious that the symptoms of joint pain and stiffness suffered by
many of these volunteers are mis-diagnosed. This is most serious
negligence."
3.6 Artificial
fluoridation chemicals and fluoridated toothpaste have never been scrutinised
by the Medicines Control Agency, and attempts to get them to do so have been
rebuffed. Fluoridated toothpastes and mouthwashes come under the auspices of
The Cosmetics and Toiletries Association!
(For more on official efforts to prevent fluoride being considered as a
medicine see: http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/precaution.htm
).
3.7 The
New Labour government has rejected the call for a full public inquiry into the
effects of
fluoridation,
preferring to close its eyes to the evidence.
3.8 Meanwhile
the government uses taxpayers' money to fund the British Fluoridation Society Ltd,
the main mouthpiece of the fluoride lobby. For many years this funding has been
in excess of £100,000 a year - at a time when the NHS is crumbling for lack of
funds.
4. Environmental risks of fluoridation
4.1 Artificial
water fluoridation is pollution. More
than 99.5% of fluoride added to drinking water
ends up
going down the drain. Even in the case of a small country like Ireland, this
amounts to 2000 gallons of hexafluorosilicic acid being released into the
environment every day. And this is a chemical which one manufacturer warns us
must not be allowed to enter the environment. Sweden rejected water
fluoridation on the recommendation of a special Fluoride Commission. Reasons
included: “the combined and long-term environmental effects of fluoride are
insufficiently known.”
4.2 To
date no environmental impact study of the effects of fluoride in the
environment has been
done,
although the Tacoma/Pierce County Health Authority Department in Washington
State has recently commissioned a study of the environmental impacts of
fluoride before continuing with their plans to fluoridate.
4.3 The
National Pure Water Association in Britain estimates that if Tony Blair were allowed to
fluoridate
85% of UK water supplies, this would lead to an astonishing 45-50,000 tonnes of
hexafluorosilicic acid being poured into our environment every year. The
dumping of such a large amount of toxic waste would be a serious threat to
plant and aquatic life. However, the
medical profession and allied pharmaceutical lobby who sell fluoride seem to
currently have more political influence than environmentalists do.
4.4 Water fluoridation also threatens the organic food industry. Any
crops irrigated with
fluoridated
water would be likely to fail the Soil Association's tests.
5. Widespread opposition to fluoridation
5.1 Only
five countries worldwide fluoridate water to any extent. Most European governments
oppose
fluoridation. Some, like France, which
rejected it on the advice of the Pasteur Institute, have never practised
it. Many others (see Table 3) have
abandoned it after increasing health concerns. Japan too, which began
fluoridation in 1952, ceased it in 1972. And in China, fluoridation is banned.
Table
3. European countries which have tried and abandoned fluoridation.
Country date started date abandoned
West
Germany 1952 1971
Sweden 1952 1971
Holland 1953 1976
Czechoslovakia 1958 1988-1990
East
Germany 1959 1990
USSR 1960 1990
Finland 1959 1993
(Source:
Rudolf Ziegelbecker, FLUORIDE 31(3), 1998, pp 171-174.)
5.2 In
Holland, fluoride was not only abandoned but prohibited by law after doctors
discovered
the
health risks it carried.
5.3 Even
in North America, the home of fluoridation, there is a growing revolt against
it, with a
large
number of local authorities turning against it. Between July 1990 and March 2000, no less than 77 American and
Canadian cities either rejected fluoridation or abandoned existing schemes,
some after several decades. (Source: http://www.nofluoride.com).
5.4 Belgium is going as far as banning the sale of fluoride tablets and chewing gum which contains fluoride after fears that the chemical may cause brittle bones. The ban is expected to come into force by August 2002. The move comes after a study commissioned by the an advisory board revealed that excessive use of fluoride products could cause fluoride poisoning, damage the nervous system and foster osteoporosis.
(Source: http://alertwizard.hoovers.com/display.php?repo=newsedge&ipage=1777445&exp).
5.5 Although, of course, the fact that so many administrations
reject fluoridation does not in itself
mean it
is unsound, it begs a question: If it is as "safe and effective" as
Tony Blair claims, why did they decide to forgo its "benefits"?
5.6 Even
those working for governments whose official policy is to support fluoridation
are
becoming
increasingly concerned. In 1997, more than 1,000 members of the union working
at the Environmental Protection Agency HQ in Washington DC - who are directly
responsible for the implementation of the US Safe Drinking Water Act - voted
unanimously to ban water fluoridation. The vice-president of the National
Federation of Federal Employees said: "Our members' review of the body of
evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiological
studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic
damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are
the recent epidemiological studies linking fluoride exposure to lower I.Q. in
children. As professionals charged with
assessing the safety of drinking water, we conclude that the health and welfare
of the public is not served by the addition of this substance to the public
water supply."
5.7 Since
1997 fluoridated toothpaste in the USA has carried the following warning:
"If you
accidentally
swallow more than is needed for brushing [sic] seek professional help or
contact a Poisons Control Centre."
5.8 The
American Dental Association opposed this health warning. They make millions of
dollars from accreditation of fluoride products and certainly didn't want to
see a poisons warning on their source of income. The British Dental Association
and the British Dental Health Foundation also make tens of thousands of pounds
annually in accreditation of similar products.
5.9 Some
academics who previously were advocates of fluoridation have revised their
views. Dr
Hardy
Limeback, Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry at the
University of Toronto, Canada, is one of them. He was a consultant to the
pro-fluoride Canadian Dental Association and was often cited by health officials
in defence of fluoridation. But in April 1999 he shocked the fluoride lobby by
stating that he now opposed fluoridation. A resident of Toronto, whose water is
fluoridated, he no longer drinks the local tap water. (His reasons are given in
an open letter at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.html
).
5.10 Even
the Irish Republic is having doubts on fluoridation. Since 1964, Ireland has had the
dubious
distinction of being the most heavily fluoridated country in Europe. If fluoridation has the benefits claimed by
the fluoride lobby, it might be thought that the Irish would be proud of their
record and keen to promote their model of dental health. But instead, doubts are growing in Ireland as
well as in Britain and North America.
Against the background of a spreading grassroots campaign against
fluoridation, a report titled "Hard to Swallow" was broadcast on
Ireland's national news program 20/20 on
Friday 12 January 2001, raising serious questions about the practice. Shortly afterwards, the country's main
opposition party, Fine Gael made a pledge to end fluoridation on health
grounds. (For excerpts of the programme see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/2020.htm . The Irish
Independent report on Fine Gael's decision (15 January 2001) is available
at: http://www.unison.ie/ .)
5.11Fluoridation in the UK is based on the
1985 Water Fluoridation Act. Here is how the Act was passed:
For
fluoridation 165
Against
fluoridation 82
Abstained
399
5.12That is, only a quarter of MPs actually
voted in favour of allowing fluoridation. According to
the
National Pure Water Association, "Even known anti-fluoridation MPs either
voted with the Government, or abstained 'against their consciences in order to
keep their beloved offices, cars and salaries' (Hansard, 5 March 1985, column
936)".
5.13It is also interesting to remember just
why this bill was "needed". A few years earlier a court
case
had revealed that for over 20 years, water fluoridation had been carried out in
the UK unlawfully. The 1985 Act was passed to legalise an unlawful practice.
5.14Now Tony Blair wants to introduce
enforced fluoridation by the back door - by "encouraging"
local
health authorities to request it. He wants to compel water companies to
fluoridate when local authorities call for it. Needless to say, these local
authorities will be under heavy government pressure. They will "consult",
and then do what the government tells them to do. Health Authorities must hold
a 3-month public consultation before requesting water companies to
fluoridate. Consultations have been
held across the North of England and Northern Ireland. Councils and local
people have massively rejected fluoridation.
But Health Authorities have always recommended fluoridation. It is
widely believed that current reforms of local government - reducing the power
of councillors in favour of mayors or narrow cabinets - are being carried out
to make it easier for the government to control or exert additional influence
on local authorities.
5.15Labour doubtlessly hopes to target areas
piecemeal in order to avoid a general national
debate
on the issue. It's the Green Party's wish to push fluoridation up the political
agenda - its health risks and its inefficacy in stopping tooth decay - to
challenge the government's stealth tactics.
6. Consumer choice - or compulsory mass
medication?
6.1 If
you are convinced of the efficacy of fluoride, (which, if of benefit, is only
so until the age of
twelve
in any case) you can of course buy a fluoridated toothpaste. It is readily
available and costs no more than fluoride-free toothpaste. You have the right
to make that choice. But if New Labour
gets its way, you will have no choice but to swallow fluoride repeatedly every
day. You will always have to imbibe a cumulative poison every time you drink a
glass of water or a cup of tea. There
is no freedom to choose because you can’t opt out.
6.2 It
is a standard medical ethic that no person should be forced to take medicine
without their
consent.
The only exception to this is where a court gives such an order, for example
under mental health legislation. However, the Government’s Medicines Control
Agency considers that fluoridated drinking water is not a medicine.
6.3 It
isn't even an acceptable medical practice to mass-medicate. As Dr Peter
Mansfield,
Director
of the Templegarth Trust, has said: "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'."
6.4 It
is a matter of human rights that people should have control over their own
bodies. If we
believe
a substance to be harmful - not least on the basis of considerable evidence -
then no government or health authority should have the right to force it upon
us. This isn't a matter of democracy or of majority opinion - it's a matter of
personal choice.
6.5 It
is no defence of fluoridation that alternatives exist, in the form of bottled
water from the
shops.
In the 21st century, when we and our parents and our grandparents have been
accustomed to having safe drinking water on tap throughout our whole lives,
it's entirely unacceptable to insist that we should only drink tap water on
condition that we take medicine with it.
In effect, fluoridation is medication by thirst.
6.6 It's
interesting that when the former shadow health secretary David Blunkett was
asked about fluoridation in a 1992 TV programme, he said: "I don't believe
we should put fluoride in the water supply as mass medication because I don't
think that gives us any choice and I think it's a very dangerous principle.
(Source: House of Commons Research Paper No. 93/121.) Is this just another New
Labour U-turn?
6.7 It's
highly significant that the Labour government has refused to sign the European
Convention
on Human Rights and Biomedicine, signed by 29 other European countries. This
states:
"Article
5 - General rule
"An
intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person
concerned has given free and informed consent to it.
"This
person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and
nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks.
"The
person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time."
(Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human being with regard
to the Application of Biology and Medicine, Council of Europe, 1997).
6.8 This,
of course, is entirely incompatible with water fluoridation. Who in the UK's fluoridated
areas has ever given their "free and informed
consent" based on the "appropriate information" for this
intervention? And even if the residents
of those areas had, how are they supposed to be able to "freely
withdraw" that consent now?
6.9 The
Human Rights Act came into force in the UK in 2000. It allows actions to be taken against public authorities, which
includes private organisations like water undertakers when they are carrying
out public functions, if they infringe a person’s human rights. It is possible that water fluoridation could
be challenged under Article 8 of the Act, although water companies are
protected from challenge if they act in accordance with UK primary legislation
and could not have acted differently (s6 (2) HRA).
6.10However, whether water companies can
refuse to fluoridate if requested to do so by a health
authority
has already been considered in a High Court judicial review (R v Northumbrian
Water Ltd ex parte Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority, 1998). It was held that a water company could reject
such a request.
6.11Water companies fear that they may be
exposed to legal and financial risks in the future if
they
fluoridate. Dr Andrew Rynne is suing
the Irish Government for continuing to fluoridate; claiming it constitutes a
breach of human rights.
7. Don't fluoridate - educate
7.1 Tooth
decay is caused by poor dental hygiene and excessive consumption of refined
sugar
products.
Fluoridation won't improve dental hygiene or reduce consumption of sugar. But it will destroy consumer choice and add
known poisons to the drinking water of millions, against their will.
7.2 The Green Party wants:
a. A properly resourced strategy for reducing tooth decay,
including education of children and adults about dental hygiene, the need for a
healthy diet, and the effects of excessive consumption of sugar.
b. A
ban on the fluoridation of drinking water.
c. A
health warning on all sources of fluoride intended for human consumption.
What can you do?
a. Support
the Green Party campaign against fluoridation. Encourage others to do so.
b. Write to your MP at the House of Commons, London, SW1 0AA
demanding the above. Ask your MP to forward your letter to the Secretary of
State for Health, making the same demands.
c. Vote
Green in local elections. The Green councillors you elect will lead the fight
against fluoridation in your local authority. They can be relied upon to do so
because they need have no conflict with their own party or their conscience -
unlike the Tories, who legalised fluoridation, and Labour, who are seeking to
spread it. Even where Greens don't get elected, the more votes you give us, the
stronger our voice will be in the campaign against fluoridation; and there's
nothing quite as convincing to a Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat politician as
feeling they're losing votes over an issue like this.
d. Vote
Green in regional, national and European elections. Greens already elected to
the European and Scottish Parliaments and the London Assembly will fight for
anti-fluoridation policies and legislation. In parliamentary elections under
first-past-the-post, where Greens aren't currently being elected but are
increasing their vote, a Green vote is still a positive statement for what you
believe in, helps put pressure on the bigger parties in the short term, and
helps build the longer-term alternative.
Useful contacts
Green Party
1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ
Tel 020 7272 4474
Fax 020 7272 6653
Policy enquiries:
Media callers:
020 7561 0282
National Pure Water Association
12 Dennington Lane, Crigglestone,
Wakefield WF4 3ET.
Tel 01924 254433
Fax 01924 242380
Web resources
http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/
http://www.sonic.net/~kryptox/fluoride.htm
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk
Books
Barry Groves: Drinking ourselves to Death? 2001 ISBN : 0-7171-3274-9.
Disclaimer: The above resources outside the Green Party are not necessarily endorsed by the Green Party.
Appendix
The case against fluoride: scientific
references
A1 Fluoride
exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of
collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.
A.K.
Susheela and Mohan Jha, "Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous
Bone Composition", IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol 9,
No.11, pp.1021-1022 (1981); Y.D. Sharma, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on
Collagen Cross-Link Precursors", Toxicological Letters, Vol.10, pp97-100
(1982); A.K. Susheela and D. Mukerjee, "Fluoride poisoning and the Effect
of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Nonosseous Tissue", Toxicological
European Research, Vol 3, No.2, pp. 99-104 (1981); Y.D. Sharma,
"Variations in the Metabolism and Maturation of Collagen after Fluoride
Ingestion", Biochemica et Biophysica Acta, Vol 715, pp.137-141 (1982);
Marian Drozdz et al., "Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon
Connective Tissue Metabolism in Growing Rats" and "Effect of Sodium
Fluoride With and Without Simultaneous Exposure to Hydrogen Fluoride on
Collagen Metabolism", Journal of Toxicological Medicine, Vol. 4, pp.151-157(1984).
A2
"Fluorides are general protoplasma poisons, with the capacity to
modify the metabolism of cells by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of
fluoride intoxication include drinking water containing 1ppm or more of
fluorine."
Journal
of the American Medical Association, September 18, 1943.
A3 Fluoride
stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but
inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign
agent in the blood.
Robert
A. Clark, "Neutrophil Iodintion Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications
for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation," Blood, Vol 57, pp.913-921
(1981).
A4 Fluoride
depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly
destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis.
A5 As little as
0.2 ppm fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells,
virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below
1ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy
pathogenic agents.
John
Curnette, et al, "Fluoride-mediated Activation of the Respiratory Burst in
Human Neutrophils", Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol 63, pp.637-647
(1979); W.L. Gabler and P.A. Leong, ., "Fluoride Inhibition of
Polymorphonuclear Leukocytes", Journal of Dental Research, Vo. 48, No. 9,
pp.1933-1939 (1979); W.L. Gabler, et al., "Effect of Fluoride on the
Kinetics
of Superoxide Generation by Fluoride", Journal of Dental Research, Vol.
64, p.281 (1985); A.S. Kozlyuk, et al., "Immune Status of Children in
Chemically Contaminated Environments", Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp.6-9
(1987);
A6 Fluoride
confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body's own tissues, and
increases the tumour growth rate in cancer prone individuals.
Alfred
Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumour
Growth", Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine,
Vol 119,p.252(1965)
Sheila
Gibson, "Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function",
Complementary Medical Research, Vol 6, pp.111-113 (1992); Peter Wilkinson,
"Inhibition of the Immune System With Low Levels of Fluorides",
Testimony before the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh in the Case of McColl vs.
Strathclyde Regional Council, pp. 17723-18150, 19328-19492, and Exhibit 636,
(1982); D.W. Allman and M.Benac, "Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on
Urine and Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo", Journal of Dental Research,
Vol 55 (Supplement B), p.523 (1976); S. Jaouni and D.W. Allman, "Effect of
Sodium Fluoride and Aluminium on Adenylate Cyclase and Phosphodiesterase
Activity", Journal of Dental Research, Vol.64, p.201 (1985)
A7 Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood.
S.K.
Jain and A.K. Susheela, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation
in Rabbits", Environmental Research, Vol.44, pp.117-125 (1987).
A8 Fluoride depresses thyroid activity.
Viktor
Gorlitzer Von Mundy, "Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism,
Particularly on the Thyroid Gland," Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift,
Vol 105, pp182-186 (1963); A. Benagiano, "The Effect of Sodium Fluoride on
Thyroid Enzymes and Basal Metabolism in the Rat", Annali Di Stomatologia,
Vol 14, pp.601-619n (1965);Donald Hillman, et al., "Hypothyroidism and
Anemia Related to Fluoride in Dairy Cattle," Journal of
Dairy
Science, Vol 62, No.3, pp.416-423 (1979); V. Stole and J. Podoba, "Effect
of Fluoride on the Biogenesis of Thyroid Hormones", Nature, Vol 188,
No.4753, pp.855-856 (1960); Pierre Galleti and Gustave Joyet, "Effect of
Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism", Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp.1102-1110 (1958).
A9 Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the
body.
T.Takamorim
"The Heart Changes in Growing Albino Rats Fed on Varied Contents of
Fluorine," The Toxicology of Fluorine, Symposium, Bern, Switzerland, Oct
1962, pp.125-129; Vilber A.O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, "High Fluoride
Exposure in Hemodialysis Patients", American Journal of Kidney Diseases,
Vol. 15, pp.320-324 (1990); Y.Yoshisa, "Experimental Studies on Chronic
Fluorine Poisoning", Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, Vol 1,
pp.683-690 (1959).
A10 Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer.
J.K. Mauer, et al., "Two-year carcinogenicity study of
sodium fluoride in rats", Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol
82, pp1118-1126 (1990); Proctor and Gamble "Carcinogencity studies with
Sodium Fluoride in rats" National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences Presentation, July 27, 1985; S.E. Hurdley et al., "Drinking Water
Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma" Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol 81,
pp.415-416 (1990); P.D. Cohn, " A Brief Report on the Association of
Drinking Water Fluoridation and Incidence of Osteosarcoma in Young Males",
New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey, Nov 1992; M.C. Mahoney et
al.,"Bone Cancer Incidence Rates in New York", American Journal of
Public Health, Vol 81, pp.81, 475 (1991); Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton,
"Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors Following Treatment with Sodium
Fluoride", Genetics Vol 48, pp.307-310 (1963); J.A. Disney, et al., "
A Case Study in Testing the Conventional Wisdom; School-Based Fluoride Mouthrinse
Programs in the USA" Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Vol 18,
pp.46-56 (1990); D.J. Newell, "Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer -
an association?", Applied Statistics, Vol 26, No.2, pp.125-135 (1977). See
also http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/health/fluoridenewyork.htm .
"In point of fact, fluoride causes more
human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical": Dean
Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus, US National Cancer Institute,
cit http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fluoride.html .
A11 Fluorides cause premature
aging of the human body.
Nicholas
Leone, et al., "Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water
Supply", Public Health Reports, Vol 69, pp.925-936 (1954); J. David
Erikson, "Mortality of Selected Cities with Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated
Water Supplies", New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 298, pp.1112-1116
(1978); "The Village Where People are Old Before their Time", Stern
Magazine,
Vol 30, pp.107-108,111-112 (1978)
A12 Fluoride
ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrices in children is extremely hazardous
to biological development, life span and general health.
Yngve
Ericsson and Britta Forsman, "Fluoride retained from mouth rinses and
dentifrices in preschool children", Caries Research, Vol.3, pp.290-299
(1969); W.L. Augenstein, et al., "Fluoride ingestion in children: a review
of 87 cases", Pediatrics, Vol 88, pp.907-912, (1991); Charles Wax,
"Field Investigation report", State of Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, March 19, 1980, 67pp; George Waldbott, "Mass
Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water", Clinical
Toxicology, Vol 18, No.5, pp.531-541 (1981).
A13 Fluorides diminish the
intelligence capability of the human brain.
X.S.Li
et al, Fluoride, Vol 26, No.4, pp.189-192, 1995, "Effect of Fluoride
Exposure on Intelligence In Children". Presented to the 20th Conference of
the International Society for Fluoride Research, Beijing, China, September 5-9,
1994.
A14 Fluoride studies in rats may be indicative of a
potential for motor disruption, intelligence deficits and learning disabilities
in humans.
A15 Humans are exposed to plasma levels of fluoride as high
as those in rat studies. Fluoride involves interruption of normal brain
development. Fluoride affects the hippocampus in the brain, which integrates
inputs from the environment, memory, and motivational stimuli, to produce
behavioural decisions and modify memory. Experience with other developmental
neurotoxicants prompts expectations that changes in behavioural functions will
be comparable across species, especially humans and rats.
Neurotoxicology
and Teratology, Vol 17, No,2, p.176, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in
Rats", Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995.
A16 Fluorides accumulate in the
brain over time to reach neurologically harmful levels.
Neurotoxicology
and Teratology, Vol 17, No,2, p.176, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in
Rats", Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995.
A17 "Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm
fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of
producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm
outweigh those for good."
Journal
of the American Dental Association, Editorial, October 1, 1944.
A18 The contents of a family-size tube of fluoridated
toothpaste is enough to kill a 25-pound child.
In
1991, the Akron (Ohio) Regional Poison Center reported that "death has
been reported following ingestion of 16mg/kg of fluoride. Only 1/10 of an ounce
of fluoride could kill a 100 pound adult. According to the centre,
"fluoride toothpaste contains up to 1mg/gram of fluoride." Even
Proctor and Gamble, the makers of Crest, acknowledge that a family-sized tube
"theoretically contains enough fluoride to kill a small child."
(National Pure Water Association, UK).
A19 Fluorides have been used to
modify behaviour and mood of human beings.
"It
is a little known fact that fluoride compounds were added to the drinking water
of prisoners to keep them docile and inhibit questioning of authority, both in
Nazi prison camps in World War 2 and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia."
(National Pure Water Association, UK).
A20 Fluorides are medically categorized as protoplasmic
poisons, which is why they are used to kill rodents.
The
Journal of the American Medical Association on September 18, 1943, states,
"fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of
the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanism of such
actions are obscure.".
A21 Fluoride consumption by human
beings increases the general cancer death rate.
In 1975
Dr John Yiamouyiannis published a preliminary survey which showed that people
in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in
non-fluoridated areas. The National Cancer Institute attempted to refute the
studies. Later in 1975, Yiamouyiannis joined with Dr Dean Burk, chief chemist
of the National Cancer Institute (1939-1974) in performing other studies which
were then included in the Congressional Record by Congressman Delaney, who was
the original author of the Delaney Amendment, which prohibited the addition of
cancer-causing substances to food used for human consumption.
Both
reports confirmed the existence of a link between fluoridation and cancer.
(Note: Obviously Dr Burk felt free to agree with scientific findings only after
his tenure at NCI ended, since his job depended on toeing the party line).
Research
carried out at Boston University School of Public Health, using data from the
Irish National Cancer Registry and its Northern Ireland equivalent, found 40%
more people suffer from the rare bone cancer osteosarcoma in the
heavily-fluoridated Irish Republic than in Northern Ireland, where water is not
fluoridated. See http://www.online.ie/news/irish_examiner/viewer.adp?article=1629801 .
A22 Fluorides have little or no
effect on decay prevention in humans.
In 1990 Dr John Colquhoun was forced into early requirement
in New Zealand after he conducted a study on 60,000 school children and found
no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. He
additionally found that a substantial number of children in fluoridated areas
suffered from dental fluorosis. He made the study public. In 1998 he summarised
the reasons for opposition to fluoridation. You can read them at:
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm or in FLUORIDE 31(2), 1998,
pp 103-118.
A23 "It has long been known that
excessive fluoride intake carries serious toxic effects. But scientists are now
debating whether fluoride confers any benefit at all. ... Fluoride inhibits
enzymes that breed acid-producing oral bacteria whose acid eats away tooth
enamel. This observation is valid, but some scientists now believe that the
harmful impact of fluoride on other useful enzymes far outweighs the beneficial
effect on caries prevention."
UNICEF, http://www.unicef.org/programme/wes/info/fluor.htm
.
In 1989
a study by Hildebolt et al on 6,000 school children contradicted any alleged
benefit from the use of sodium fluorides.
In 1990
a study by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis on 39,000 school children contradicted any
alleged benefits from the use of sodium fluorides.
In 1992
Michael Perrone, a legislative assistant in New Jersey, contacted the FDA
requesting all information regarding the safety and effectiveness of fluoride
tablets and drops. After 6 months of stalling, the FDA admitted they had no
data to show that fluoride tablets or drops were either safe or effective. They
informed Perrone that they would "probably have to pull the tablets and
drops off the market."
A24 The fact that fluoride toothpastes and school-based
mouth rinses are packaged in aluminium accentuates the effect on the body.
In
1976, Dr DW Allman and co-workers from Indiana University School of Medicine
fed animals 1 part per million (ppm) of fluoride and found that in the presence
of aluminium in a concentration as small as 20 parts per billion, (like in a
toothpaste tube, using aluminium pans to boil water, or drinking beverages in
aluminium cans), fluoride was able to cause an even larger increase in cyclic
AMP levels.
Cyclic
AMP inhibits the migration rate of white blood cells, as well as the ability of
the white blood cell to destroy pathogenic organisms. Ref: Journal of Dental
Research, Vol 55, Sup B, p523, 1976, "Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts
on Urine and Tissue Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo".
A25 "Fluoridation is the
greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time."
Robert
Carton, Ph.D., former U.S. EPA scientist, on "Marketplace" Canadian
Broadcast Company Nov 24, 1992.
A26 "Regarding fluoridation, the EPA should act
immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the
evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects"
William
Marcus PhD, senior EPA toxicologist, Covert Action, Fall 1992, p.66.
A27 Fluoride interacts with
alum in drinking water to cause brain and kidney damage.
"Chronic
administration of aluminium-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking
water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity": Varner,
J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298
(1998) and cited in Fluoride Journal, FLUORIDE 31(2), 1998, pp 91-95.
A28Chemicals added to water, including fluoride, cause
Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
Professor A.K. Susheela and her scientific colleagues at
the Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation found that Irritable
Bowel Syndrome, also known as non-ulcer dyspepsia, colitis, 'spastic colon' or
Crohn's Disease can be caused (or exacerbated) by intake of chemically treated
drinking water. Biopsy results of the adverse effects on gastric cells are
shown in surprisingly detailed electron micrographs. Professor Susheela and her
co-workers discovered that chemically-induced IBS can be successfully reversed
without medication simply by avoiding water and products containing the
chemical. (See http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/IBS.html
).