Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

curious7 — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:40:08 GMT

Big money has a great many agents on the loose who expouse propaganda, via TV radio, and print media. Flouride has long been known as a toxin, but we, because of the Lobbists employed by "Big Money" continue to have this toxin literally forced down our throats, all the while Government is out to lunch. Out to lunch because they are paid to be out to lunch.

Another contributor mentioned "Quack Watch," and all I can say is beware of Quack Watch. These people hate anything, and everything natural. Raw whole foods are condemned, and it seems anything not created in Dr. Frankstein's lab is to be avoided, according to Quack Watch. Vitamins, dietary supplements, even clean water seems to ruffle the feathers of Quack Watch. Never have I ever read where they have had a negative word to say about "Big Pharma." I find that disturbing.

So Flouride in our water should be a grave concern to us all. No telling the effects this poisin has had on upon our generations. Of course there are few studies, and those done pressure is applied to hush them up. Beware of all Government entanglements.

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

nanochemist — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:32:03 GMT

If only the toxicity and dangers of vaccines were given this much attention...

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

Mark Fletcher — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:04:06 GMT

If you google fluoride and tea, a page from Dr. Weil's site is the first hit. Here Dr. Weil explains that fluoridation of water is likely good for you. Since this page has such a high visibility, it is no doubt influencing people. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Weil because he is right on the money with many issues, but I don't understand why he is taking this position on fluoride.

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

Jim Young — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 03:51:16 GMT

Dentist 1, you have seriously hurt your credibility. Quack Watch is a fraud, pure and simple. Stephen Barrett is a fraud. Although this site has not been updated lately it is a good source of truth and light on Barrett and Quack Watch. Go to http://www.bolenreport.net

and find out how the courts have interpreted his lies and distortions. Dentist 1 you should be truly ashamed - may your teeth turn brown, rot and fall out.

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

Dr. LHommedieu — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 03:35:27 GMT

It is Unfortunate when health professionals unknowingly, or with an agenda, promote disception. I typically consider most dentists and oncologists to be the greatest public health threats to the lives of innocent children and adults. The study Dentist 1 refers to in New Burgh in 1945 included a small amount of natural fluoride but you will need to update me as to what the total concentration was. A combination and the concentration may be a factor in skewing results.

Another factor is that was in 1945! How many infants and chidren were vaccinated with the battery of toxic metals and chemicals, or how many pesticides were being used, or how processed was the food they were eating, or how many prescription drugs were inflicted on them, or do I need to continue? Do you think this study is really applicable? There are a host of immune destructive agents attacking the public today and fluoride is another very dangerous and reactive substance that can interact to either enhance destructive processes or weaken/disable important protective immune mechanisms such as DNA repair in a system already over burdened.

When someone points to conspiracy theory as a means of intimidation it is typically the harbinger of deceitful intention. Hitler also falsely claimed there was a communist plot to take over the Mother Land and used that deception to take power for his hideous actions. Hitler also used fluoride in concentration camps to weaken resistance.

Since you are a health professional you may want to go back to your pre-med curriculum and reaquaint yourself with General Chemisrty 101. Fluoride is extremely electro-negative. It can and does interfere with thyriod function as it interferes with iodine utilization. Also, lets not forget it will effect every element to the far left column of the periodic table, which are most positive. Are there any elements there important to adrenal and mental functions?

By the way, have you tried recommending a wholesome diet?

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

My name is — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:30:47 GMT

I am not a scientist but the Lord has given me a mind that analyzes things second nature to me. So as I was learning awhile back way back that is about fluoride and the harm I was so grateful to learn about it so that I could protect my children's teeth. But then I was reading that fluoride is in tea. Researching I realized it was fluorine not flouride but many say that it is the same. In my wonderful mind that analyzes I say to myself it can't be the same nor can it be used in the body the same way. In my thinking natural fluorine is probably processed differently. So for years I had this idea but I am not the scientist I just learn and study what the guys and gals with PHD's have studied scientifically. By the way all drs. get their information from the scientists with PHD's that is said because I have heard many including family members that they will believe something only if their Dr. says so. No offense to the docs in the world but the PHD'ers out smart them all well the honest ones who are not after Mammon which is another term for wealth.

So with my few comments here is an article you can read yourself about fluoride which is poisoning versus the real mc coy fluorine. www.natural-health-information-centre.com/fluorine.html

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

DENTIST 1 — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:15:41 GMT

How I Feel about Fluoridation

Benjamin Spock, M.D.

June 1980

You might guess that I would be opposed to fluoridation of the water supply (to prevent tooth decay) on several counts. I've been against pollution of the diet of children and adults with extra sugar and salt, and with additives and preservatives. I've always disagreed with those health professionals who assumed, without solid proof, that they knew more than Nature—when, for example, some physicians used to prescribe tonsillectomy on a wholesale basis or tried to change growth patterns of normally short or tall children by means of growth hormones. I'm also against imposing regulations on people in an arbitrary and undemocratic manner.

The fact is that I started out as somewhat skeptical and cautious about fluoridation in the 1940's and early 1950's. But then I became a firm believer as proof was assembled by scientists in the 1950's and afterwards that fluoridation of a water supply will reduce the production of tooth cavities (our most prevalent disease) by 60%, and, just as important, that no disease or defect is caused by this procedure. What particularly allayed my early doubts about adding a chemical to public water supplies was learning that fluoride has always occurred naturally in water supplies—in concentrations from several parts per million in some regions of the southwest to a mere twentieth of a part per million in the northeast. Obviously, it is a natural, though varying, ingredient of water. Because of this, any long-term bad effect could be—and was—searched for in those people who had drunk water with a moderate or high concentration all their lives.

In the late 1950s and the early 1960s, I was chairman of a national committee to educate the public and public officials about the value and safety of fluoridation. As such I received hundreds of letters, some politely explaining that I was mistaken, others abusing me as intentionally evil. (One was an indignant letter from one of my sisters, a vigorous environmentalist and organic farmer.) But I've also received favorable mail, and awards from two national dental associations, so it wasn't all painful. My book Baby and Child Care has advocated fluoridation since the 1950s.

The many endorsements of fluoridation by professional organizations are certainly impressive. After careful review of all scientific evidence, including claims of opponents, fluoridation has been recommended as safe and effective by the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Institute of Dental Research (an arm of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare), the Royal Society of Physicians in Great Britain , and the World Health Organization. In fact, no major health organization or recognized scientific body has ever differed with these conclusions.

The story of how fluoridation's value was discovered is not only fascinating, but should also be reassuring to some doubters since it reveals that the early researchers had no bias, no axe to grind. They were simply looking for answers to certain dental problems. Dr. Frederick S. McKay, a practicing dentist in Colorado with an extraordinary curiosity and dedication to human betterment, spent the first 30 years of this century tracking down the cause of a certain type of tooth stain which has always been prevalent in Colorado and several southwestern states. He first found, strangely enough, that this staining occurred in people whose teeth had a high resistance to decay. He finally discovered, in 1931, that the staining and resistance to decay were both due to the high concentration of fluoride which occurred naturally in that region.

Then Dr. H. Trendley Dean and a team from the U.S. Public Health Service spent 10 years evaluating the dental health of 7,000 children in 4 southwestern states with moderate to high concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride to find what concentration gave the best protection without staining. They found it to be one part fluoride in a million parts of water.

A crucial test was begun in 1945 in Newburgh, New York, to see whether deliberate addition of fluoride to a water supply which had very little natural fluoride would provide the same benefit. Over a 10-year period, the children of Newburgh developed nearly 60% fewer cavities than the children of the comparable city of Kingston, where the water was not fluoridated. Since then, thousands of studies of the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation have been made with consistent results.

The natural occurrence of moderate to high concentrations of fluoride in certain regions has made it possible for scientists to search without delay for possible bad effects by carefully comparing rates for such diseases as cancer, heart disease, birth defects and allergies in regions with high, medium and low concentrations of fluoride. All studies have agreed: the only adverse effect is staining of the teeth when the fluoride concentration is several times as high as that recommended for artificial fluoridation.

You've probably heard the accusations against fluoridation—that it is a poison; that it may cause cancer, heart disease, birth defects, allergies and other diseases; that its use in a public water supply is an invasion of people's constitutional rights unless they consent. Other, wilder, claims are that it is a communist plot to weaken our country (even though the Soviet Union uses fluoridation), or that it is simply a money-making scheme of the aluminum companies who produce the fluoride as a by-product. All adverse claims and accusations which had the slightest plausibility have been scrupulously investigated by scientists and government officials and have been found to be baseless. But nothing seems to keep the more determined opponents from repeating old accusations and making new ones.

_____________________

Dr. Spock, who retired from his pediatric practice in 1967, was best known for his authorship of Baby and Child Care, which sold 28 million copies between 1946 and 1980. This article was excerpted from the foreword to The Tooth Robbers: A Pro-Fluoridation Handbook, edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D., and Sheldon Rovin, D.D.S, and published in 1980 by the George F. Stickley Co. of Philadelphia.

This article was posted on December 10, 1996.

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

remobec_203 — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:06:32 GMT

So... is there anyway that Californians can protest this? Any thing to sign or whatever?

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

madscientist — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:02:06 GMT

"My research constituted an indictment of those who had initiated the fluoridation program without first securing proof of its safety. It also indicted the multitudes who had permitted themselves to be carried along by the current-- who had blindly accepted the word of the "authorities" or so-called fluoridation study committees without making their own independent investigation."

- Dr. George Waldbott, M.D., A Struggle with Titans, Page 223

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

healing water online — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:50:20 GMT

I will ask is Dentists more stupid than other, and if not why do they recommend Fluoride.

Love and light Torben

www.healingwateronline.com

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

BeyondOrganic — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:48:02 GMT

I stopped buying an organic green tea tincture because I was told it had a natural fluoride in it. I think there are great benenfits from drinking the tea for things such as cholestrol, high blood pressure, help in preventing cancer etc.. Does anyone know of an Organic green tea tincure that is not sweetened or at least lighly with stevia if sweetened that does not contain fluoride? Or can someone tell me if the natural fouride from the plant is not bad? I have heard conflicting info on this subject. Please help!

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

Magnolia — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 03:04:23 GMT

The more people we tell, the greater the expansion of knowledge. We know the dangers of fluoride. But better than ranting and raving is gaining respect in our circle of influence; a reputation for being knowledgeable in the field of nutrition, homotoxicology, and health.

I feel for these innocent children. I also feel for their innocent and underinformed parents.

There is another group that will be affected that was not mentioned in the article, probably because it focused on children, but those with impaired thyroid function will find that their hypothyroidism may be aggravated by having fluoride added to their water, if they drink tap water. It is extremely difficult to filter back out, and takes a very expensive and sophisticated filtration system to do so.

I would say, if you live in one of these areas, write your congressman, your mayor, and your governor. Be heard. Be loud if need be. Gather other like-minded individuals around you and agree that this kind of control of something as basic to our health needs as clean, safe water, needs to be resisted. There are many of us who are standing with you.

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

heidi_203 — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 02:04:36 GMT

Most dentists love flouride, and try to convince us to do the same. Years ago, my previous dentist suggested nursery water, since we have well water. At the time, I was fairly new to Dr. Mercola's website, and this is where my research into the topic of flouride began. Needless to say, we don't use nursery water, (or the same dentist). At our current dentist, I am the oddball mom who says "no thank-you" to the flouride treatment, where they slather the stuff onto your child's teeth. The extreme in moms that I have known is the one who would allow her child to eat toothpaste. Several other moms roll their eyes at me when I've discussed the topic, quoting their dentist as the authority. I have yet to have the conversation with a mom willing to look into the history of where flouride originated.

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/history.html gives info that amazed me, stating that the silicoflourides, waste products from steel, aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing, are not the same as calcium flouride, which occurs naturally.

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

cheftodd — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:09:54 GMT

now does fluoride continue to collect in the body, like heavy metals do?

re: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water Puts 64,000 Kids at Risk

Katee Roux — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:41:36 GMT

This has a new personal note for me.

As a child, my baby teeth were rotting out of my mouth & i had to have ALL of them capped. When my adult teeth came in, they were yellow. My front teeth had a few bands of white across them, which have faded over time. I recently saw some photos of me smiling, & my teeth look AWFUL.

At the time, my mother was told that all this was due to "something" she took while pregnant or nursing. I'd always had a vague idea it was a sulfa drug or something. But just yesterday i looked up fluorosis, & the pics given of mild/moderate look just like my teeth did at the time. Surely a dentist would have known this!

On a positive note, my teeth seem healthy. It makes me angry this happened, but more, it makes me angry that it CONTINUES to happen & has for years. Time to stop this nonsense. I gave up fluoride toothpaste over a year ago.