Poison in the Water

More evidence of fluoride damage

2009-10-11T08:10:00.000-07:00

Yu (1996) showed that fluoride was present in the brains of aborted fetuses in which fetuses from fluoridated areas revealed lower levels of norepinephrine, 5-hydroxytryptamine, and α1-receptor (basically, neurotransmitting substances), thus suggesting that fluoride can disrupt the synthesis of neurotransmitters in the brain leading to neural dysplasia. Dysplasia is the abnormal maturation (the process by which cells mature and develop) of cells within tissue.

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p134-138.pdf

Li (2004) showed that excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy can inflict adverse effects on neonatal neurobehavioural development.

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p165-170.pdf

Intelligence in children exposed to fluoride and arsenic in water

2009-10-11T07:56:00.000-07:00

A study by Rocha-Amador et al (2007) found that fluoride and arsenic in water may adversely affect intelligence quotient scores. This is supported by animal studies which show cognitive defects as a result of exposure to fluoride.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/epa08/rocha-amador.2007.pdf

Fluoride's effects on plants - implications for food perhaps?

2009-09-13T08:29:00.000-07:00

According to an article by Prudence Leith-Ross dating from 2008 research by J. A. Tolley has shown that crops of cress (rape) became stunted and poorer as the levels of fluoridated water in which they were grown increased. In addition, there were signs of necrotic fluorosis on the roots thereby indicating a reduction in yield where fluoridated water was used for irrigation purposes. Ross's conclusion was that this research showed that plants are able to concentrate fluoride levels from the water supply. This is interesting in that the same effect appears in humans, i.e. the organism is not capable of ridding itself of the fluoride.

Research conducted with onion bulbs placed in fluoridated water, conducted by A. H. Mohammed of Missouri University in 1966 (reported in the Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology) revealed chromosomal aberrations after only six hours of exposure.

Cattle have frequently suffered from exposure to fluoride in areas subjected to fluoride pollution. Several herds were lost due to fluorosis near the Invergordon Smelting Plant after grazing polluted fields. Residents of Tamworth have been advised that all locally grown fruit and vegetables should be washed due to fluoride pollution from nearby brick and ceramic works and an aluminium recovery plant. In 1970 Soviet scientists reported that application of superphosphates over a long period increased the fluorine content thereby decreasing the yields of certain crops, particularly maize. The same phenomenon has been observed in the US.

Bristol Evening Post article

2009-08-27T11:14:00.000-07:00

Following a visit by a reporter to our evening meeting on Tuesday the 25th August, the following article appeared in the Bristol Evening Post:

CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED TO FIGHT WATER SUPPLY FLUORIDE PLAN
A campaign had been launched to fight proposals to add fluoride to Bristols water supply. For more than 50 years governments have toyed with the idea of adding the chemical to public water in a bid to cut tooth decay. Now plans to fluoridate water in the South West have been put into motion.
Primary Care Trusts NHS Bristol and NHS B&NES, which are in charge of providing health-care for the populations they cover, have asked regional body NHS South West to conduct a feasibility study into a fluoridation scheme.
If this is accepted, a consultation process could allow it to order Bristol Water to add fluoride to all its drinking water.
But the campaign group Bristolians Against Fluoridation (BAF) says that could have a terrible impact on public health.
BAF chairman Robin Whitlock said: "In 2003 the Government introduced legislation saying that if PCTs and the strategic health authority could show that fluoridation was feasible and the bulk of the population were behind it, it could legally compel water companies to have it.
But an excess of fluoride can cause fluorosis - an eating away of the enamel on the teeth. Fluoride is an accumulative poison that builds up in the brain over years, and can cause diseases in the brain, such as types of cancer. It can also cause ligament problems and act as a sedative."
Fluoridation is already standard practice in some parts of the UK, introduced to water supplies in parts of the Midlands and Newcastle in the 1960's.
But the group says there are strong scientific arguments against it, and a number of European countries, including France, Italy and Belgium, have banned its addition to drinking water on health grounds.
BAF also says that four per cent of the population suffers adverse reactions to fluoride. Bernard Seward, 70, a retired printing lecturer from Henleaze, said "Fluoridation is pollution, and it is an additional public health hazard that we don't need. It is also about freedom of choice. I want the right to have fluoride in my water or not".
BAF argues that more evidence is needed before proposals are put into action.
In a report earlier this year NHS Bristol said that children in more than a third of wards in the city have some of the poorest dental health across the NHS South West region, and also in the country.
NHS Bristol also said that fluoridation was safe and effective in reducing dental decay, and that it would lead to a likely 30 per cent reduction in tooth decay in five to six year olds, and a 12 per cent increase in the number of people with no decay.
It said benefits could include a reduced need for hospitalisation and in giving general anaesthetics to children.

This is a very good and well written article, and our arguments appear to dominate the piece, which is great for an opening piece declaring our existence in Bristol and publicising our objectives. However, certain of the scientific arguments in the piece could have been been elaborated on. This is not the fault of the journalist, since all journalists have to work within quite tight space restrictions, but what it does mean is that we have to keep on releasing press statements like this so that over time, the populace begins to get a much better idea of the implications of fluoridation. How possible that is in a city like Bristol with a large population remains to be seen, but at least we can try.
Once we really start rolling, press statements and letters to the editor will be augmented by information stalls in town and public meetings, nevertheless, our task is not a minor one, basically we have to introduce people, many of whom are not enthusiastic readers of quite complex scientific findings and arguments, to a easily understandable transcription of the material released in scientific research papers on fluoride. If we don't do that, if we don't counter the various arguments of the pro-fluoride lobby, using sound, academic, referenced findings that are at the same transcribed into cominal garden, understandable English, then the pro-fluoride lobby will win, primarily because of many people's instinctual tendency to follow to the letter those people in authority and in the professions (particularly medicine). The main reason for this blog is to try and do exactly that, to interpret the findings of scientific research papers on the issue and transcribe it into ordinary English.
So therefore, keep reading!

Fluoride and the kidneys

2009-08-25T13:53:00.000-07:00

Well it seems like our campaign in Bristol is off to a great start. Our press officer sent out some 15 press releases today and was interviewed by a local radio station. This almost certainly played a major part in the appearance of a reporter from the Evening Post at our meeting this evening, which was attended by two new members.
Meanwhile, on this blog, I will continue to mention various malefic ways in which fluoride adversely affects our health, actually not malefic at all ('malefic' suggests magical), but totally observable from a rigorous and unbiased examination of the science. Here's a link which will take you to the site from where I obtained this information. Yes it's Fluoride Alert, but take the trouble to gaze past that and have a look at the references.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/kidney/index.html

There is this for example:

"[A] fairly substantial body of research indicates that patients with chronic renal insufficiency [poorly functioning or weakened kidneys in other words] are at an increased risk of chronic fluoride toxicity. Patients with reduced glomerular filtration rates have a decreased ability to excrete fluoride in the urine [thus they can't get rid of the stuff]. These patients may develop skeletal fluorosis [caused by the action of fluoride attacking the collagen which forms the basis of skin and bone tissue] even at 1 ppm fluoride in the drinking water...

The National Kidney Foundation in its ‘Position Paper on Fluoride—1980’ as well as the Kidney Health Australia express concern about fluoride retention in kidney patients. They caution physicians to monitor the fluoride intake of patients with advanced stages of kidney diseases. However, a number of reasons will account for the failure to monitor fluoride intake in patients with stages 4 and 5 of chronic kidney diseases and to detect early effects of fluoride retention on kidneys and bone. The safety margin for exposure to fluoride by renal patients is unknown, measurements of fluoride levels are not routine, the onset of skeletal fluorosis is slow and insidious, clinical symptoms of this skeletal disorder are vague, progression of renal functional decline is multifactorial and physicians are unaware of side effects of fluoride on kidneys or bone."SOURCE: Schiffl H. (2008). Fluoridation of drinking water and chronic kidney disease: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 23:411.

... and if at first you are not convinced, try this:

"In patients with reduced renal function, the potential for fluoride accumulation in the skeleton is increased. It has been known for many years that people with renal insufficiency have elevated plasma fluoride concentrations compared with normal healthy persons and are at a higher risk of developing skeletal fluorosis."SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p140 .

It seems that because of the similarities between kidney disease and certain types of bone disease, the signs of fluoride induced kidney disease may be missed, well at least thats how I interpret this:

"Fluoride is bone-seeking due to its high affinity for calcium phosphate and therefore accumulates in bone. Radiological changes can be quite similar to changes of renal osteodystrophy, and therefore the diagnosis may be missed unless specifically investigated."SOURCE: Bansal R, Tiwari SC. (2006). Back pain in chronic renal failure. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 21:2331-2332.

.... and this:

"The findings of osteosclerosis, osteomalacia and increased bone resorption have been confirmed in experimental fluorosis in animals. It can be seen, therefore, that fluoride bone disease could mimic renal osteodystrophy." SOURCE: Cordy PE, et al. (1974). Bone disease in hemodialysis patients with particular reference to the effect of fluoride. Transactions of the American Society of Artifical Internal Organs 20: 197-202.

.... and it seems that fluoride can actually interfere with the functioning of healthy kidneys:

"In my medical practice I have encountered two cases in which fluoridated water interfered with kidney function. One of these, Miss G.L., 27 years old, had been under my care from July 1966 to September 1969 for allergic nasal and sinus disease. She had a congenital cystic kidney necessitating consultation with a urologist. As shown by its inability to excrete indigo carmine, a dye employed as an indicator of kidney function, the left kidney was not working and was slated for removal. This patient also reported having pains and numbness in arms and legs, spasticity of the bowels, ulcers in the mouth, headaches, and a progressive general disability - symptoms of possible intolerance to fluoride - for about 15 years. Her water supply (Highland Park, Michigan) had been fluoridated since September 1952. On February 1, 1967, I instructed her to avoid fluoridated water for drinking and cooking. Within a few weeks all the above-mentioned symptoms disappeared, and another kidney dye test on June 12, 1967, astonishingly revealed that the left kidney had begun to function again! A follow-up 5 years later revealed that the patient had remained in good health as long as she refrained from drinking fluoridated water."
SOURCE: Waldbott GL, et al. (1978). Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. pp. 155-156.

But don't worry, thats not all, there's plenty more of this stuff relating to fluoride's action on the kidneys on the link given above.
Good reading!!

2009-08-20T10:42:00.000-07:00

M Lakshmi Vani and K Pratap Reddy conducted research on fluoride in India and their report (hyperlink below), published in Fluoride, 33, 2000, concluded that both the brain and the muscles are affected by fluoride, but also, more seriously, that fluoride inhibits those enzymes concerned with free-radical metabolism, energy production and transfer, membrane transport and synaptic transmission.
Now, that might sound like a lot of gobbledegook to many people reading this, and parts of it even befuddle me, but I do understand enough to realise that energy production and transfer means the distribution of energy around the body, essential for health, and synaptic transmission is concerned with the synapses, the electrical nerve impulses that take take place in the nervous system and therefore affect basically everything that the human body does. If therefore the enzymes concerned with those processes are being inhibited by fluoride, thats very bad news for those people ingesting lots of fluoride.
To be fair of course, this study did take place in India, which has extremely high levels of fluoride in the water, someone might argue therefore that these effects are purely the result of high levels of intake of the stuff. But hold on a minute, fluoride is an accumulative poison, which means that it builds up in the body over time and is not easily got rid of. Vani and Reddy's study also specifically states that the brain and muscule accumulate fluoride, which basically confirms what I've just pointed out, that fluoride is an accumulative substance, that it builds up steadily in the body over a number of years. Therefore, it is totally logical to expect the same kind of effects from fluoride seen in India to appear over a period of time in fluoridated areas in the west, and similarly all over the world.
Vani and Reddy's study also distinguishes fluorosis as the result of excessive ingestion of fluoride. Considering that both the teeth and bone are related substances, that means both dental and skeletal fluorosis.
The entire study can be accessed by clicking on this link below, but at 10 pages, it seems fairly convincing to me. Meanwhile, want more science? You bet, just keep on following this blog!

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-1/331-17.pdf

Professor Connett's critique of the York Review

2009-08-18T12:01:00.000-07:00

Professor Paul Connett has written a thorough and very well referenced critique of the York Review, the review which the pro-fluoridation lobby often cites (in a manipulated and edited form) as evidence of the benefits (there aren't any) of fluoride. However, this work of Connett's goes beyond a mere critique of the Review, it also provides an invaluable assessment of the dangers of fluoride with references guiding the reader to all manner of academic studies which reveal fluoride to be highly dangerous and a source of many damaging attacks on human health and the environment. If therefore you want a reliable picture of what real science is trying to tell people about fluoride, you must include this piece in your reading.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/c-york.htm

More evidence of fluoride's effects on behaviour

2009-08-17T14:32:00.000-07:00

I've only quickly looked at this, having just come in from an Indymedia training session. Someone put this on the Bristol Anti-Fluoride Facebook group, but after a couple of minutes I heard enough to risk putting it on here and hoping it's genuine. See what you think, and realise that there are loads of people starting to wake up to the realities of this awful stuff.

http://www.healthsmartsantafe.com/media/1272/Fluoride_-_Dr._Phyllis_Mullenix_23/

Fluorides effects on melatonin

2009-08-15T09:05:00.000-07:00

I've just discovered, while looking through a number of referenced articles for material to put on leaflets and so on, that fluoride affects the pineal gland in the brain. This small gland is a calcifying organ, like teeth and bone, and therefore according to Jennifer Luke (1998) accumulates fluoride. She discovered this while working at a specialist pineal gland research centre at the University of Surrey. She examined 11 corpses and discovered that 'astronomically high levels of fluoride' were present in the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals produced by the pineal gland. On average, the levels of fluoride in the pineal glands of these corpses were around 9000 parts per million (ppm), but one corpse had accumulated a level of fluoride of 21000 ppm. This level of fluoride is the same as, or even higher than, levels of fluoride found in cases of skeletal fluorosis.
But this isn't all. The second part of Jennifer Luke's research revealed that, in Mongolian gerbils at least, fluoride reduces melatonin production. Melatonin is a substance that regulates all manner of processes in the body and there is a lot of work being carried out to discover more about its role in ageing, cancer development etc. However, we do know that melatonin is related to the onset of puberty, in that reduction of levels of melatonin reduces the age at which puberty takes place. In essence it acts like a biological clock.
Luke found that in the gerbils that were treated with high levels of fluoride, puberty occurred earlier. This is interesting in that in the US, which is highly fluoridated, young girls are reaching puberty earlier. Another indication that fluoride may be responsible is the fact that in the famous Newburgh versus Kingston study, in the US, girls in fluoridated Newburgh were reaching puberty some five months earlier than in non-fluoridated Kingston.
If you're wondering where I got this from, then have a look at this:

http://www.thenhf.com/fluoridation_110.htm

See you soon.

Poison in the Water

2009-02-28T08:22:00.000-08:00

Back in the late '90's I embarked on an attempt to become a freelance magazine article writer, with some considerable success I might say. Indeed, I was fortunate enough to have two articles published in The Ecologist, although that was back in the days when Teddy Goldsmith was the editor-in-chief, rather than Zac, who runs it now. Nevertheless, the magazine was a prestigious environmental journal back then, as it is now, and so I had to do quite a lot of detailed research, all properly referenced and so forth. The subject of the first article was fluoridation of the public water supply, which the Conservative government of the time was threatening to introduce. As I researched this subject, I grew increasingly concerned about the effects of fluoridation on public health and on the environment, and, indeed remain so.

Well, anyway, recently me and my partner moved into Bristol having graduated from Bath Spa University in July last year. Being environmentally minded, it wasn't long before I was trying to find out what was going on in Bristol and what environmental groups and other organisations there were in the city. Upon doing so I was suddenly alarmed to find that there were plans afoot to fluoridate the city's water supply.

The main body behind this plan appears to be the city's Primary Care Trust, whose director, Dr Hugh Annett, has stated, according to BBC News Online, that "fluoride was not harmful to general health".

Now I am not sure what studies Dr Annett has examined in order for him to come to this conclusion, but having researched the issue thoroughly, I would say that this view is seriously flawed, since there are plenty of studies which strongly suggest long lasting and serious damage to human health.

Having consulted the evidence I supplied for my article in the January/February edition of The Ecologist, I would like to draw your attention to several key aspects of this issue which are not generally discussed whenever fluoridation emerges into the public arena.

Some people may tell you that there is fluoride in our water already, and that is certainly true since it occurs in natural water supplies in the form of calcium fluoride, usually at a very low level of 0.01 to 1 parts per million (ppm). However, the substance that various authorities intend to put into our water supplies is sodium fluoride, which along with other related substances such as fluosilicic acid is a dangerous by-product of industries such as ceramics, aluminium, fertilizers and the nuclear industry.

This synthetic form of fluoride is an accumulative poison, meaning that it gradually builds up in the body over the years becoming more toxic as the levels of fluoride increase. It is regarded as more toxic than lead, and only slightly less toxic than arsenic (1). The toxicity of this form of fluoride was also acknowledged by Proctor and Gamble, whose spokesman in 1984 stated in a copy of Environmental Action that a small tube of toothpaste "theoretically, at least, contains enough fluoride to kill a small child" (2).

The Belgian company Rhone-Poulenc regulates against the release of fluosilicic acid into the environment, thus considering it as hazardous waste (3). Yet it isn't just European nations that recognise the dangers of this stuff, for in 1971 the US National Research Council warned that American fluoride production had severely damaged plants and livestock within an area extending some 20 miles from the original point of productions. This was in the same year that the American Park Service found excessive levels of fluoride in pine and fir trees, various grasses, shrubs and hay within an area in lying in close proximity to an aluminium and phosphate plant (4).

That industrially-produced fluoride and related substances severely damages human health is evidenced by a range of symptoms, ranging from dental fluorosis (which is, ironically, the very condition that proponents of fluoridation claim to be concerned about), to effects on the bone structure, atopic dermatitis, eczema, gastric distress, headaches, damage to the immune system, the disintegration of collagen (a protein that is an essential component of skin, muscle tissue, ligaments and bone) and hence also arthritis, torn ligaments and wrinkled skin (5). Even more alarming is the fact that fluoride has been shown to cause genetic damage at a level of 1ppm, the level which is usually considered as being safe in fluoridation schemes (6).

Given that such evidence is easily obtained from the scientific literature if one chooses to look for it, fluoridation of the public water supply in my view has to be considered an act of complete lunacy at best, and at worst, arguably, a criminal act. Numerous surveys have shown fluoridation to be totally useless in the treatment of tooth decay, and this includes the 'decayed, missing or filled teeth' index (DMFT) which consistently reveals no significant differences in occurrences of dental caries between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas (7).

So who really benefits from fluoridation? Two American researchers, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, discovered that many of the arguments proposed to the public as evidence of the benefits of fluoridation were initially suggested by scientists working on the Manhattan Project during the race to produce the first atom bomb. These scientists appear to have played a key role in the studies performed on the citizens of Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956, completely without their knowledge or permission, in order to obtain information on the effects of fluoride on human health (8).

Perhaps the most powerful organisation lobbying for fluoridation of the public water supply in the UK is the British Fluoridation Society Ltd, which is, or used to be, associated with the British Dental Association and certainly at one point in time received funds from the government, through the Department of Health (9).

Some of those opposed to fluoridation describe the process, in my view legitimately, as 'mass enforced medication' and thus contrary to the very spirit of the democracy in which we live. I have also heard views expressed that Hitler was interested in fluoridation of the water supply because of its effects on the brain, and therefore the potential to numb the capacity for critical thinking and thus resistance to the Third Reich. Admittedly, this might be just wild speculation, and I have yet to check this out. However, the recent decision by the South Central Strategic Health Authority in Southampton to fluoridate the water supply was made in complete disregard to a 72% level of opposition in its public consultation, and in response to that I would invite you to consider just how free we are in our society, when we aren't even allowed to decide for ourselves what we should and should not put into our own bodies (10).

I could have made this blog much longer, because there is a wealth of information out there on this subject. For those interested, I would point you in the direction of the National Pure Water Association (just google that or NPWA) initially, although there are now many other organisations actively trying to stop this insane idea before its too late. Thankfully, there are many countries throughout Europe who oppose fluoridation alongside a gathering momentum of opposition in the United States. We are therefore not alone in our fight.

(1) Williams and Williams (1984), Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, ppII-4, II-112, II-129

(2) Environmental Action, July/August 1984, p18

(3) Rhone-Poulenc (1994), "Safety Data Sheet for Fluosilicic Acid 21-25%", Section 13, Page 8 (as sent to the National Pure Water Association in 1996)

(4) "Fluorides and the Environment", Earth Island Journal, Earth Island Institute, 300 Broadway, Suite 28, San Francisco, CA 94133-3312, USA

(5) The Physicians Desk Reference (1982), Medical Economics Co., p1879;

Transcript of Testimony of Dr Sheila Gibson and exhibits 165 and 167, 1981; Transcript of Testimony of Dr Peter Wilkinson and exhibits 137, 635, 636, 637. Both transcripts from McColl v Strathclyde Regional Council, Scottish High Court, Edinburgh, 1982;

Koku Eissel Gakkai Zasshi 31(2) 74-89 (1981); Cell Tissue Research 221(2): 421-430 (1981)

(Other references available upon request)

(6) Thirty different references exist for this including: Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 15:703 (1973); Cancer Research 44:938-941 (1984) and Mutagenesis 1:(2) 157-167 (1986)

(7) Gray, A (1987), "Fluoridation: Time for a new baseline", Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, 10:763-764; Hileman, B (1989), "New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits", Chemical and Engineering News, 67:5

(8) Griffiths, J. and Bryson, C. (1997), Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb, New York.

(9) National Pure Water Association campaign leaflet, NPWA, 12 Dennington Lane, Crigglestone, Wakefield WF4 3ET, UK.

(10) BBC News online, 26 February 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7911820.stm