Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Fluoride Debate - Letter to Forward....

The Fluoride Debate - Letter to Forward....

Ratings:

5.0

(2)
|Views: 199|Likes:
I wrote this letter to the town council in which I live and to the local newspaper after I read in the paper that the town is planning on putting fluoride BACK into the water! For a time we were fortunate enough not to have 'fluoride' (an industrial waste by-product IN REALITY!) in our water for a short time when the new reverse osmosis water treatment plant went into operation.

Up until I read the newspaper article my only concern was increased levels of chlorine even though it was claimed that less chlorine was being used. My argument with the chlorine is that perhaps less chlorine is being used but if the water is, say, 10 times less contaminated then before and only 5 times less chlorine is being used then there is actually twice as much chlorine in the water then 'need be'. This was/is a source of aggravation as I cannot get officials to reason beyond their 'programming'. Yet the fluoride issue is of greater urgency in my mind as the letter with article will explain. Please follow the links to get a fuller understanding of why fluoride is poisoinous to us. It should be sold to us as beneficial when it is actually a sidious means to control the population as you will see too once you look into it...
I wrote this letter to the town council in which I live and to the local newspaper after I read in the paper that the town is planning on putting fluoride BACK into the water! For a time we were fortunate enough not to have 'fluoride' (an industrial waste by-product IN REALITY!) in our water for a short time when the new reverse osmosis water treatment plant went into operation.

Up until I read the newspaper article my only concern was increased levels of chlorine even though it was claimed that less chlorine was being used. My argument with the chlorine is that perhaps less chlorine is being used but if the water is, say, 10 times less contaminated then before and only 5 times less chlorine is being used then there is actually twice as much chlorine in the water then 'need be'. This was/is a source of aggravation as I cannot get officials to reason beyond their 'programming'. Yet the fluoride issue is of greater urgency in my mind as the letter with article will explain. Please follow the links to get a fuller understanding of why fluoride is poisoinous to us. It should be sold to us as beneficial when it is actually a sidious means to control the population as you will see too once you look into it...

More info:

Published by: Issues that Matter Most on Jun 13, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/01/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Hello and greetings from 'Fire Fly in the Dark'! :D I will not use my real name as I do not want toget into personal debates with individuals on this matter. I prefer to leave my 'face' out of thisand remain anonymous. I hope you understand. However, I will leave my email with you(firefly@peoplestring.com
 
) in case anybody feels the need for clarification on this – whether thatbe clarification of what I have found or of what you have found pertaining to flouride. Due to mykeen interest in public health I felt a moral obligation to offer my knowledge of this topic withyou. I am an avid researcher with a curiosity for knowing the whole and complete story toeverything – especially if it affects us all.The following is an article I copied from the internet. I have studied and researched this topic fora couple of years now. I have plenty of articles and videos on my computer to share if you want tolearn more. I could write a book on the topic of 'flouride' but it will suffice at this time to leaveyou with this shared article for now. I will offer more information in a later issue perhaps(depending on the response to this letter with shared article). At the end of the article I will alsoleave you with a few other websites and Youtube videos for a starting point for additionalresearch on the internet should you wish to look into it further. I hope you find this bothinteresting and informative.=> Fire Fly in the Dark!
BENEFITSQuestion 3.Is there a difference in the effectiveness between naturally occurring fluoridatedwater at optimal fluoride levels and water that has fluoride added to reach theoptimal level?ADA's
Fluoridation Facts
Short Answer
No. The dental benefits of optimally fluoridated water occur regardless of the fluoride'ssource.
ADA's
Fluoridation Facts
Long Answer
Fluoride is present in water as "ions" or electrically charged atoms.
27 
These ions are the samewhether acquired by water as it seeps through rocks and sand or added to the water supply under carefully controlled conditions. When fluoride is added under controlled conditions tofluoride-deficient water, the dental benefits are the same as those obtained from naturally fluoridated water. Fluoridation is merely a supplementation of the naturally occurring fluoridepresent in all drinking water sources.Some individuals mistakenly use the term "artificial fluoridation" to imply that the process of water fluoridation is unnatural and that it delivers a foreign substance into a water supply 
 
when, in fact, all water sources contain some fluoride. Community water fluoridation is anatural way to improve oral health.
28
(Additional discussion on this topic may be found inQuestion 32.) Prior to the initiation of "adjusted" water fluoridation, several classic epidemiological studies were conducted that compared naturally occurring fluoridated water tofluoride-deficient water. Strikingly low decay rates were found to be associated with thecontinuous use of water with fluoride content of 1 part per million.
A fluoridation study conducted in the Ontario, Canada, communities of Brantford (optimally fluoridated by adjustment), Stratford (optimally fluoridated naturally) and Sarnia (fluoride-deficient) revealed much lower decay rates in both Brantford and Stratford as compared to nonfluoridated Sarnia. There was no observable difference indecay-reducing effect between the naturally occurring fluoride and adjusted fluoride concentration water supplies,proving that dental benefits were similar regardless of the source of fluoride.29
Repeat of Question 3.Is there a difference in the effectiveness between naturally occurring fluoridatedwater at optimal fluoride levels and water that has fluoride added to reach theoptimal level?Opposition's Response
Fluoride, as such, is never added to the water. Only silicofluorides (a hazardous wastecontaining many toxic pollutants) are used to artificially fluoridate water, and studies haveproven that they do not effectively prevent tooth decay, they only delay it. (See opposition'sresponse toQuestion 4). Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 timesmore toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Therefore, the effect on the entire body willbe different.This was proven in a study called, "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds." After thisstudy was completed, this statement was made: " ... this meant a daily intake of approximately 40 mg/kg of fluorine from sodium fluoride as compared with 3400 mg/kg fromcalcium fluoride. Therefore, from the standpoint of lethal concentrations and amount of fluorine necessary to cause growth inhibition, wide differences in toxicity of some of thecompounds of fluoride were noted." (See 3-1:
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 
. July1934, page 797). In other words, industrial waste (sodium fluoride) is 85 times more toxicthan natural calcium fluoride. Both of them contain fluoride, but they are totally differentcompounds. (Also see 3-2).Calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote accompanies apoison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Soft waters to which fluoride isartificially added lack this calcium which is present in most waters that contain naturalfluoride."The claim that fluoridation is one of 'nature's experiments' is not valid because the salts putinto the water supply, sodium fluoride or silicofluorides, are industrial products never found innatural water or in organisms. They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to beused as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the formcommonly found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses." 
Dr. C. G. Dobbs,(Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England
.Jump to the
 

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Theresa Warren liked this
fotogal51 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->