Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Fluoride Debate - A Critique of the ADA's Promotion Of Fluoridation

The Fluoride Debate - A Critique of the ADA's Promotion Of Fluoridation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,242|Likes:
Published by Love For Life
Fluoridation is the practice of adding compounds containing fluoride to drinking water to reduce dental decay. In 1945, trials began in three North American cities: Grand Rapids, Michigan; Newburgh, NY and Brantford, Ontario. In 1950, before any of these trials had been completed, mass fluoridation of the public water supplies was enthusiastically endorsed by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS).

Since this time it has received ringing endorsements from successive Surgeon Generals and as recently as October 1999, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) described fluoridation as one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century. "Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: 'Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries.'" Mortality and Morbitity Weekly Report, 48 (41); 933-940, October 22, 1999. See also a critique of this statement at http://www.fluoridealert.org.

Approximately 60% of US public drinking water systems are fluoridated. In Europe, where more objective scrutiny of the science has taken place, the practice has almost unanimously been rejected and yet according to statistics collected and published by the World Health Organization (WHO), their children's teeth are just as good, if not better, than those of American children - Also see http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se.

One intriguing and disturbing fact about fluoridation is that over 90% of the agent used in US fluoridation schemes is not pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, on which practically all toxicological testing has been performed, but industrial grade hexafluorosilicic acid obtained from the air pollution scrubbing systems of the superphosphate industry (e.g. Cargill Fertilizer). By law, this waste cannot be dumped into the sea but the EPA allows it to be diluted down with our public drinking water. The union representing scientists at the EPA headquarters in Washington, DC has gone on record as opposing this bizarre form of hazardous waste management. See http://www.fluoridealert.org
Fluoridation is the practice of adding compounds containing fluoride to drinking water to reduce dental decay. In 1945, trials began in three North American cities: Grand Rapids, Michigan; Newburgh, NY and Brantford, Ontario. In 1950, before any of these trials had been completed, mass fluoridation of the public water supplies was enthusiastically endorsed by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS).

Since this time it has received ringing endorsements from successive Surgeon Generals and as recently as October 1999, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) described fluoridation as one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century. "Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: 'Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries.'" Mortality and Morbitity Weekly Report, 48 (41); 933-940, October 22, 1999. See also a critique of this statement at http://www.fluoridealert.org.

Approximately 60% of US public drinking water systems are fluoridated. In Europe, where more objective scrutiny of the science has taken place, the practice has almost unanimously been rejected and yet according to statistics collected and published by the World Health Organization (WHO), their children's teeth are just as good, if not better, than those of American children - Also see http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se.

One intriguing and disturbing fact about fluoridation is that over 90% of the agent used in US fluoridation schemes is not pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, on which practically all toxicological testing has been performed, but industrial grade hexafluorosilicic acid obtained from the air pollution scrubbing systems of the superphosphate industry (e.g. Cargill Fertilizer). By law, this waste cannot be dumped into the sea but the EPA allows it to be diluted down with our public drinking water. The union representing scientists at the EPA headquarters in Washington, DC has gone on record as opposing this bizarre form of hazardous waste management. See http://www.fluoridealert.org

More info:

Published by: Love For Life on Feb 27, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

02/27/2011

pdf

text

original

 
            NOTICEIn accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided withoutpermission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting,teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. Thesematerials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, withoutpermission of the copyright owner.               
Compiled by Anita Shattuck Copyright Health Way House, 2000
 
 
  
 
The Fluoride Debate
A Response tothe American Dental Association’s Booklet
Fluoridation Facts
 
 
                      NOTICEIn accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided withoutpermission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting,teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. Thesematerials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, withoutpermission of the copyright owner.          
Compiled By 
Anita ShattuckTelephone: (760) 752-1621E-mail: bakeranita@cox.net
Editor 
Edward Bennett
Published By 
Health Way House403 Marcos StreetSan Marcos, CA 92069
First Edition
February 2001 
 
The Fluoride Debate TABLE OF CONTENTS   
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSBooklet Document,Contents  Page Section - Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 2HISTORY / ENVIRONMENT............................................... 5....................0-1 through 0-5CENSORSHIP ............................................................. 6....................0-6 through 0-7THE FLUORIDE DEBATE................................................... 7BENEFITS ............................................................. 7 Question 1. What is fluoride and how does itreduce tooth decay?.................................... 8..................1-1 through 1-12Question 2. What is water fluoridation?........................ 11..................2-1 through 2-2Question 3. Natural versus adjusted? .......................... 13..................3-1 through 3-2Question 4. More proof of effectiveness needed?........... 14..................4-1 through 4-6Question 5. What happens when discontinued?............. 17..................5-1 through 5-4Question 6. Fluoridation still effective? ........................ 19..................6-1 through 6-4Question 7. Tooth decay still a problem?...................... 21Question 8. Do adults benefit?.................................... 22ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 24 Question 9. Fluoride supplements effective?................. 24............................9-1Question 10. Are alternatives available? ........................ 25..............10-1 through 10-9Question 11. Effects of bottled water? ........................... 27Question 12. Home filters affect fluoride?....................... 28SAFETY ............................................................. 30 Question 13. Harmful to human health? ........................ 30..............13-1 through 13-8Question 14. More studies needed?............................... 34OVERDOSE ............................................................. 35 Question 15. Is total intake a risk?................................ 35..............15-1 through 15-8Question 16. How much is needed?............................... 37...........................16-1Question 17. Body uptake? .......................................... 39...........................17-1DISEASES ............................................................. 41 Question 18. Risk to bone health?................................. 41..............18-1 through 18-4Question 19. What is dental fluorosis?........................... 44............ 19-1 through 19-10Question 20. Can fluorosis be prevented? ...................... 47Question 21. Is fluoride a toxic substance? .................... 48Question 22. Any connection to cancer?......................... 50..............22-1 through 22-2Question 23. Does fluoride inhibit enzymes? .................. 52..............23-1 through 23-2Question 24. Immune function or allergies? ................... 54..............24-1 through 24-2

You're Reading a Free Preview

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