Dangers of Fluoride

 

"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Do. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association
The chemicals used for fluoridation are not high purity, pharmaceutical quality products. Rather they are byproducts of aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing and contain a high concentration of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. All proven to be carcinogens.

What is Fluoride?

Fluorine is a highly reactive element which likes to bond with other elements. These combinations are often salts and the fluorine part is called flouride. Hence flourine added to water has commonly become known as flouride. Fluoride occurs naturally in the water in certain areas of the world and people in these areas exhibit mottling of the teeth (dental fluorosis). This often occurs in volcanic environments eg. Naples in Italy, Pilansberg in South Africa.

 The lethal dose of artificial flouride is 50 times smaller than naturally occuring fluoride.
The fluoride naturally found in water is calcium fluoride (CaF2 ) as fluorine has a strong affinity to calcium. When water is artificially fluoridated sodium fluoride (NaF), sodium silicofluoride or hydrofluosilic acid is added. Because calcium bonds relatively strongly with the fluoride ion, the fluoride ions are much less available than in the artificially-produced fluoride. The artificial compounds are more toxic because they are more soluble in water and the fluoride dissociates from the compound. In the body this fluoride becomes the "most exclusive bone seeking element, owing to its affinity for calcium phosphate". Studies have shown that the lethal dose of NaF is approximately 50 times smaller than that of CaF2 (naturally-occurring fluoride).1

Artificial fluoride becomes the "most exclusive bone seeking element" in the body

How much fluoride is too much?

The optimum amount of fluoride is said to be around 1 ppm (parts per million). ppm equals mg per litre ie. at 1ppm one would drink 1 mg of fluoride in 1 litre of water. In South Africa 0.5 - 0.8 ppm is being recommended for our water. This variation takes local conditions, which affect the amount of water one drinks, into account.

Fluoride can, however, be taken in through a number of sources. Cooldrinks and other processed foods made in fluoridated areas contain high amounts. Plants take up fluoride concentrating more in their outer parts with leafy plants containing the most. Tea can contain 160 - 660 ppm averaging at 1 mg per 6 cups. Insecticides sprayed on crops also contain fluoride as can tranquilisers (up to 1 mg per day if taken habitually). Other products containing fluoride which may inadvertantly be swallowed are toothpaste (1000 ppm), mouthwash (4000 ppm) and gel treatments (13000 ppm - half a teaspoon will poison a child)

Bearing in mind that people are individuals with differing sensitivities to substances and differing patterns of consumption it is difficult to recommend a safe level of fluoride for an entire population.

 Each of us already consumes different levels of fluoride in our food and drinks.
How much more is too much?

Does fluoride prevent tooth decay?

Pro- fluoridators say that it does.

The evidence supporting this must be closely examined - often studies have an insufficient sample size, look at age groups where decidous teeth are being replaced by permanent teeth, have no control areas or compare neighbourhoods where other factors influencing decay like nutrition, wealth, oral hygiene etc. differ greatly.

A few studies of the many which show that fluoride does not prevent decay are listed below :

A study has been done of the dental records of 39 207 schoolchildren aged 5 - 17 in 84 areas of the USA. These areas were divided according to not fluoridated, partially fluoridated ( less than 17 years or some of the time ) and fluoridated. No statistical difference was found in decay rates of permanent teeth or percentages of decay free children between the areas. The only group of children which showed a difference were 5 year olds who had less decay in decidous teeth in fluoridated areas. However, by age 6 this advantage disappears leading to the conclusion that fluoridation causes a delay in tooth eruption.2

R Ziegelbecker has made two studies by taking a random sample of all available data on caries (decay ) prevalence. He selected 48 000 12-14 year children from 136 communities in seven countries. No correlation was found between caries or dental health and fluoride concentration.3
Further studies have shown that not only does fluoride not improve dental health but it may cause decay.

A study of 400 000 Indian schoolchildren from 1973 -1993 showed that the higher the fluoride concentration in the water, the more caries ocurred.4

A similar study of 22 000 Japanese school children showed that above 0.4 ppm the decay increased significantly. When the concentration was below 0.2 ppm it also increased . This was thought to be caused by a lack of calcium in the water when fluoride was below 0.2 ppm.5

A study of 26000 Tuscon elementary school children was performed by Cornelius Steelink, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Chemistry, University of Arizona. He compared tooth decay with the fluoride in the water. He found that the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities ocurred. On further investigation it was also found that decay related to low family income, bad diet and oral hygiene and lack of access to dental facilities.6

The decline in DMFT (decayed, missing, filled teeth ) of 12 year old children in the USA declined by 25% from 1974 - 1988. The USA is partially fluoridated. Unfluoridated countries the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland had a decline of 36%, 40%, and 47% respectively in 12 year olds for the same period.7

Some european countries that do not fluoridate their water recorded a greater decline in tooth decay than America where water is mostly fluoridated

What effect does fluoride have on the body ?

Dental fluorosis : A defect in the formation of tooth enamel in children which results in mottled teeth. This is not reversible and remains for life. It is believed that when decay does set in these teeth are difficult to fill. Dental fluorosis can occur from 0.4 ppm.

Skeletal fluorosis : Early symptoms are back stiffness, pains in the bones and joints, sensations of burning, pricking, and tingling in the limbs, muscle weakness, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal disorders, and reduced appetite. X-rays show abnormal calcium deposits in bone and ligaments. Osteoporosis develops in long bones and bony outgrowths may occur. Eventually the victim may be crippled and the vertebrae fuse together.8

Fractures : Researchers at the University of Bordeaux in France studied 3578 people of 65 years or older living in South Western France. They reported that the risk of hip fracture was significantly higher when water fluoride was greater than 0.11 ppm.9

Immune deficiency : Dr. Sheila Gibson from the University of Glasgow, showed that fluoride, at levels comparable to those found in the blood of people living in fluoridated areas, decreased the migration rate of human white blood cells (leukotaxis). [Also inhibits phagocytosis - another defence mechanism ] This adversely affects the immune system. Dr. Gibson found that only a six-hour exposure of white blood cells to as little as 0.1 parts per million fluoride inhibits the white blood cell migration rate by 21 percent. One part per million inhibits the white blood cell migration rate by 85 per cent and 2 ppm has a conclusive 0 percent relative migration rate. This indicates that a continued use of fluoride in the drinking water could result in the total destruction of the immune response.10

Cancer : Cancer researchers have found a 17% rise in 16 yrs of cancers in towns in the USA which are fluoridated in comparison with those which are not. A rise in a rare bone cancer, osteosarcoma, was recorded in men under 20 in fluoridated areas. This was confirmed in studies on rats in 1989 by the US National Toxicology Program.11

General side effects : George L. Waldbott, founder and chief of allergy clinics in four Detroit hospitals, reported treating at least 500 patients who he concluded reacted negatively to fluoridated water. The symptoms included muscular weakness, chronic fatigue, excessive thirst, headaches, skin rashes, joint pains, digestive upsets, tingling in the extremities, and loss of mental acuity. Waldbott used double-blind tests to determine whether fluoride was the cause of symptoms in many of his cases. In each of these patients, the symptoms disappeared when the fluoride was taken away without the patient's knowledge and reappeared when it was given again.12

Other ailments include :13

Destruction of about 60 enzymes including cytochrome C and cholinesterase which handle oxygen.
Genetic change in sperm and other cells.
Downs Syndrome increase of 250% with 70% developing cataracts
Infant mortality, spontaneous abortions and miscarriages increase
Infant birth defects increase
Goitre

How does fluoride effect the environment?

Most processes which take raw materials from the earth's crust and subject them to high temperatures liberate fluorides. Fluorine compounds are involved in the production of aluminium, steel, uranium, beryllium, bricks, cement, pottery, enamel, plastics etc. The aluminium industry produces the highly poisonous by-product fluo-spar from aluminium slag. Hydrogen fluoride and elemental fluorine are also used in the nuclear industry in uranium production. For many of these industries fluorides present the biggest waste disposal problem. This begs the question who will be making profit by selling fluoride to our municipalities which would otherwise be very costly to dispose of ?14

Industries ( mostly steel and aluminium plants ) emmitting fluoride air pollution have been blamed for destroying crops and laming cattle, corrosion of steel bridges and killer smogs . In Donora, Pennsylvania from October 27-31, 1948 a fluoride rich smog from the town's zinc mill killed 20 people, numbers of livestock and pets and caused a further 6000 people to become ill.15

Phosphate fertiliser factories have also caused fluoride damage to animal and plant life in their vicinity. The application of phosphate fertilisers to soil dramatically increases fluorides in the soil which results in uptake by crops we later eat and contamination of drinking water through run off. In the district of Aichi in Japan people were taking in as much as 11mg of fluoride a day from foods they were eating.

What these examples indicate is that we are already exposed to high levels of fluoride. By fluoridating our water we will increase the load, dispersing fluoride further through the environment where it accumulates and finds its way back into our food products. Albert Schatz calculated that fluoride toothpastes alone were adding 116 000 pounds of fluoride to the environment in the 1970's.

 STOP Fluoridation in Your Community - Here's how

A good aritcle  about the dangers of fluoride
Written by: Andreas Schuld

1) I heard fluoride is a poison. Is this true?

Yes. Fluoride is an acute toxin with a rating slightly higher than that of lead.According to "Clinical Toxicology of Commercial products," 5th Edition, 1984, lead is given a toxicity rating of 3 to 4, and Fluoride is rated at 4 (3 = moderately toxic, 4 = very toxic). On December 7, 1992, the new EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for lead was set at 0.015 ppm, with a goal of 0.0ppm. The MCL for fluoride is currently set for 4.0ppm - that's over 350 times the permissable level of lead.Fluoride is also considered toxic waste. It is one of the most bone seeking elements known to mankind. The US Public Health Service has stated that fluoride makes the bones more brittle and the dental enamel more porous

2) How much fluoride am I taking in?

Current intake is estimated to be between 5 and 7 mg/day in "optimally fluoridated" areas. Current fluoride intake is equally divided between drinking water (in fluoridated areas), food, other beverages, and dental products, meaning that even if you don't live in a fluoridated area, fluoride is endangering your health.  Average fluoride content in juices is 0.02 to 2.80 parts per million, in part because of variations in fluoride concentrations of water used in production. Children's ingestion of fluoride from juices and juice-flavored beverages can be quite substantial and a crucial factor in developing fluorosis. Grape juice has been found to contain up to 6.8 mg/L of fluoride, a can of chicken soup up to 4 mg of fluoride. Fluoride can be found in water, toothpaste, mouthwash, Dentist's treatment, fluoride pills, juice, soft drinks, canned food, commercial fruit and vegetables, Teflon and Tefal coated items (such as frying pans), etc. (Note: No "optimal" fluoride intake has ever been scientifically documented.)

3) How much is too much?

As little as 0.04 mg/kg/day has been proven to cause adverse health effects. Retention of 2mg a day will produce crippling skeletal fluorosis in one's lifetime.

4) Does fluoride accumulate in the body?

Yes. Approximately half of each day's fluoride intake will be retained. This is what makes it so dangerous. "The dose makes the poison". All sides agree to the fact that healthy kidneys can eliminate only about 50% of daily fluoride intake. The rest gets absorbed in calcified tissues, like bones and teeth.The National Academy Of Sciences (NAS) stated in 1977 that, for the average individual, a retention of 2mg/day would result in crippling skeletal fluorosis after 40 years. Considering the above mentioned intake level, it is likely that skeletal fluorosis already affects a significant portion of the population.Children,the elderly and any person with impaired kidney function (which includes many AIDS patients), are in the high risk group for fluoride poisoning and must be warned to monitor their fluoride intake. Also at high risk are people with immunodeficiencies, diabetes and heart ailments, as well as anyone with calcium, magnesium and Vitamin C deficiencies.(At the level of 0.4 ppm renal (kidney) impairment has been shown.) (Junco, L.I. et al, "Renal Failure and Fluorosis", Fluorine & Dental Health, JAMA 222:783 - 785, 1972)

5) How does fluoride get into the water?

Most often as a byproduct from the fertilizer, aluminum and other industries, who manage to sell this toxic waste to municipalities nationwide.

6) What about my toothpaste?

Studies show that adults can absorb up to 0.5 mg per "TV ribbon" brushing. Small children, even if pea-size amount is used, will still absorb the same, more if the child is younger and has less swallowing control skills. Half a tube of toothpaste can kill a child. Current content of sodium fluoride in toothpaste in Canada and the US is up to 0.4% = 4000 ppm (parts per million). Bubblegum-flavored dentifrice obviously is especially inviting for children. Since April 1997 all toothpaste in the US must carry a warning label, advising parents what to do if their child swallows more than the pea-size brushing amount. Wholesale containers carry the poison symbol of skull and crossbones.

7) What about the fluoride treatment at the dental office?

Fluoride treatments can contain between 10,000 to 20,000 ppm. There is no regulated dose requirement. There are cases known of children dying in the dentist's chair.(New York Times, Jan. 20, 1979: "$750,000 Given in Child's Death in Fluoride Case" about a three year old child killed by fluoride treatment in the Dentist's office.)

8) How can my dentist say that it's good for my teeth?

By receiving limited training on the subject and being misinformed on purpose by the ADA and CDA. Figures in ADA pamphlets contain an incredible amount of untruths, and outright fraudulent claims. If you check the references cited and numbers listed in your local libraries, you will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion. Some fluoridation endorsements are listed which prove fraudulent when checked. Most dentists never bother to take the time to study both sides of the fluoride issue. Consider this statement by the ADA in 1979: "Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non-participation is overt neglect of personal responsibility."  There are NO reliable studies, conducted under ethical research guidelines, which prove the benefits of fluoride supplementation. The FDA admits to this! There are more than 500 peer-reviewed studies documenting the adverse effects.Furthermore, dentists make higher profits in fluoridated areas and through fluoride use. As a result of mottled enamel, many more restorative measures are necessary, such as braces, bridges, etc. For the ADA/CDA, this condition is a real money-maker, because cosmetic dentistry is far more lucrative than cavity repair. In addition, there is an abundance of evidence in the scientific literature indicating that fluoride causes a delay in the normal shedding of the "baby" teeth, and their replacement by permanent teeth. This delay has been shown to increase the number of children with malpositioned teeth. Again, braces are far more expensive than fillings.(Note: In a 1972 report by the American Dental Association, it is stated that dentists make 17% more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.)(Douglas et al., "Impact of water fluoridation on dental practices and dental manpower", Journal of the American Dental Association;84:355-67, 1972)

In 1993 the National Academy of Sciences warned, "dental fluorosis...might be more than a cosmetic defect if enough fluorotic enamel is fractured and lost to cause pain, adversely affect food choices, compromise chewing efficiency, and require complex dental treatment."

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity.

The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is no proof of safety or effectiveness. The FDA does not consider fluoride an essential nutrient.

Four major studies involving 480,000 children (US, 39,000; Japan, 22,000; India, 400,000; Tucson, 29,000) comparing fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas showed no significant difference in decay rates. Proven is that a higher intake of fluoride will actually cause MORE cavities, especially for children with low dietary calcium intake.

9) Is it true that fluoride can cause cancer?

Yes. In 1990 fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicology Program.(Maurer, et. al.,"Fluoride an equivocal carcinogen. J.National Cancer Institute 82, 1118-26, 1990)

In 1992 further studies by the New Jersey Department of Health confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males.(Cohn, Perry D. Ph.D. "An Epidemiological Report on Drinking Water" Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma in Young Males, New Jersey Department of Health, Environmental Health Service, Trenton NJ November 8, 1992)

In 1997 there were more than 80 references available, linking fluoride to cancer.

10) Is it true that fluoride can increase hip fractures?

Yes. According to Dr. J. William Hirzy (vice-president of the NFFE LOCAL 2050, the union representing all scientists at the EPA, Washington, D.C.) there have been 5 epidemiological studies done since 1990, in three different countries, all showing a higher increase in hip fractures in fluoridated communities.

Some studies have indicated a 87% higher risk of hip fractures to the elderly in areas where water fluoridation was even below 1.5 ppm.

11) Is this also true for Osteoporosis and Arthritis?

Yes, most definitely. There are also studies proving that fluoride toxicity affects fertility.

12) Does it cause brain damage?

Yes. Fluorides lower the intelligence capacity of humans, with children, again, especially susceptible to early fluoride toxicity. IQ levels were significantly lower than children not exposed to fluorides in all age groups listed. (According to Dr. Hirzy, 5 to 19 points lower!)(Li,X.S.,Zhi,J.L.,Gao,R.O.,"Effects of Fluoride Exposure on the Intelligence of Children", Fluoride;28:182-189, 1995)

Further studies proving the neurotoxicity of fluoride in rats have also been conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullinex and her co-workers.(Note: this also explains a recent University of South Florida study relating fluoride intake during pregnancy to the yearly 1% increase in learning disabilities found in children...)Studies proving that fluorides transfer through the placenta are well known.(Meanwhile, Dr.Weil, Internet's Health Guru, advocates fluoride supplements for pregnant woman in his book "8 Weeks To Optimum Health"...)

There are also several studies linking aluminum with fluoride, showing that the bioavailability of aluminum is increased in the presence of fluorides, causing aluminum in the brain to double in treated animals. According to an October 28, 1992 Wall Street Journal Article about a study conducted by Varnier JA, et al.: "Rats fed the highest doses developed irregular mincing steps characteristic of senile animals.... Post mortem examination of the rat brains disclosed 'substantial cell loss in structures associated with dementia -- the neo-cortex and hippocampus'."(Note: Alzheimer's Desease, first diagnosed by Dr. Alois Alzheimer in 1907, is now the #4 killer for every person over 60 in the US. Every 2nd person over 70 will develop Alzheimer's.)

13) How wide-spread is this problem?

The US Public Health Service estimates that 1 in 5 children have dental fluorosis. (By the way, all native reservations in the US have mandatory fluoridation, resulting in very high incidents of dental fluorosis in those areas.) Realistic figures are as high as 80% in some areas in the US and as high as 69% in Canada. Studies have been conducted directly linking bone tissue damage to children with dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the first visible sign that destructive effects of fluoride are also occurring in bone, connective tissue, immune and enzyme functions.

14) If all this is true, how can all this be possible, sanctioned by government?

In 1939 a dentist named H. Trendley Dean, DDS, examined water from 345 communities in Texas. Dr. Dean worked for the U.S Public Health Service (PHS). He determined that high concentrations of fluoride in the water corresponded to a high incidence in mottled teeth. To many dentists this provided an answer to the problem of mottled teeth they saw in some of their patients. Dr. Dean also unexpectedly found a lower incidence of dental cavities in communities having about 1 ppm fluoride in the water supply. Among the native residents of these areas about ten percent developed the very mildest forms of mottled enamel, usually described as "beautiful white teeth". However, Dean used a technique known as "selective use of data", using data from 21 cities while completely disregarding data from 272 other locations which show an almost complete lack of correlation when plotted.(J.Colquhoun;International Symposium on Fluoridation, Porte Alegre, Brazil, September 1988)

Meanwhile, a number of court cases were being launched due to fluoride contamination, mainly by the aluminum industry. In addition the Manhattan Project, the secret atomic bomb project, was in a big race to build the world's first A-bomb. A pollution incident of great magnitude occurred at a factory in New Jersey (DuPont) producing millions of tons of fluoride for the project. A major "negative PR" problem was emerging, threatening the Manhattan Project and the secrecy around it.In 1945, supposedly as a result of Dr. Dean's discovery, the PHS planned to conduct a 10-year study of fluoridation in two cities. Grand Rapids, Michigan was chosen as the city for artificial fluoridation and Muskegon, Michigan was the non-fluoridated city for comparison and cavity rates were to be compared. In 1950, after only five years into the project, due again to pressure exerted from the atomic bomb program, public health officials started to campaign for fluoridation. The campaign was based on the fact that fluoridated Grand Rapids had shown some decrease in cavity rate. Meanwhile there was also a decrease in cavity rate shown in non-fluoridated Muskegon. However, Muskegon was dropped from the  study for unknown reasons. After the project was completed, only the Grand Rapids result was released and a major PR campaign promoting fluoride use started.

15) How about the effects on the environment?

Many studies have been conducted  examining the adverse effects of fluoride on the eco-system. In 1995, the CEPA identified the now closed Brunswick Mining and Smelting Fertilizer Plant in Belledune, NB as having the largest discharge of fluoride to the aquatic environment in Canada. Toxicity to marine bacteria and impaired reproduction effects were demonstrated... Agriculture Canada (1976) found that 25 out of 36 cattle located on several Cornwall Island farms in the Saint Regis Quebec region displayed real or potential symptoms of chronic fluorosis. A subsequent study of livestock in this region reported stiffness and inflamed leg joints, dental fluorosis, osteosclerosis, osteonecrosis and bone deformations.Many serious toxic and detrimental effects to plants and animal species have been documented, salmon populations in particluar being in the high risk category.

IT'S A TOXIC WASTE! Think about it - day after day, millions of tons of fluoride are "legally" released into the environment, especially in fluoridated areas. Showers, toilet flushes, lawn sprinkling...As a result of the original Manhattan Project logic, industries, now mainly the fertilzer and aluminum industries, have a perfect way to release their hazardous and toxic waste. It would cost up to $US 8,000 per truckload to dispose of this  hazardous waste. At a rate of emissions into the air of 155,000 tons/year, in addition to an estimated 500,000 tons of emissions into lakes, ocean, rivers (not counting fluoridation) - this adds up to savings of  US 6 Billion dollars/year to the industry! (US figures)

16) What do I need to do? How can I protect myself?

If you live in an area with fluoridated water, drink distilled water. You can have it delivered or buy it at Supermarkets. You can also buy distilling or reverse osmosis systems for home use which is the only way for taking fluoride out of the water. Also, eliminate any Teflon of Tefal coated cookingware, for scratches in the surface will release PTFT, another toxic fluoride compound. Avoid fruit juices coming from fluoridated areas. All non-organic grape products are especially high in fluoride content due to the number of fertilizer and pesticide applications. Wine can contain up to 3 ppm fluoride. Avoid using any toothpaste or mouthrinse containing fluoride. There are many alternatives on the market. A recent store survey in Vancouver showed over 20 different brands.

In addition, lobbying is required to demand fluoride content labeling on commercial products. Steps to educate the public about this proven health risk and fluoride's toxic properties must be taken immediately and health advisories issued.  Water fluoridation should cease immediately and steps should be taken to reduce fluoride in food, drink, and dental products.

If you live in a fluoridated area, take action to stop the addition of fluoride into the water supply. Individuals ARE  successful in educating legislators about the issue and have  helped pass laws to stop the addition of fluoride into the water supply. (Notably Darlene Sherrell, who not only discovered that the original Roholm/Hodge safety figures had been mis-calculated and then persisted with the help of Dr. Bob Carton and Senator Bob Graham in her efforts to get the National Research Council (NAS/NRC) to adopt the new figures - which had even been corrected by Hodge himself in 1979 - but also managed to change the law in Michigan, giving people the right to vote on fluoridation. Michigan was the first state in the US to repeal their mandatory fluoridation law

Four major studies involving 480,000 children (US, 39,000; Japan, 22,000; India, 400,000; Tucson, 29,000) comparing fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas showed no significant difference in decay rates. Proven is that a higher intake of fluoride will actually cause MORE cavities, especially for children with low dietary calcium intake.

 

 

 

How We Got Fluoridated

 

By Philip Heggen ... April 1, 1999

 

 

Preface

 

Throughout the world, and from the beginning, virtually all living creatures have been exposed to fluoride. It's nothing new. Fluoride is one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust - cumulative and toxic to all forms of life at remarkably low dosage.

 

Sixty years ago U.S. dental researchers had identified areas in sixteen states where disfiguring mottled enamel was a serious problem. Thirty years ago, the World Health Organization had noted that high concentrations of fluoride are found in areas of every continent and that dental fluorosis is a problem from Finland to South Africa and from England to Japan.

 

But fluoride affects more than just developing teeth. Even dinosaurs have ingested water and vegetation contaminated by fluoride from volcanic gases and ash - and suffered the consequence in terms of painful arthritic effects.

 

Industrial mining and manufacturing, like mini-volcanoes, bring up fluorides from the earth into the biosphere, with similar effects on human communities. In the past century or so, man has spawned these "mini-volcanoes" without fully understanding the consequences. Modern well-drilling equipment has provided much needed water from deep within the earth - and this, too, has resulted in fluoride poisoning. This has not been a conspiracy in the usual sense of the word ... but rather, a colossal blunder.

 

"The problem is enormous, unbelievable," says Andezhath Susheela of the Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation in Delhi, India. She has been unraveling the national story for a decade during which time her estimate of the number of people leading "a painful and crippled life" from fluorosis has risen from one million to 25 million and now to 60 million - six million of them children - spread across tens of thousands of communities. "In some villages three-quarters of the population are seriously affected."

 

This paper is a chronicle and overview spanning the history of modern industry. It shows the rise of fluoride pollution and how economic motives have overridden concerns for human health. We take you back to the early metal refinery pollution in Europe and show the record of lawsuits for fluoride damage. This reveals the basis for American industry's fear of being shut down by lawsuits. We also document the steps taken by industry to divert public attention away from fluoride air pollution. This chronicle shows that the origin of water fluoridation is in these fluoride fears of industry - not in concern for children's teeth.

 

During the 1940s, the development of the atom bomb required handling huge amounts of fluoride in the production of nuclear weapons. Documented here is a major safety study by the Atomic Energy Commission. As a result of this extensive study, the federal government became involved in the suppression of information about fluoride poisoning. Formerly restricted government documents now made available under the Freedom of Information Act have filled in some blank spaces in this chronology.

 

Thus, both big government and big industry, for different reasons, became involved in the cover-up. The succeeding collaboration of industry and government is documented in detail.

 

The difficulties in maintaining a deception over an extended time are significant. This is especially true with an ongoing issue like fluoridation. A compounding of dishonest statements and actions is required to maintain the original deception. At a certain point, the truth of the situation becomes obvious. These consequences are now coming to bear on the defenders of fluoridation. The Epilogue deals with this coming confrontation.

 

Introduction

 

During the last half of the Nineteenth Century, ore refineries and chemical plants were introduced in Europe. In these early years of the industrial revolution came serious air pollution problems. Iron and copper refineries or smelters were the worst culprits. Fumes and fallout from their smokestacks caused obvious injury and sickness to people, livestock, crops, and other vegetation in the surrounding communities and countryside.

 

Unknown in the early years of the industrial revolution, the most deadly chemical killer in this effluent was hydrogen fluoride (HF), now known to be toxic in a concentration of parts per billion. The term fluorine, rather than fluoride was then commonly used in referring to the air pollutant. Hydrogen fluoride was itself first identified in industrial emissions after the turn of the century, but its effects had been clearly seen in the areas surrounding these industrial polluters.

 

Early European Chronology

 

1855 Smelters in Freiburg, Germany first paid damages to neighbors injured by fluorine emissions.

1893 The smelters in Freiburg paid out 880,000 marks in damages for fluorine contamination injuries and 644,000 marks for permanent relief.

1900 The very existence of the smelting industry in Germany and Great Britain is threatened by successful lawsuits for fluorine damage and by burdensome laws and regulations.

1907 A disease of cattle that had been endemic around Freiburg for some 20 years was identified as fluorine poisoning from the smelters.

1912 Fluorine poisoning of cattle was reported near a superphosphate plant in Italy. During the 1890s there had been numerous complaints of damage to vegetation around superphosphate fertilizer plants.

1918 The cattle around a Swiss aluminum plant became poisoned. Aluminum smelters, utilizing the fluxing agents flourite (49% fluorine), and cryolite (54% fluorine), were to become major sources of fluorine air pollution.

 

Part I   Overview

 

In America, the term fluoride replaced fluorine in referring to air pollution - as fluorine rarely occurs uncombined with other elements, due to its extremely high reactivity. This is the basis for its toxic effect on virtually all biological systems.

 

The many successful lawsuits for airborne fluoride damage in Europe were seen as a threat to American Industry. This feared risk produced a strong incentive which resulted in attempts to suppress the facts and sidetrack public concerns about hydrogen fluoride air pollution.

 

As American smelting industries expanded and smokestack emissions increased, the threat of legal action and regulatory controls worried these industries. Bringing about changes in people's attitude about fluoride was seen as critically important . The original strategy was to get people to believe that water was the chief source of fluoride, and that other sources were unimportant.

 

In 1931, this camouflage began with the announcement by Alcoa's chief chemist, H.V. Churchill, that the mottled teeth of children in the Pittsburgh area had been caused by fluoride in the water. Pittsburgh, of course, was the location of Alcoa's aluminum smelters. This trick is documented in the Pittsburgh Press for May 31 under the headline, "Scientist Here Finds Secret Poison Which Blackens Teeth of Children". Churchill's announcement left the public with the idea that it was only fluoride in the water that caused "mottling". Today the blame has shifted to toothpaste.

 

Alcoa's deception had the effect of covering up major airborne fluoride damage in Pittsburgh. The success of this ploy resulted from the public's acceptance of Churchill's expert opinion as unbiased, when it was strongly biased. It does not take an expert to see the circumstances pointing to bias. The tendency of many people to quickly and uncritically accept expert opinion has been utilized as a propaganda device. In fact, it was to become the principal tool and stratagem of the fluoridation campaign. If one looks through profluoridation literature, it is found to be full of authoritarian endorsements (expert opinion), but no hard evidence.

 

Later, it would be claimed that people need fluoride, and that fluoride should be added to the water supply so everyone could get it. This strategy was to provide an enormous outlet for waste fluorides. Shaping people's attitudes about fluoride had now begun and was to continue unabated for seven decades. Since the mid-1960s, television advertising has been intensively used to achieve this purpose, with $30 million spent on advertising Crest fluoridated toothpaste in just one year.

 

In 1931, it became widely known that mottled tooth enamel is caused by fluoride poisoning of the tooth buds while the enamel is being formed. Fluoride in the bloodstream reaches the tooth buds before the teeth erupt through the gums. Fluoride in the drinking water does not directly contact the tooth buds. For this reason dental fluorosis is clear evidence of systemic fluoride poisoning. Also, dental fluorosis is often caused by hydrogen fluoride in toxic air pollutants. It can likewise be caused by foods prepared from crops grown in fluoride contaminated soils and air.

 

Along with the shaping of public attitudes, industry influenced key government agencies. The US Public Health Service (USPHS), and later, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cooperated, to a surprising degree, in the economical disposal of industry's toxic fluoride waste materials. As a result of agency appointments and hiring of industry-funded scientists, these government agencies became closely identified with the motivations of industry. In the process, they have had to ignore serious adverse effects on human health - from fluoride as well as a number of other toxic chemical compounds. In the easy choice of catering to industry, these Agencies incrementally abandoned their own basic charge of promoting human and environmental health.

 

This identification with industry was true regarding air pollution, and later epitomized in water fluoridation, with the USPHS eventually setting the goal of mandatory national fluoridation by the turn of the century. EPA later rationalized this goal by calling it an efficient way to recycle waste.

 

As a consequence of the realignment of the Public Health Service into a strong supporter of fluoridation, research in academic institutions also came under the control of big industry on this feared pollution issue. Control over research in academic institutions was brought about through the giving and withholding of government grants and research contracts. All government support of academic institutions was channeled through the industry biased Public Health Service. These pressures and incentives grew as industry grew. Applied relentlessly over the years and decades, the fluoride industry's influence on academia has now spanned most of the 20th century.

 

By way of economic incentives the American Dental Association (ADA) also became a prominent and active promoter of fluoridation. This came about through the influence of a small clique pretending to speak for all dentists. While the public has tended to see ADA as an unbiased professional organization, it is, in fact, a trade group, with predictable motivations. The role of ADA in fluoridation has been that of an opportunist. It has received ongoing financial support from the USPHS, itself a virtual arm of big industry. ADA alleged an ethical role on the part of dentists based on their claim that fluoridation would reduce dentists' income. But expensive cosmetic dentistry required to hide the effects of fluorosis actually increased the incomes of dentists. As a result, the dental trade association has become an ideal front for big industry in their scheme to dump fluoride waste products at a profit.

 

Influencing the US medical community was also of crucial importance to the success of the fluoridation scheme. Thousands of American Medical Association members came to be dependent on grants from the National Institutes of Health (a part of the USPHS) for most of their support. A majority of medical schools also came to recognize their increasing dependence on government grants via USPHS. One effect of this influence was minimizing the subject of fluorosis in medical texts. Consequently, the majority of dentists and physicians know very little about chronic fluoride poisoning.

 

Industry's unstated motivation behind water fluoridation was to find an economical means for disposal of their accumulating fluoride waste products, and to avoid claims for compensation by workers harmed by airborne fluoride on the job. USPHS supports this industrial strategy while at the same time actively assisting industry in a cover-up of their fluoride air pollution problems. Today, through regional and county health offices, USPHS influences city councils to override previous ballot decisions against fluoridating public water, thereby subverting the basic principles of democratic government, as well as compromising public health.

 

With such pervasive influence of industry on government, academia, dentistry and medicine, it soon became political suicide for professionals to challenge or even question the fluoridation of drinking water. Individuals who had the boldness to do so soon found that their jobs were in jeopardy. Even outspoken dentists, the supposed experts, were ostracized from their trade organization (ADA) and saw their professional careers threatened. The ADA and their industrial backers were clearly out to destroy the opposition.

 

Of critical importance to industry was a complete knowledge about the chemical hazards associated with fluoride. Initially concerned with the fluoride-based refrigerant, freon, the Kettering Laboratory was founded in 1925 with gifts from Ethyl Corporation, General Electric, and DuPont and supported by other concerned industries. Kettering was to investigate chemical hazards in American industrial operations. It was Kettering policy to keep such research away from public view.

 

Since 1925, the great bulk of research in America having to do with fluoride poisoning has been financed by the concerned companies. It has been kept secret because it was done to protect the companies who funded Kettering. The Director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati, Dr. Robert Kehoe, was also Medical Director of the Ethyl Corporation, and consultant to the Atomic Energy Commission - as well as the Division of Occupational Medicine of the USPHS. All three of these affiliations were with those having strong motives for suppressing the dangers associated with fluorides.

 

Fluoride research sponsored by industry was done by Kettering Laboratory so that it could be tightly controlled. Research supported by the federal government was channeled through the Public Health Service, which had become a virtual arm of big industry. With its strong bias, USPHS influenced the direction of fluoride investigations as well as what got published. It even censored reports after their publication. In this way, the concerned industries came to control nearly all of the fluoride research originating in the this country.

 

Research conducted in European countries and in Asia has not been subjected to such constraints. Their research has more starkly exposed the dangers of fluoride. This has led to the outlawing of fluoridation in 98% of Europe and clearly verifies the bias in American fluoride research. Since the classic work on Fluorine Intoxication published by Kaj Roholm in 1935 and 1937, the foreign medical literature has contained ongoing research reports on a wide variety of serious disorders stemming from fluoride poisoning. The same is true of the US veterinary literature. But our own medical literature suffers from the secrecy imposed on Kettering research and from the bias and censorship brought to bear by the Public Health Service.

 

Part I   Chronology - 1909 to 1938

 

1909 Alcoa was now producing 16,500 tons of aluminum per year and releasing 132 tons of hydrogen fluoride air pollutants per year.

1909 Pennsylvania law prohibits use of fluoride compounds in food - including water.

1916 The National Research Council, a subgroup of the National Academy of Sciences, is organized as an independent, non-government group. It would provide a close liaison between the USPHS and American Industry, and came to represent industry through the affiliations of its membership. Government agencies came to pass on their chartered responsibilities by taking recommendations from NRC, instead of using their own professional staff. Decisions affecting industry came to be handled this way, to the great advantage of industry.

1922 Aluminum cookware is introduced in the US. Aluminum production increases, along with production of the toxic waste product, sodium fluoride.

1925 The Kettering Laboratory is set up by an industrial consortium to do contract research work on chemical hazards in industrial operations. The research findings are hid from public view.

1925 Andrew Mellon becomes US Treasurer. The USPHS is under the direct jurisdiction of the Department of the Treasury. Andrew Mellon was a founder and major stockholder of Alcoa, the main producer of toxic fluoride waste materials. During the 1920s there was growing concern abroad, and in our own Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Mines over fluoride as a public hazard - but not in the Public Health Service. During this decade, no mention of fluoride can be found in the official USPHS publication, Public Health Reports. Also in 1925, the Mellon Institute was founded by Andrew and Richard Mellon, former owners of Alcoa.

1930 The world's first major hydrogen fluoride fog disaster occurred in the Meuse Valley, Belgium. Six thousand people became violently ill, and sixty died in this episode. Many cattle were also killed. The Danish scientist, Kaj Roholm studied the aftereffects of this episode and the subject of fluorine poisoning. His classic work, Fluorine Intoxication, published in London and Copenhagen, is unique to this day, as it examined in detail substantial numbers of human subjects poisoned by a well defined and dated episode.

1931 A considerable portion of Kettering Laboratory's facilities are dedicated to the study of fluorides, initially with investigations into Freon 12 gas. Under contract, the studies are not released to the public. Hydrogen fluoride air pollution from Alcoa's Pittsburgh smelters were causing mottled teeth in the area's children. Alcoa's chief chemist ignores this known relationship and announces that fluoride in the drinking water is responsible. That successful camouflage was to be used later as a reason to fluoridate water supplies of cities with the worst fluoride air pollution, thereby diverting attention from air pollution

1931 USPHS dentist, H. Trendley Dean, is dispatched by Alcoa founder, Andrew Mellon, to certain remote towns in the Western US where water wells have a naturally high concentration of calcium fluoride. Dean's mission would be to find out how much calcium fluoride young children could tolerate before there was obvious visible damage to their teeth.

1933 Dr. Lloyd DeEds, Senior Toxicologist with the Department of Agriculture published a sixty page review on chronic fluorine poisoning (Medicine 12:1-60 (Feb)1933): "Only recently, that is within the last ten years, has the serious nature of fluorine toxicity been realized, particularly with regard to chronic intoxication. It is from the viewpoint of chronic intoxication that fluorine is of importance to the public health." He discussed poisoning of vegetation and livestock near aluminum plants; and pointed out that superphosphate plants were annually pouring 25,000 tons of fluorine into the air and adding 90,000 tons to the topsoil each year.

1935 From now on, and in the face of growing fluoride air pollution, the USPHS described "mottling" as a "water-borne disease", and began investigating the extent of the disorder in the US.

1938 H. Trendley Dean and the USPHS conduct the "Galesburg-Quincy" study, one of the two studies upon which water fluoridation rests (the other is the "21 cities" study, done in 1939 and 1940). On these two studies rested the "fluorine-dental caries hypothesis" which was to be tested in the experiments at Grand Rapids, Michigan, Newburgh, New York, and Brantford, Ontario.

Note: These studies were later examined by non-government expert statisticians and found to be statistically flawed, as well as having a significant number of other serious problems, making the studies worthless. (see Fluoride the Aging Factor by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, p. 119-123. also: Fluoridation Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials, by Philip R. N. Sutton, DDSc, LDS, Senior Research Fellow, Dept of Oral Medicine and Surgery, University of Melbourne, in collaboration with Sir Arthur B. P. Amies, Dean of the Dental School, University of Melbourne) It is interesting to note that Dean visited Galesburg earlier on a mottled enamel survey in 1934 and listed Galesburg as a city that "lacked the requisites for quantitative evaluation".

 

 

PART II

 

A Federally Funded, National Strategy Supporting Big Industry

 

It was a quirk of fate that the early industrial secrecy surrounding fluoride in America was to be strongly reinforced by the federal government for reasons of national security. Fluoride was the key chemical compound in the production of the atomic bomb, and extensive government information on the serious health risks of fluoride was kept secret both during and after World War II. This helps explain how the fluoride industries were able to get virtually total cooperation from government agencies in covering up industry's fluoride pollution.

 

When the concept of water fluoridation surfaced around 1939, it was quickly seized by big industry and tu