OPINION—Guest Post: Fluoride in our water; it’s not just about our teeth (Part 1)

Image by Bruno /Germany from Pixabay

RANGELY I In April, Rangely voters will vote on fluoridation of our drinking water to continue or to stop it.

Our message is simple from proved sources, fluoride prevents tooth decay when applied topically; fluoride is toxic to our physical health when ingested. It’s about awareness to facts/truth/proved studies, “drinking” Fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, and it is toxic and causes physical disease. Our information is from Fluoride Alert, Wikipedia and other sources as provided (https://fluoridealert.org/issues/sources/). Educate yourselves on truth and vote no for fluoride in our drinking water.

Questions:

What is the body composition of fluorine? Our body is composed of minute amounts of fluorine, a gas, <1% (chart), 0.0026 (mass), 0.0012 (atomic %), is toxic in high amounts; and doesn’t have an essential biological role.

Where does fluoride come from? Fluoride is a naturally occurring element in soil, water and foods; it can be produced synthetically. “Fluoride is not a nutrient.” Fluoride or Fluosilicic Acid (hydrogen fluoride and phosphoric acid) is the toxic chemical, a byproduct of fertilizer plants. Originally the fertilizer plants discharged this acid into the air and waterways, causing air pollution and killing the fish. After litigation, wet scrubber plants were installed capturing the chemical toxins; this toxin or byproduct is now sold to fluoridate our drinking water (https://fluoridealert.org/issues/water/fluoridation-chemicals/)

Who controls Fluoride in drinking water? The EPA sets the safe levels in drinking water, (.07 – 1.9%). Levels can be difficult to control as waters can have natural fluoride already.  *Dr. William Hirzy, Senior VP of EPA’s headquarters stated, “If this stuff gets into the air, it’s a pollutant, if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant…  There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.” (See video of Dr. H and other videos on fluoride at http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/hirzy/)

Bottom line: It’s not safe to fluoridate drinking water — vote no!

We encourage you to do your own research — ask questions in your favorite browser: Is fluoride toxic? How do I avoid fluoride in beverages and food? How do I reduce fluoride exposure? Several sources speak to fluoride being toxic as a poison to our bodies: PoisonPace.com/Fluoride, Fluoride Action Network, Mercola – Take Charge of Your Health, Fluoride Toxicity from Wikipedia, Global Healing Center. The book “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson is interesting reading… Educate yourselves for health!

By Elaine Urie and Lisa Hatch
Special to the Herald Times

10 Comments

  1. Most countries avoid fluoridation like the plague.

    The truth is spreading and people everywhere are learning that fluoride in drinking water is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health. With any drug, we all deserve freedom of choice.
    Consider that 95% of the world rejects fluoridation:
    In the US, 74 % fluoridated (more than the rest of the world combined).
    In Europe, only 3%.
    In the world, only 5%.
    In Canada, now 30% — down from 45% in seven years.
    China, India and Japan have rejected it years ago.

  2. This Guest Post is a list of standard, false, unsupportable anti-fluoridation opinions. Look at the facts:
    Fluoride ions reduce the risk of tooth decay when applied topically (at relatively high levels) and when ingested at low, optimal levels (0.7 ppm) in drinking water. That fact is the reason the major science and health organizations in the world continue to support fluoridation as a safe and effective measure to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems. That fact is also the reason only a few alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like FAN, nyscof and the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News] support the anti-F opinions.
    References, Search On:
    > American Dental Association, Fluoridation Facts
    > 2015 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health
    > Fluoridation and the Scientific Consensus – Cyber-Nook.com

    There is no evidence in over 75 years of study that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water is “toxic and causes physical disease”. The fact is, the authors can’t produce a single scientific reference that proves harm – and can only reference anti-fluoridation sites.

    The description of fluorine as toxic in high amounts is irrelevant. Water (and any other chemical you care to list) is toxic at high amounts. A person binging on fluoridated water would die of H2O poisoning long before the fluoride ions would have any negative effect.

    There is no such thing as a “synthetic” fluoride ion. All fluoride ions come from the same natural sources and are identical when dissolved in water. Claims to the contrary are anti-science nonsense – trying to scare caring citizens into believing any carefully regulated fluoridation chemical is a “toxic chemical, a byproduct of fertilizer plants”.

    The “who controls fluoride” opinion is more fabrication. If water has natural fluoride levels above 0.7 ppm they will not be additionally fluoridated. Hirzy is a long time fluoridation opponent, and his nonsense can apply to any water treatment chemical – “If chlorine gets into the air, it’s a pollutant, if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant…. , but if it goes right into your drinking water system it’s not a pollutant” . This is just another example of irresponsible, disingenuous fear-mongering.

    Bottom line: Fluoridation is a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay in your community. Trust the science and health communities over those who demonstrably fabricate and manipulate the “evidence” to try and support their opinions.

    I encourage you to do your own research – ask questions in your favorite browser:
    – what do health experts say about fluoridation?
    – what do conspiracy theorists say about fluoridation?

    For Additional References, Search On:
    > fluoridation – open parachute
    > American Fluoridation Society
    > cyber-nook fluoridation reviews
    > A Great Public Health Conspiracy – Fluoridation?

  3. The misinformation in this article is so abundant that it is difficult to know where to even begin…….

    1. There are no credible “ proved sources” which support the mounds of false claims and misinformation in this article.

    2. Peer-reviewed science has clearly demonstrated that fluoride prevents dental decay through both topical and systemic (when swallowed) means.

    3. It is a well- established scientific fact that fluoride does, indeed, reduce dental decay. Countless peer-reviewed studies have clearly demonstrated this through the decades.

    4. There is no substance known to man which is not “toxic and causes physical disease” at improper levels, including plain water. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any toxicity of fluoride at the optimal concentration at which water is fluoridated.

    5. Wikipedia is an online source whose information can be changed at will by any reader. It is not a reliable source of scientific evidence. “Fluoridealert” is the biased website of the NY antifluoridationist faction, FAN. There is nothing on this site that can be trusted as being accurate or credible.

    6. Fluoride is not a “naturally occurring element”. It is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. Such atoms cannot “be produced synthetically”.

    7. “Fluosilic [sic] acid is not fluoride. It is but one of countless substances which contain fluoride ions.

    8. Fluorosilic acid, otherwise known as hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) was not produced as a result of any “litigation”. It is a compound containing fluoride ions, produced for very specific purposes, water fluoridation being but one.

    9. The EPA has not set the “safe levels of fluoride in drinking water (0.7 – 1.9%).” First, fluoride in water is measured in parts per million (ppm), not in “%”. Second, the US EPA has set the maximum contaminant level for fluoride (MCL) at 4.0 ppm. This is nearly 6 times the 0.7 ppm at which water is fluoridated. This 0.7 ppm is the total fluoride concentration of naturally occurring fluoride ions and those identical ones added through fluoridation.

    10. William Hirzy is not a “Senior VP of EPA’s headquarters”. He is a long-time antifluoridationist once employed by the EPA, who is now works as the paid lobbyist for the NY antifluoridationist faction, FAN. His unsubstantiated comments are meaningless and irrelevant.

    11. Yes, do your own research. However, do so from respected, reliable sources, not from the list of dubious sources of blatant misinformation provided by the authors of this article, and not by keying into your browser the talking point “questions” designed by the authors to lead directly to these dubious websites.

    For those intelligent readers desiring accurate information on water fluoridation from credible, authoritative sources, a wealth of such information may be found on the websites of the US CDC, the US EPA, the US National Academy of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, to name just a few.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  4. A doctor or a dentist cannot force a drug on ANYONE. They would lose the right to practice if they did.

    A city bureaucrat should not be allowed to do so either. To force everyone to consume a drug, fluoride,
    is immoral and should be illegal.

  5. Basic rule of toxicology: “The dose makes the poison.” Fluoridation is a 20th Century adaptation of a naturally-occurring process. All water has fluoride, the 13th most common element in the Earth’s crust. Adding a little fluoride to bring the concentration level up to the optimal level of 0.7 ppm (mg/L) is effective, safe, and it reduces pain and suffering.

  6. James Reeves posts the same false, unsupportable opinions as the article authors. He comments on most any articles worldwide that mention fluoride or fluoridation, copy/pasting the same handful of false claims over, and over, and over and… ad nauseam.

    No countries “avoid fluoridation like the plague.” There are many reasons some countries don’t employ the public health measure of fluoridation, but those decisions are not based on the false claims that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective promoted by fluoridation opponents. Reeves would understand those reasons if he bothered to read something besides anti-fluoridation propaganda .
    Search on: American Dental Association, Fluoridation Facts
    Pages 29-30 and 102-103

    Reeves has been asked repeatedly to provide any evidence that proves any of his claims, like the most recent – that fluoridation is a drug that is somehow forced on members of the public. He has never provided evidence of proof because it doesn’t exist.
    First, fluoridation is not a drug or a form of medication. The FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a ‘Food for Human Consumption’, not a drug.

    Second, there are no warning labels required on fluoridated bottled water that the fluoride ions could cause any harm whatever — in fact, someone who binged on fluoridated water (bottled or otherwise) would die from overexposure to the toxic H2O molecules long before the fluoride ions would cause any harm.

    Third, adding fluorine to drinking water to protect dental health is no more a medication than is adding chlorine (a poisonous chemical weapon) to drinking water to protect health. All drinking water treatment chemicals are harmful at high exposure levels, they are all diluted to safe, regulated levels in the treated water, and they all help protect the health of citizens who drink the water.

    Fourth, no one forces anyone to drink treated water. Those with any concerns about residual disinfectants, disinfection byproducts, fluoride, iron, lead, etc. are free to take steps to avoid whatever chemicals they choose. However, they are completely irresponsible to demand that safe, effective public health measures be avoided. Reeves has never been able to describe (never mind prove) how anyone forces anyone else to ingest water they don’t want to drink.

    Those responsible for managing water treatment processes would be well advised to carefully evaluate the false anti-F opinions and seek assistance in their decision making process from legitimate scientists and health care professionals.

    There are many good reason the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation, and it is critical for public health to understand those reasons.

  7. James Reeves posts the same false, unsupportable opinions as the article authors. He comments on most any articles worldwide that mention fluoride or fluoridation, copy/pasting the same handful of false claims over, and over, and over and… ad nauseam

    No countries “avoid fluoridation like the plague.” There are many reasons some countries don’t employ the public health measure of fluoridation, but those decisions are not based on the false claims that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective promoted by fluoridation opponents. Reeves would understand those reasons if he bothered to read something besides anti-fluoridation propaganda .
    Search on: American Dental Association, Fluoridation Facts
    Pages 29-30 and 102-103

    Reeves has been asked repeatedly to provide any evidence that proves any of his claims, like the most recent – that fluoridation is a drug that is somehow forced on members of the public. He has never provided evidence of proof because it doesn’t exist.
    First, fluoridation is not a drug or a form of medication. The FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a ‘Food for Human Consumption’, not a drug.

    Second, there are no warning labels required on fluoridated bottled water that the fluoride ions could cause any harm whatever — in fact, someone who binged on fluoridated water (bottled or otherwise) would die from overexposure to the toxic H2O molecules long before the fluoride ions would cause any harm.

    Third, adding fluorine to drinking water to protect dental health is no more a medication than is adding chlorine (a poisonous chemical weapon) to drinking water to protect health. All drinking water treatment chemicals are harmful at high exposure levels, they are all diluted to safe, regulated levels in the treated water, and they all help protect the health of citizens who drink the water.

    Fourth, no one forces anyone to drink treated water. Those with any concerns about residual disinfectants, disinfection byproducts, fluoride, iron, lead, etc. are free to take steps to avoid whatever chemicals they choose. However, they are completely irresponsible to demand that safe, effective public health measures be avoided. Reeves has never been able to describe (never mind prove) how anyone forces anyone else to ingest water they don’t want to drink.

    Those responsible for managing water treatment processes would be well advised to carefully evaluate the false anti-F opinions and seek assistance in their decision making process from legitimate scientists and health care professionals.

    There are many good reason the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation, and it is critical for public health to understand those reasons.

  8. Here are reports by five dentists on the dangers of fluoride. There are many more just like them.

    “The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” – Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2007)

    “If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc.” – Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)
    “When I looked at the research, it was like a knee in the gut. My bias was I thought (fluoridation) was safe and effective because I had not looked at the research.” – Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2016)

    “Fluorides make the germs in the mouth sick, and they’ll make the kid sick, too.” – Dr. David Kennedy DDS MPH, 3rd generation dentist and past president of IAOMT (2016)

    “Ffluoride a known toxin that most people don’t truly need…especially when its ingested via the water supply,” and concludes that with safer alternatives (like toothpaste) available, it’s just not worth the risk.”
    “I don’t think you don’t need fluoride.”
    Dr. Mark Burhenne, DDS of Sunnyvale, California

  9. Even if fluoride were somehow helpful to children’s teeth, EXACTLY why should EVERY ADULT be forced to consume it in every glass of water every day of life?

    Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book,

    “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There”

    It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.

  10. As noted previously, James Reeves can provide no legitimate scientific proof for any of his claims about fluoridation. All he can come up with to try and support his opinions are the opinions of other fluoridation opponents. There is no legitimate scientific evidence to support any of the anti-F opinions.
    That fact is the reason the major science and health organizations in the world (over 100, and their hundreds of thousands of members) continue to recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective public health initiative.
    That complete lack of any legitimate supporting evidence is also the reason the anti-F opinions are supported and promoted by only a few alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like , FAN, nyscof and the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS] , David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News].

    Apparently the only “evidence” JR can provide against fluoridation consists of a publication by fluoridation opponents.
    It’s Interesting that he can’t even reference his own highly biased, un-reviewed source, tCAF, correctly. It is customary for scientists to count only individual, unique references, and not count duplicate referrals to the same reference. There are not “1,200 references (over 80 pages)” as anyone who reads the book can easily discover (unlike JR, I have read it). The majority of those “references” are not to legitimate scientific research anyway.
    Alison Campbell took the time to examine the “references”
    msof (dot) nz/2013/10/references-in-the-case-against-fluoride/
    “Looking only at duplicate references within chapters (not between, although there was some duplication there), I found 389 examples where the same source is given multiple citation numbers: 31% of the total 1244 numbered references in the Endnotes are duplicates. That leaves 855 ‘single’ citations, of which 32 are for newspaper stories, magazines, and newsletters; 25 letters, 20 testimonials/personal communications; and 17 videos. The remainder was for books (45) and various journal articles and reports.”
    “Now, I’d actually expect a number of ‘non-traditional’ sources in a popular science book, one that’s hoping to get people to read more widely on the subject. But it’s the first time I’ve seen TV programs/videos, letters, and newspaper articles described as ‘scientific literature’. (This is not to say anything about the content of the book, because I’ve only started looking through it. But it does show the commenters’ claims to be somewhat hyperbolic.)”
    For context, search on:
    > Science Blogs, Anti-fluoridation crankery? How quaintly 1960s!
    > Alison Campbell, Author at Making Sense of Fluoride

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Guest Post: Fluoride in our water: it's not just about our teeth (Part 2) | Rio Blanco Herald Times | Serving Meeker, Rangely, Dinosaur & Northwest Colorado

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*