Poisoning our Water

Fluoridate Water is back in the news.

I think the concept of forcing flouride on people through the water system is twisted.

When a panel of scientists last year reported that high fluoride levels could damage the tooth enamel of children and weaken adult bones, opponents of fluoridation cited the finding as more proof of the chemical’s danger.

But the National Academies’ National Research Council focused on the relatively small number of Americans who drink water with naturally occurring fluoride levels that are about four times the recommended concentration. The report didn’t examine the risks or benefits of lower-level artificially fluoridated water.

Nevertheless, the council’s report prompted the American Dental Assn. to recommend that reconstituted baby formula be made with fluoride-free water to reduce the risk of enamel fluorosis, which could permanently stain developing teeth. The group continues to support fluoridation of drinking water.

That kind of scientific nuance, filtered through city council debates and voter initiatives — and now the Internet — has kept fluoride out of some water systems. Still, about 170 million Americans, about two-thirds of the population, drink from public systems with the recommended amount of fluoride.

Good to hear it’s still being fought.

2 thoughts on “Poisoning our Water

  1. 2006 USA National Research Council study had indicated there was no safety margin between the amount of fluoride supposed to protect teeth and the amount that might damage organs.

    My opnion after researching fluoride is: Fluoride chemical pushers lack a science- based rationale for their claims of effectiveness and safety.
    So do not accept ‘endorsements’ from so called ‘authorities’ in place of scientific evidence, I will give an example why.
    The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released a report Dec 17th 07 which examined data from 2002 Child Dental Health Survey, which covered 136,000 children aged four to 15 from all sates and territories except New South Wales.
    This report confirmed ‘Queensland – along with the ACT and Tasmania – had the worst record for rotton permanent teeth among children.’ which amazingly was used by fluoride pushers as justification to fluoridate Queensland, well why ? when Tasmania with 56 years of fluoridation, 48 fluoridation plants for half a million people, also has the worst permanent teeth in the country among children. Is this not a classic example of the in-effectiveness of fluoridation?
    This type of endorsement used by so called ‘authorities’ pushing fluoridation of the remaining 31% of Australia is also termed ‘sin of omission’ as they selectivly ignore very relevant facts. Be aware, be a free thinker, beware of ‘sin of omission’ endorsements and always look for the raw data before accepting fluoride chemicals as benificial and safe, as this has never been scientifically proven, quite the contrary.
    It is conceded by leading dental researchers that fluorides actions appears to be primarily topical. (Journal of American Dental Association July 2000) as well as the Centre for Disease Control fluorides “actions primarily are topical for both adults and children”(MMWR Weekly October 22 1999) and 2002.

  2. Thanks. And Exactly!
    It’s the water supply.

    If they are adding flouride because it’s so good for you, then why not add multivitamins and fish oils and any number of other things that we’re required to do for ourselves?

    What makes flouride the thing, the potentially dangerous chemical (and it’s been proven dangerous in little kids) that gets added to the public water supply?

Comments are closed.