The Truth Behind Fluoride
Since 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters’ union has expressed concerns about fluoride. In 2005,
eleven environmental protection agency EPA employee unions,
representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals
of the Civil Service, called for a halt on drinking water fluoridation
programs across the USA and asked EPA management to recognize fluoride
as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. Among the
union’s concerns are what they contend is a cover-up of evidence from
Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with an
elevated risk of osteosarcoma in boys, a rare but fatal bone
cancer.
In addition, over 1,730 health industry professionals, including one
Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson), doctors, dentists,
scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling
for an end to water fluoridation in an online petition to
Congress. The petition signers express concern for vulnerable
groups like “small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics,
and people with poor kidney function,” who they believe may already be
overdosing on fluoride. Another concern that the petition signers
share is, “The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions
from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial
grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America’s drinking
water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to
toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human
ingestion.” The petition was sponsored by the Fluoride Action
Network of Canton, New York, the most active anti-fluoridation
organization in North America.
An epidemiological connection between silicofluorides, an industrial
byproduct which is used to fluoridate much of the U.S. water, and lead
was observed in a 2000 study. A 2006 U.S. CDC-funded study was
unable to replicate the results, which the original researchers
responded to in a 2007 rebuttal. Aside from the lead connection,
concerns are raised as to whether silicofluorides might have different
effects on the body than sodium fluorides, and silicofluorides have
not been rigorously tested for safety. Many studies did not attempt to reduce observer bias, control for confounding factors, report variance measures, or use appropriate analysis.
What we need to understand is that silicofluorides are a byproduct of the aluminum manufacturing process. How profitable this waste product is now to companies like Alcoa and how convenient that the industrial companies don’t have to dispose of this hazardous waste – so let us all just drink it away! Any positive effect is largely due to the topical effect of fluoride ions in the mouth rather than the systemic effect of ingestion. Thus flouride does not need to be swallowed to be effective. And even so, in 1986 fluoridation opponent Mark Diesendorf pointed out the substantial declines in tooth decay in nonfluoridated European countries.
For the full scoop check out Peter Meier’s page.
