Legal Liability:

Last month, August 2008, the American Kidney Foundation made a public statement that nobody who has anything wrong with their kidneys should drink fluoridated water. It is public knowledge that people who have kidney problems or who are on dialysis must not consume fluoridated water. To do so can even cause death. It should also be noted that some people may have faulty kidney function without knowing it, and therefore to give them fluoridated water would be to put them at risk.

There is also a large amount of evidence for other effects of fluoride on people and animals, such as lowered thyroid function, cancers, and osteosarcoma in boys who drank fluoridated water during their growing years. mild fluorosis image 1As there are now legal cases (group actions) pending in the USA, because people’s health has been damaged by fluoride in the water supply, it makes sense for the Moyne Shire Council to remove all reference to Fluoridation in the Shire’s Health Policy, and not to endorse fluoridation at a time when world opinion is changing about its effects.
To endorse fluoridation at a time when more and more evidence is piling up to show its toxicity in vulnerable people could be seen as culpability.

Latest Evidence for Water Fluoridation being Ineffective and a Health Risk:

Dental Authorities now acknowledge fluoride’s effects are topical and not systemic: The incidence of caries in teeth has been going down around the world, in countries which do not have fluoridation. mild / moderate fluorisis image 3Apart from the negative effects from fluoridation, the percentage of improvement often quoted and magnified with statistics, is, according to Prof. Paul Connett, actually based on a fraction of one tooth surface out of 128 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth. Risks and Latest Evidence: Fluoridation has been admitted around the world as being ineffective in reducing caries, as its effects have been stated to be topical and not systemic. That is, dental treatments or fluoridated toothpaste are more effective than drinking fluoridated water. However, even fluoridated toothpaste is now seen as a risk to children, and in the USA tubes of toothpaste have warning signs on them; some children have died as a result of eating toothpaste. Toothpaste is now available that has no fluoride in it for this reason. Dental Fluorosis:

There is a large body of evidence to show that there is a range of detrimental health effects from water fluoridation, including damage to the teeth! Damage to the teeth is particularly evident in children in poor sectors of the community. Statistics and studies have shown that a combination of poor diet, too much sugar and acidic drinks, poor dental hygiene, and low intake of vitamins and minerals in the diet make children more susceptible to dental fluorosis. (see the numerous scientific studies available from Professor Paul Connett’s website: http://www.fluoridealert.org

In fact, the American Dental Authority in 2006 informed their dentists that parents of babies should not make up milk formula with fluoridated water, as this can cause fluorosis. Babies drinking fluoridated water can consume from 100 to 200 times more fluoride than adults because of their size compared with the amount they drink.

Fluorosis of the teeth is an outward sign of an overdose of fluoride in the rest of the body: Neurological Effects: Studies have shown neurological effects in children at .5 (point five) parts per million, which is under the one or two parts per million of fluoride which is put into the water supplies. Several studies have also implicated fluoride as a cause of a rare bone disease in boys who drink fluoridated water in childhood.

There is a large body of evidence of harm to many organs from water fluoridation. In fact, fluoride is biologically very active, and affects every cell in the body; it interferes with the function of the g-proteins in each cell, which affects biological switching systems. The latest evidence for health impacts on bones and the nervous system, and much else, will shortly be made available after the World Conference on Fluoridation, which is running this month, August 2008, in Canada. Some recent developments have been: Last month the American Kidney Foundation made the statement that nobody with a kidney problem should drink fluoridated water (which can cause death to such people). As some of us have kidney problems not yet diagnosed, this poses somewhat of a problem. Also at risk are people who drink a lot of water, such as athletes, people working at manual jobs in high temperatures, and people suffering from diabetes.

In 2006, the American Dental Association let their dentists know that babies should not drink milk formula made up with fluoridated water. Due to their size and the amount of fluid babies consume, it has been calculated that such babies would consume about 100 times as much fluoride as adults on a weight basis. Also babies’ bodies are not able to deal with toxins as readily. The evidence of harm to babies’ developing brains from drinking fluoridated water, (which is a neurotoxic, cumulative, Schedule 7 Poison, second only to Mercury in toxicity) should give us all pause for thought. Only about 50% of the fluoride we ingest daily is excreted. The rest is stored in bones and organs. The World Health Organisation has stated that before people are given fluoride, it should first be established how much they are receiving from all sources. This is impossible when giving people fluoride through water supplies. Additional fluoride comes from many sources, as a “halo effect” This means that foods either grown with fluoride-laden water, or in fluoride-rich soils (such as tea), or foods which are soaked in fluoridated water and then cooked (beans, lentils, etc.,), or made with fluoridated water (soups, casseroles), all have varying levels of fluoride in them. Processed foods may be quite high in fluoride.

Unless we eat organic food at all times, we consume fruit and vegetables that are sprayed with fluoridated pesticides and herbicides. We also breathe in fluoride in the air, as emissions from industry.

The World Health Organisation has said that before fluoride is put into water supplies it should be ascertained how much is coming from other sources. As you would realise, this would vary from person to person, as not only sources vary, but also people’s ability to absorb and deal with the fluoride.

Another new source of fluoride is the approval by the APVMA of sulfyl fluoride as a fumigant in food warehouses. The approval was given despite submissions warning of health risks. The use of this profume may result in some foods such as nuts and raisins having extremely high levels of fluoride, even as high as 90 ppm. As young children are often given dried fruit as a snack instead of lollies, this is a worry. Negative effects are quoted in scientific studies at levels as low as .5 (point five) ppm in water supplies.

The fluoride proposed to be put into our water supplies is not of Pharmaceutical Grade. Many industries emit fluoride into the atmosphere, but the amounts are limited by the EPA because of its toxicity. For instance, welding, smelting, glass manufacture, and other industries emit fluoride; modern industrial societies are big producers of fluoride, and the emissions are a problem.

That is why fertilizer factories and aluminium smelters have “scrubbers” on their chimneys, in order to trap some of the fluoride emissions. The EPA has rules against the release of fluoride-laden fumes and disposal of fluoride wastes.

Fluoride wastes are so toxic they cannot be disposed of into tips, or buried, or released into rivers or the ocean; breaches of these rules incur fines, as happened in Australia last year. The fluoride that is caught by the scrubbers on fertilizer factory chimneys is what is put in our water supplies. This by-product is not pure.

In fact it contains heavy metals such as lead and cadmium, arsenic and even radionuclides. These are diluted in the water supply to a level just below allowable limits.

The fluoride put into our water supply is not pharmaceutical grade. The presence of lead in the fluoride may account for the lowering of intelligence of children in fluoridated areas. Any amount of lead is toxic to children’s growing brains. Note that in the USA there are now warnings on toothpaste that young children should not use adult fluoridated toothpaste. The consumption of toothpaste by young children has been known to result in death.

CONCLUSION

The best option for the Moyne Shire would be to state in the Health Policy that the shire supports:

1. Encouragement to dentists to come to the Western District to settle. A shortage of dentists and high dental costs prevent many people in country areas from visiting the dentist regularly. Perhaps State or local government money towards a mortgage (repayable if the dentist left the district) would encourage dentists to migrate from the city to the rural areas.

2. As most people know, one bad tooth that is left untreated for a long time can infect other teeth. Some parents need to be encouraged to take their children to the dentist for regular checkups. Lobbying to State and Federal governments for subsidies for dental treatment, or for dental visits to be included in Medicare, would go a long way to helping solve part of the problem of parents neglecting their children’s teeth.

3. Another way of reducing caries in children is by educating parents in both nutrition and dental hygiene. Most of the really shocking examples of poor dental health in young children arise in families with low incomes coupled with lack of education in which foods are cheap, nourishing and build healthy bodies and teeth. Fluoride will not help these families. Free tooth brushes and education of parents and children through kindergartens and schools would have more effect.

The problem seems to be that the government does not wish to expend money on the above measures, but would rather close its eyes to the health and legal problems inherent in fluoridation, which it seems to think is a quick fix.However, it is only a matter of time before the evidence from around the world will be too evident for our authorities to ignore.

Now is not the time to follow an out-dated policy for fluoridation.

Given the evidence, all local government authorities should be supporting the call for a bona fide, independent study into the effects of fluoridation. Given the evidence to date, it is reprehensible for any State or Local Government to put fluoridation into any more town water supplies until such a study has been completed.

The National Health and Medical Research Council called for such a study over 14 years ago, and fluoridation has never been proved safe. Gillian Blair



Part 2 here       Part 3 here
(Viewed from 'bluesgreenmate.com')