ENC: Fluoridation Revisited


  I've generally avoided the flouridation issue the way I have the JFK assassination, but I don't recall ever reading anything that seemed as compelling as this piece. Then again, I know it is a technical issue which has been hotly debated for decades. Before taking it up at the local level, I'd like to hear first whether there are any opposing arguments that seem to put Rothbard's seemingly straightforward history and analysis in question.

  Clearly we could take a principled stand as libertarians against government spending taxpayer money to flouridate the water, irrespective of whether flouridation is harmful or helpful. However if it turns out *not* to be harmful, or the harm is not easily shown (in other words if the picture turns out to be much cloudier than what Rothbard presents below), I question whether concentrating on the issue would be an effective use of our efforts, given the obvious negatives, the relative triviality of the issue, and the numerous other things we could be focusing on.

  But if upon further research it appears that Rothbard is essentially correct, then I'd say by all means we should consider trying to make alliance with the Greens to fight it. It could even serve to give some of them more respect for "right wing kooks." 8)

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

How about this as an issue to work on with the Greens?

Greetings from the Amazon.



De: Mike Denny
Enviada: sáb 30/7/2005 00:58
Para: Mike Denny
Assunto: Fluoridation Revisited

Fluoridation Revisited

by Murray N. Rothbard

This essay originally appeared in the January 1993 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Yes, I confess: I'm a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of "right-wing kooks and fanatics." It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry "cancer" even more absurdly than the boy cried "Wolf," who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation's water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids' thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual > choice?

(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation's socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.

During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the "right-wing kook" image?


The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official "15-year" study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: "Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?" [Fall 1992], pp. 26–28, 63–66.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own "scientific study," by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by "popular demand" for fluoridation; as we shall see, the "popular demand" was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left's backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation's central organization of "anti-Communist liberals" (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation's establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the "father of public relations." Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called "The Original Spin Doctor" in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator's 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation "creeping socialism" and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.

As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation "in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan." (Bette Hileman, "Fluoridation of Water," Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the "mechanism which controls the public mind," which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..." And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, "either with or without their conscious cooperation," will "automatically influence" the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that "it is wholesome to eat bacon." For, Bernays added, he "knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians." (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add "dentists" to the equation, and substitute "fluoride" for "bacon," and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

After the 1950s, it was all mopping up – the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation's reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as "universal fluoridation."


Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone – perhaps strengthening kiddies' teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides – brittleness and cancer – began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as "spurious."

Oddly enough, despite the 1956 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own beloved animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, biochemist John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the federal government's own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked Congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests.

Talk about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve years to finish its tests, finding "equivocal evidence" that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide evidence of "a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages," especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in "non-fluoridated" counties.

In more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and Iowa, NCI found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some fancy statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these findings, too, were "spurious." Dispute over this report drove the federal government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every area: the allegedly expert, bipartisan, "value-free" commission.

The government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the PHS to form a commission of "world-class experts" to review safety data on fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its grave concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride's safety scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on fluoride exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children's skeletons, and potential heart damage.

The chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National Institute of Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might "modify" the findings, since "the report deals with sensitive political issues." Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the official report a month later, the federal government had thrown out the panel's most important conclusions and recommendations, without consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received copies of the final, doctored, version. The government's alterations were all in a pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no "scientific documentation" of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 parts per million.

In addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, evidence is piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past two years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have indicated the fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, and the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even "low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly." JAMA concluded that "it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation."

Clearly, it was high time for another federal commission. During 1990–91, a new commission, chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time pro-fluoridationist Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that "no evidence" was found associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the commission blandly stated that "further studies are required." But no further studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: "The U.S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water." Presumably, they did not conclude that "optimal" meant zero.

Despite the Young whitewash, doubts are piling up even within the federal government. James Huff, a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government's study developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given fluoride – and there was nothing "equivocal" about his conclusion.

Various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus's warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 percent of the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer rate among young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.

Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand's most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country's top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.

As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. Foulkes, concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist "promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists."


Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.

Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the earth's crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and regulations. In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new aluminum industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do if its major by-product is a dangerous poison?

The time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse the public image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was none other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of the powerful Mellon interests, "Mr. Pittsburgh," and founder and virtual ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.

In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the West to study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people's teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various Mellon scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, ALCOA's research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that "the case (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as proved." Instant science!

The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid's teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation's > water.

One interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that "fluoride is fluoride" becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.

Which brings us to Oscar R. Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after the initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, now chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an astronomical legal fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in present dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal Security Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful national drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having succeeded in his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and returned to private life, including his chief counselship of the Aluminum Corporation of America.

There is an instructive lesson in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State came to America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the fluoridation saga, we might call the whole process "ALCOA-socialism." The Welfare State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of these particular venal and exploitative groups.

Ed.: See also, from 2005, Fluoride Follies by Donald W. Miller, MD.


Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles/www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp>. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Copyright © 2005 Ludwig von Mises Institute
All rights reserved.



+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            The Real Fluoridation Facts
            By Andreas Schuld and Darlene Sherrell

            Is Fluoride is a Poison?
            Yes. Fluoride is an acute toxin with a rating 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 4.0 ppm - that’s over 250 times the permissible
level of lead.

            Fluoride used in water fluoridation is also a toxic waste
product -- which means it contains other heavy metals. It is the most
bone seeking element known to mankind. The US Public Health Service
has stated that fluoride makes the bones more brittle and dental
enamel more porous.

            How Much Fluoride am I Taking In?
            Current total intake is now 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 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.)

            How Much is Too Much?
            As little as 0.04 mg/kg of body weight per day has been
proven to cause adverse health effects. Retention of 2 mg a day will
produce crippling skeletal fluorosis in one’s lifetime.

            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
stored in calcified tissues, like bones and teeth.

            The National Academy Of Sciences (NAS) stated in 1977
that, for the average individual, a retention of 2 mg/day would result
in crippling skeletal fluorosis after 40 years. Considering the above
mentioned intake level, it is likely that skeletal fluorosis already
affects many millions of people in the United States.

            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)

            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 for human consumption -- incredible, but a

            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.

            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 known cases 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.)

            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 American Dental Association. 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 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 American and Canadian Dental Associations, 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

            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. A higher intake of fluoride will actually cause MORE cavities,
especially for children with low dietary calcium intake.

            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.

            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 an 87% higher risk of hip
fractures to the elderly in areas where water fluoridation was below
1.5 ppm.

            Can Fluoride Cause Osteoporosis and Arthritis?
            Yes, most definitely. On July 9, 1998 the Manchester
Guardian reported news of fluoride poisoned water in Central India,
from untested wells drilled in the 1980s, causing severe arthritic
damage to tens of millions of people -- a national disaster. Fluoride
is the most bone seeking element known to mankind. The US Public
Health Service has stated that fluoride makes the bones more brittle
and dental enamel more porous.

            Does Fluoride 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 women 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 Disease, 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.) Environmental fluoride is implicated in this.

            How Widespread 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.

            If All This is True, How can Fluoridation Possibly be
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 some
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, sometimes 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.

            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 Canadian EPA
identified the now closed Brunswick Mining and Smelting Fertilizer
Plant in Belledune, New Brunswick 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,
unprecedented quantities of fluoride are deliberately 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 fertilizer and aluminum
industries, have a perfect way to get rid of their hazardous waste
material. It would cost up to $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 $6 Billion dollars/year to industry!

            What do I Need to do? How can I Protect Myself and my
            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 to take fluoride out of the water. Also,
eliminate any Teflon or Tefal coated cookingware, for scratches in the
surface will release PTFT, another toxic fluoride compound. Avoid
fruit juices canned or bottled in 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.

            Web pages have been set up documenting all the above
information, enabling you to conduct your own research into this
matter. All information is verifiable. For more information with
study/research links to studies, abstracts, charts and fraud papers,
please go to the following websites:

            Dental Fluorosis Prevention Program

            Darlene Sherrell

            793 South Lacey Road

            Charlotte, Michigan 48813 USA

            (517) 541-9624



            brouhaha records group ltd.

            Andreas Schuld

            78 Malta Place

            Vancouver, B.C.



            (604) 435-9859



            Use the information provided in this database as an
educational resource for determining your options and making your own
informed choices. It is not intended as medical advice or to diagnose,
prescribe, or treat any specific illness. If there is any chance your
child is seriously ill, take him or her to a qualified health
professional for evaluation.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
<font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hsr7v53/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705365370:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123131938/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
">Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!</a>.</font>

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: