Why are we dosing babies with fluoride

[davidkennedydds]

I once asked my good friend the late great Dr. Victor Penzer MD who survived 3 years in Auschwitz if the Nazi put fluoride in their water. He said not as dogs, machine gun toting Nazis and 12' razor wire were sufficient to keep starving jews in line.

I think Masters research showing that hydrofluosilicic acid disproportionately harms Black and Hispanic children by facilitating lead uptake might produce the opposite effect from docile. lead reduces impulse control and babies with high lead levels are much more likely to be incarcerated for a violent crime by age 18 than normal babies.

On the other hand if you want a violent society where children can't learn to read and are so low in IQ they can't get or hold a job and are prone to drug use and violent crime then go ahead and expose them to hydrofluosilicic acid through the baby bottle.

 

[Mick West]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294

As I pointed out earlier one cannot use an ecological study to find a rare form of cancer especially when known confounding variables are not controlled for. In Levy study did they assess toothpaste, mouthwash, dental applications? NO.

Bassin showed that it was time-of-exposure and not total dose that triggered the cancers. When she controlled for all other known variables her results were ROBUST as in 6 FOLD increase in males 6 to 8 YO. Because of the rarity it is not surprising that poorly controlled studies fail this simple test.

And are these diagrams controlled for all other known variables? Particularly socioeconomic variables? How does the disparity compare to other adjacent european countries that have the same fluoridation practices, but also share the socioeconomic variations of Ireland?

 

[davidkennedydds]

No I didn't. You answered your own question and I agree. I disagree that the real question is proof of injury but rather how we can minimize exposure. Perhaps you are familiar with the Clean Air Act. it is intended to address this very issue and they did not need to see dead babies. They saw evidence of harm and that was enough.

But really Mick do not attempt to confuse anthropomorphic and environmental exposures that we cannot easily control with a POLICY over which we have total control over.

We are shipping, trucking and dispensing through the public water supplies of this nation a waste product from the phosphate mining industry called hydrofluosilicic acid. it is 17% fluoride. Anyone good at math would ask about the other 87% and since there is no purpose, ample evidence of harm and a considerable expense I'd expect a debunker to question the wisdom of hazardous buying waste from China, Mexico, Fluorida, and Japan as a drug to treat out children.

 

[davidkennedydds]

However you can verify the trucking shipping by merely going to the CDC's website where they tout the benefits of ingested fluoride and by merely reviewing the CDC's MMWR 2001 they acknowledged that the (alleged) benefits [to fluoride] are post eruptive and topical. So why do it?

 

[Mick West]

Taking the most distinct Irish difference, Leukemia:



If this were based on Fluoridation, you'd expect the same kind of thing in the US based on Fluoridation by state:

Here's a map of Fluoridation in the 90s


Here's a map of Leukemia incidence:


Notice the total lack of correlation, which indicates the Irish division is more likely due to other factors.

 

[davidkennedydds]

Actually you are incorrect about the alleged goal. In the beginning when you were not around to debunk their malarky the advocates alleged that the very purpose of fluoridation was to harmlessly give a systemic dose to the children so their teeth would be stronger more resistant to decay and thus beneficial.

Today research has confirmed the following:

1. Fluoride is neurotoxic (Original promoter of fluoridation Harold Hodge knew that in 1944)
2. Systemic fluoride accumulates in bone, soft tissues and ligaments
3. Kidney patients accumulate fluoride in their tissues much more rapidly than normal individuals
4. Hydrofluosilicic acid causes disproportionate uptake of lead with Black and Hispanic children absorbing several fold more lead than Caucasians

So the original goal failed miserably:

1. They do not use fluoride
2. It did not improve oral health
3. it did increase numerous adverse outcomes (dental fluorosis, Cancer, hip fracture, neurological impairment)
4. It costs a lot

So since everyone agrees, and I suspect you do too which is why you haven't answered the only question that is relevant, why continue to dose poor infants whose mothers can't afford distilled water or take time off from work to nurse with unnecessary, unneeded, unapproved fluoride?

 

[Mick West]

We are shipping, trucking and dispensing through the public water supplies of this nation a waste product from the phosphate mining industry called hydrofluosilicic acid. it is 17% fluoride. Anyone good at math would ask about the other 87% and since there is no purpose, ample evidence of harm and a considerable expense I'd expect a debunker to question the wisdom of hazardous buying waste from China, Mexico, Fluorida, and Japan as a drug to treat out children.

Can you check those percentages?

Hydrofluosilicic acid is H2​SiF6 ​ so do you mean the non-fluoride is Hydrogen and Silicon? Or are you referring to other things it is mixed with.

Can you be specific here regarding amounts.

 

[Mick West]

Actually you are incorrect about the alleged goal. In the beginning when you were not around to debunk their malarky the advocates alleged that the very purpose of fluoridation was to harmlessly give a systemic dose to the children so their teeth would be stronger more resistant to decay and thus beneficial.

Today research has confirmed the following:

1. Fluoride is neurotoxic (Original promoter of fluoridation Harold Hodge knew that in 1944)
2. Systemic fluoride accumulates in bone, soft tissues and ligaments
3. Kidney patients accumulate fluoride in their tissues much more rapidly than normal individuals
4. Hydrofluosilicic acid causes disproportionate uptake of lead with Black and Hispanic children absorbing several fold more lead than Caucasians

So the original goal failed miserably:

1. They do not use fluoride
2. It did not improve oral health
3. it did increase numerous adverse outcomes (dental fluorosis, Cancer, hip fracture, neurological impairment)
4. It costs a lot

So since everyone agrees, and I suspect you do too which is why you haven't answered the only question that is relevant, why continue to dose poor infants whose mothers can't afford distilled water or take time off from work to nurse with unnecessary, unneeded, unapproved fluoride?

That's a mischaracterization of the science, and you know it. Fluoride is neurotoxic, but the doses children receive are widely accepted to NOT be harmful. Lots of studies say it DOES improve oral health.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Dear Triggern Hipple,

Actually your quote it incorrect as to the actual levels of exposure we may experience. The studies were done in countries that do not have fluoride fillings, sealants, varnishes, toothpaste, mouthwash so the sole source of exposure may be actually less than individuals in our overdosed society.

No. My quote is correct. The studies found that high concentrations of fluoride decreased IQ marginally. The study can be found here, look at Table 1. Characteristics of epidemiological studies of fluoride exposure and child’s cognitive outcomes, you'll see that the high flouride groups were in the 2 - 10 mg/L range, well below NA levels.

Why would a supposedly bunk-proof group support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid to the public drinking water for no good reason?

Isn't fluoridation proven to reduce cavities?

I thought you were supposed to be critical thinkers not sheepel.

Maybe you should take your own advice and follow the caveat you specified in your first post. Why don't you stick to the facts and the science and refrain from disparaging comments that compare people to mindless farm animals.

There is no benefit to swallowed or ingested fluoride and as you just pointed out there is considerable research showing that Fluoride is neurotoxic. Why put that in drinking water?

Isn't fluoridation proven to reduce cavities?

 

[davidkennedydds]

That assumption is incorrect as in the US all major cities are fluoridated thus no controls and you will find fluoridated toothpaste in almost every household. If you buy a Coke in Broken-overshoe-Kansas it was canned in fluoridated Kansas City so even beverages contain fluoride. if you eat Wheaties made in Battle Creek Michigan you eat fluoride thus this entire nation is highly fluoridated. People move around quite a bit especially when jobs are scarse and so migration will further make such a simple analysis fail to find a complex disorder. That is why we use caged rats fed fluoride-free food.

One the other hand if you live on an island where it takes 5 hours and big dollars to get to England and there is minimal migration North to South and vice versa and all major cities are fluoridated vs. No fluoride at all then you have a pretty sound ecological study. But far better to use rats than humans because humans can be pesky and do such things as get mercury fillings, sky dive, ride motorcycles breathe exhaust fumes thus it is very difficult to control exposures to other toxics. if a toxic element exerts an effect in animals then it behoves us to value that animals sacrifice and avoid exposing our own selves and children to that toxic substance. It is that simple.

We should not have to prove that fluoride caused this person to get that disease. All that was necessary was to show rats got sick. . . end of story. But no. The EPA fired the messenger Bill Marcus and the practice continues to this day even though Dr. Marcus won twice and was paid punitive damages due to the insult to his well recognized reputation.

Did you read his memo I sent you?

 

[davidkennedydds]

No it is not. They claim that fluoride improves oral health but they lose in court repeatedly when asked this simple question:

Can you furnish a broad-based blinded study of animals or humans that has ever found a significant reduction in permanent tooth decay from the addition of 1 part per million fluoride to the public drinking water?

(The 2001 York Review found No such A level studies exist)

The ADA expert failed this simple test every time and in the ADA 2006 warned members to not make up infant formula with fluoridated tap water if they wanted to avoid dental fluorosis.

So I ask you who is mischaracterizing the science? Widely accepted is not the same as evidence of harm which abounds. (NRC 2006) Did you read that 500 page volume? it is full of good info that would make any debunker pause I'd think.

 

[davidkennedydds]

Isn't fluoridation proven to reduce cavities?

No it has not been. see my post to Mick. There are claims but when put to the test of blinded randomized borad based they fail to show any difference in tooth decay.

 

[davidkennedydds]

Maybe you should take your own advice and follow the caveat you specified in your first post. Why don't you stick to the facts and the science and refrain from disparaging comments that compare people to mindless farm animals.

I sincerely apologize if you felt my remark was unkind. I was merely trying to get you to think critically. You have repeated the same claims the promoters have made for 65 years but they have NO science. The York review found NO high quality evidence of benefit while the NRC review found an abundance of evidence of harm so why do we continue to do this.

Isn't fluoridation proven to reduce cavities?

No it has not been shown effective systemically. That's not the point though. Fluoride has been proven as you pointed out to be neurotoxic. FYI there is 1500 ppm F in most OTC toothpaste.

 

[davidkennedydds]

Simple math when you take the weight of the substances in the product used. 23% hydrofluosilicic acid. Deduct for the hydrogen and silica presto 17% fluoride.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

No it has not been shown effective systemically.

What does that mean? Fluoride is effective sometimes, but not always?

Do you have any evidence that shows 0.5 - 1.0 mg/L of fluoride in drinking water causes neurological impairment or lowers IQ?

 

[cheeple]

Watch this video straight from a dentist regarding the danger of Fluoride

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk

 

[Mick West]

Simple math when you take the weight of the substances in the product used. 23% hydrofluosilicic acid. Deduct for the hydrogen and silica presto 17% fluoride.

And the rest is water. So what exactly is your point when you say:

We are shipping, trucking and dispensing through the public water supplies of this nation a waste product from the phosphate mining industry called hydrofluosilicic acid. it is 17% fluoride. Anyone good at math would ask about the other 87% and since there is no purpose, ample evidence of harm and a considerable expense I'd expect a debunker to question the wisdom of hazardous buying waste from China, Mexico, Fluorida, and Japan as a drug to treat out children.

And why does the country of origin matter?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

We are shipping, trucking and dispensing through the public water supplies of this nation a waste product from the phosphate mining industry called hydrofluosilicic acid. it is 17% fluoride. Anyone good at math would ask about the other 87% and since there is no purpose, ample evidence of harm and a considerable expense I'd expect a debunker to question the wisdom of hazardous buying waste from China, Mexico, Fluorida, and Japan as a drug to treat out children.

Mick, previously he made this claim:

How does spraying differ from trucking or shipping in raw untreated hazardous waste (Hydrofluosilicic acid / Silicofluoride) from China, Mexico, Japan and Florida from the pollution scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer mining industry that is highly contaminated with arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury to add to the public water supply as a "medication" to prevent tooth decay?

A friend told me about this meme, that the fluoride used for water is contaminated. I asked him if anyone had proof of that, but he said that no one is allowed to analyze it under penalty of law. This was one of my oldest friends, from 6 years old, and we argued. We haven't spoken since, I don't know what to think.
Maybe the Dr. can explain.....

edit:
This explains some of it-
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...jYDQDA&usg=AFQjCNHz1uZPZXkXDLBnW7DOL3yRkGXtog

and this is some source for the claims:
http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluorideandphosphate.htm
interesting that while the document directly above speaks of radiation hazards, NSF says no alpha or beta emissions have ever been detected in the additives

 

[davidkennedydds]

Actually they aren't because when you ask the very same question: What dose of mercury has been found to be without adverse effect on humans the answer is there is not absolutely safe level of exposure. When you address the EPA's minimum risk level it is clear that some individuals with a mouth full of amalgam grossly exceed the EPA's MRL.

richardson published a more thorough risk assessment for elemental mercury vapor using occupational exposure to elemental mercury vapor and demonstrated that the current EPA MRL is not protective.

During the 2010 FDA Expert panel hearing on amalgam one professor asked the ATSDR rep Richard canada how much over the MRL you could go and still be safe. All of the scientists looked astounded and Richard finaly stammered,
you can't go over the MTL".

That is the threshold for injury and those with amalgams often exceed that.

The same is true of fluoride. The EPA RfD is 0.06 mg/kg. If you drink lots of water, tea, eat cereal, drink beers, brush with fluoridated toothpaste then likely you exceed the MRL.

So is this too deep. Do I need to explain risk assessment methodologies or give you some government web sites to check out?

I am not being sarcastic. I really want to to understand what many of my dental colleagues do not. I'll do what it takes to give you access to the scientific literature so you too can inform yourselves and be come aware of what the dental profession is not.

Dave

 

[Mick West]

The same is true of fluoride. The EPA RfD is 0.06 mg/kg. If you drink lots of water, tea, eat cereal, drink beers, brush with fluoridated toothpaste then likely you exceed the MRL.

So is this too deep. Do I need to explain risk assessment methodologies or give you some government web sites to check out?

I am not being sarcastic. I really want to to understand what many of my dental colleagues do not. I'll do what it takes to give you access to the scientific literature so you too can inform yourselves and be come aware of what the dental profession is not.

Dave

MRL is not the "threshold for injury". That would be the LOAEL. MRL is the "perfectly safe level"

EPA says MRL is generally a fraction of the LOAEL. Example:

A chronic-duration oral MRL of 0.05 mg fluoride/kg/day has been derived for fluoride. This MRL is based on a NOAEL of 0.15 mg fluoride/kg/day and a LOAEL of 0.25 mg fluoride/kg/day for skeletal effects (increased fracture rate) (Li et al. 2001). The MRL was derived by dividing the NOAEL by an uncertainty factor of 3 to account for human variability.

An acute-duration inhalation MRL of 0.02 ppm fluoride has been derived for hydrogen fluoride. This MRL is based on a minimal LOAEL of 0.5 ppm for upper respiratory tract inflammation in humans exposed to hydrogen fluoride for 1 hour (Lund et al. 1997, 1999). The MRL was derived by dividing the unadjusted LOAEL by an uncertainty factor of 30 (3 for a use of a minimal LOAEL and 10 to account for human variability).

Content from External Source

Wikipedia:

Minimal Risk Level (MRL) is an estimate of daily human exposure to a dose of a chemical that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse non-cancerous effects over a specific duration of exposure.

The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) denotes the level of exposure of an organism, found by experiment or observation, at which there is no biologically or statistically significant (e.g. alteration of morphology, functional capacity, growth, development or life span) increase in the frequency or severity of any adverse effects in the exposed population when compared to its appropriate control.[1][2] [3]
In toxicology it is specifically the highest tested dose or concentration of a substance (i.e. a drug or chemical) or agent (e.g. radiation), at which no such adverse effect is found in exposed test organisms where higher doses or concentrations resulted in an adverse effect.[

The lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) is the lowest concentration or amount of a substance found by experiment or observation that causes an adverse alteration of morphology, function, capacity, growth, development, or lifespan of a target organism distinguished from normal organisms of the same species under defined conditions of exposure.

Content from External Source

So what figures are you using the claim people exceed the MRL?

 

[Mick West]

And can you please address and support your claims about the contamination of Hydrofluosilicic acid?

 

[davidkennedydds]

What does that mean? Fluoride is effective sometimes, but not always?

I did not say fluoride was effective ever. it may have a slight effect but nutrients like Iodine are far superior so why use a deadly poison when nutrients will do better.


Mechanism of Action - Topical Vs. Systemic:
(Note: When water fluoridation first began proponents believed fluoride had to be swallowed - and at a young age - to be effective. This view - which was used to justify adding fluoride to the water supply - is now being increasingly challenged by more and more dental researchers who are finding that fluoride needs to be applied topically in order to be effective.)





"Recent research on the mechanism of action of fluoride in reducing the prevalence of dental caries (tooth decay) in humans shows that fluoride acts topically (at the surface of the teeth) and that there is neglible benefit in ingesting it." - Diesendorf, M. et al. (1997). New Evidence on Fluoridation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. Vol. 21 No. 2:187-190.



Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children (1). These mechanisms include 1) inhibition of demineralization, 2) enhancement of remineralization, and 3) inhibition of bacterial activity in dental plaque (1).


"[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. MMWR, 48(41): 933-940.





"[F]luoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical." - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. August 17, 50(RR14):1-42.





"[E]vidence has continued to accumulate to support the hypothesis that the anti-caries mechanism of fluoride is mainly a topical one." - J Carlos, JP. (1983) Comments on Fluoride. The Journal of Pedodontics. Winter. 135-136.





"Fluoride...works via topical mechanisms." - Featherstone, JDB. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association. 131: 887-899.





"Fluoride incorporated during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant role in caries protection." - Featherstone, JDB. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association. 131: 887-899.





"[R]esearchers are discovering that the topical effects of fluoride are likely to mask any benefits that ingesting fluoride might have... This has obvious implications for the use of systemic fluorides to prevent dental caries." - Limeback, H. (1999). A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 27:62-71.





"Until recently most caries preventive programs using fluoride have aimed at incorporating fluoride into the dental enamel. The relative role of enamel fluoride in caries prevention is now increasingly questioned, and based on rat experiments and reevaluation of human clinical data, it appears to be of minor importance." - Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. (1981). Rational Use of Fluorides in Caries Prevention: A Concept based on Possible Cariostatic Mechanisms. Acta. Odontol. Scand. Vol. 39: 241-249.





"Although it was initially thought that the main mode of action of fluoride was through its incorporation into enamel, thereby reducing the solubility of the enamel, this pre-eruptive effect is likely to be minor." - Locker, D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.





"[F]luoride's pre-eruptive effects in caries prevention are weak." - Burt, BA. (1994). The Case for Eliminating the Use of Dietary Fluoride Supplements Among Young Children. Abstract of paper presented at Dietary Supplement Conference, American Dental Association, Chicago, Illinois, January 31 - February 1.





"The insignificant role played by such small amounts of incorporated fluoride in [enamel] is illustrated by observations in vitro when teeth formed in <<low>> and <<optimal>> fluoride areas developed exactly similar lesions after continuous exposure to an acidified gel." - Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. (1981). Rational Use of Fluorides in Caries Prevention: A Concept based on Possible Cariostatic Mechanisms. Acta. Odontol. Scand. Vol. 39: 241-249.





"[A]ny method which places particular emphasis on incorporation of bound fluoride into dental enamel during formation may be of limited importance." - Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. (1981). Rational Use of Fluorides in Caries Prevention: A Concept based on Possible Cariostatic Mechanisms. Acta. Odontol. Scand. Vol. 39: 241-249.





"Although the predominant beneficial effect of fluoride occurs locally in the mouth, the adverse effect, dental fluorosis, occurs by the systemic route." - Formon, SJ; Ekstrand, J; Ziegler, E. (2000). Fluoride Intake and Prevalence of Dental Fluorosis: Trends in Fluoride Intake with Special Attention to Infants. J Public Health Dent 60(3):131-9.

 

[davidkennedydds]

I've done this for you twice now so this is my last time

theoretical Baby drinks 1 liter of water per day and weighs 8.8 points (4 kg) 1/4 = 0.25 mg/kg EPA's MRL RfD is 0.6 mg/kg Thus baby drinks 400% more than the MRL.

NRC review found injury at 1/3 MRL thus MRL not likely a safe dose.

 

[davidkennedydds]

MRL is not the "threshold for injury".

Read your quote from Wikipedia. it is accurate. What I am saying is Minimum Risk Level is exceeded.

 

[davidkennedydds]

And can you please address and support your claims about the contamination of Hydrofluosilicic acid?

Sure, See the congressional investigation 2000 responses: http://www.keepers-of-the-well.org/gov_resp_pdfs/NSF_response.pdf

Page 7

You will note that the arsenic contamination alone according to the Cal EPA's Public Health Goal (PHG) of As 4 PPT is sufficient to cause an additional cancer of bladder or lung per 15,000 lifetime water users.

How many deaths are worth a non existent decay benefit?

 

[davidkennedydds]

A friend told me about this meme, that the fluoride used for water is contaminated. I asked him if anyone had proof of that, but he said that no one is allowed to analyze it under penalty of law. This was one of my oldest friends, from 6 years old, and we argued. We haven't spoken since, I don't know what to think.
Maybe the Dr. can explain.....

You two should make up. We've got a lot bigger fish to fry than argue about water contamination. On the other hand I disagree with your friends belief that it is not legal to measure fluoride because I do that all the time. It is relatively simple compared to how we did it in the 60's. Took a whole lab bench and now I can carry a pocket tester from LaMotte and 35 seconds later tell you within 0.1 ppm how much free fluoride ion is present. The ion specific electrode does not speciate so undiferentiated hydrofluosilicic acid does not show up.

Chris Maple and Paul W. have promised to join me in a pub crawl in San Diego cameras included. I've lined up a limo (Do not drink and drive) that will take us and friends to some of San Diego's finest craft breweries. They are expecting us. We'll ask the bartenders for a fluoride-free beer and they will try. We'll test away and when it is finished I'll be more than happy to show how fluoridation spreads into everything that touches that water.

There is no conceivable way you can control the dose anyone gets once it is the water.

 

[davidkennedydds]

http://www.purewatergazette.net/fluo...dphosphate.htm
interesting that while the document directly above speaks of radiation hazards, NSF says no alpha or beta emissions have ever been detected in the additives

Forgive me for asking but isn't this the Debunker blog? You all seem a little too quick to accept what the industry spokesperson says. Do you only think individuals need debunking or haven't you noticed a fair amount of malarky coming from industry? If you research this you will find the radioactive elements were once harvested but since we now have enough nukes to blow up the world several times over they stopped harvesting them and as a result the are in the waste. Old adage is, don't look, don't find.

While I've raised issues of government malfeasance backed up by successful whistle blower trials and three separate court trials you keep digging pout government reviews. Who do you think started this problem in the first place? it is government policy that we are discussing and my question remains:

What reason can there be to recommend that we dose infants above the MRL? Especially with a contaminated waste product that disproportionately harms Blacks, Hispanics and all infants. It makes no sense. I am not a big conspiracy theorist but I do oppose policies that make no sense and this is one of them

 

[davidkennedydds]

And why does the country of origin matter?

The original problem with hydrofluosilicic acid came from our building the first nuclear bomb. They had tons to dispose of and thus claimed it was beneficial to children's teeth and today dispose of 500,000 tons (Bill Hirzy EPA) annually in our drinking water. When Katrina blew through Florida and broke the gypsum dam holding ponds with millions of gallons of waste there was a "shortage" and thus other countries that either make nuclear grade materials or simply phosphate fertilized jumped in and have now undercut the US market.

Don't you think it is nice of us to help China dispose of their waste since they remove fluoride from their water and do not inject hydrofluosilicic acid?

We could certainly improve the trade balance if we were to stop buying other countries hazardous waste.

And the rest is water.

You have some data to show that I would hep since no one else is making that claim.

Dave

 

[davidkennedydds]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Thanks for point out Michael Connett's video of Dr. O.

Dr. Bill Osmunson like myself once shared a common belief that exposure to fluoride was beneficial. Today we now share the common belief that exposure is not beneficial.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]The way science works is that just a teeny tiny bit of data can ruin a perfectly good theory. The theory that ingested fluoride is beneficial and without harm has been thoroughly debunked.[/FONT]

 

[George B]

Forgive me for asking but isn't this the Debunker blog? You all seem a little too quick to accept what the industry spokesperson says. Do you only think individuals need debunking or haven't you noticed a fair amount of malarky coming from industry? If you research this you will find the radioactive elements were once harvested but since we now have enough nukes to blow up the world several times over they stopped harvesting them and as a result the are in the waste. Old adage is, don't look, don't find.

While I've raised issues of government malfeasance backed up by successful whistle blower trials and three separate court trials you keep digging pout government reviews. Who do you think started this problem in the first place? it is government policy that we are discussing and my question remains:

What reason can there be to recommend that we dose infants above the MRL? Especially with a contaminated waste product that disproportionately harms Blacks, Hispanics and all infants. It makes no sense. I am not a big conspiracy theorist but I do oppose policies that make no sense and this is one of them

If what you say is true . . . I would say follow the money . . . is it easier and more profitable to parse it out into drinking water or dispose of it as toxic waste?????

 

[davidkennedydds]

How does the disparity compare to other adjacent european countries that have the same fluoridation practices

Well first off no other continental European nation fluoridates now that the Iron curtain has fallen. Most of the ones behind that curtain did fluoridate under direction of mother Russia although Russia itself did not but when the bear left they all stopped. As a result today there are a number of follow up studies from East Germany and others as examples of how decay dramatically declined once fluoridation ceased.

Please look at the worldwide tooth decay graph from WHO and please identify for me the declines that are significantly different with fluoridated countries vs. non-fluoridated ones.

 

[davidkennedydds]

If you calculate the cost of disposing of 500,000 tons of hydrofluosilicic acid or the dry form sodium silicofluoride it is enormous.

 

[Mick West]

You have some data to show that I would hep since no one else is making that claim.

Dave

It's 23% hydrofluosilicic acid aqueous solution. Obviously the rest is water, with perhaps some minor contamination. You seem to be raising the ominous spectre of 17% fluoride, and the rest being nasty poisons. What exactly were you referring to in these quotes:

We are shipping, trucking and dispensing through the public water supplies of this nation a waste product from the phosphate mining industry called hydrofluosilicic acid. it is 17% fluoride. Anyone good at math would ask about the other 87% and since there is no purpose, ample evidence of harm and a considerable expense I'd expect a debunker to question the wisdom of hazardous buying waste from China, Mexico, Fluorida, and Japan as a drug to treat out children.

How does spraying differ from trucking or shipping in raw untreated hazardous waste (Hydrofluosilicic acid / Silicofluoride) from China, Mexico, Japan and Florida from the pollution scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer mining industry that is highly contaminated with arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury to add to the public water supply as a "medication" to prevent tooth decay?

This all seems highly misleading, and designed for emotional appeal. Exactly how much of those contaminants is added to the water supply?

[Edit] - Sorry, just saw your link to the NFS Document. But what do you mean by suggesting the remainder is not water, just that it also has a few ppb of some contaminants?

 

[George B]

If you calculate the cost of disposing of 500,000 tons of hydrofluosilicic acid or the dry form sodium silicofluoride it is enormous.

So do you think there is a profit motive or are there other motives to maintain the fluoride distribution???

 

[Mick West]

If you calculate the cost of disposing of 500,000 tons of hydrofluosilicic acid or the dry form sodium silicofluoride it is enormous.

I'm not clear how that tallies with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid

The majority of the hexafluorosilicic acid is converted to aluminium fluoride and cryolite.[4] These materials are central to the conversion of aluminium ore into aluminium metal. The conversion to aluminium trifluoride is described as:H2​SiF6​ + Al2​O3​ → 2 AlF3​ + SiO2​ + H2​OHexafluorosilicic acid is also converted to a variety of useful hexafluorosilicate salts. The potassium salt is used in the production of porceleins, the magnesium salt for hardened concretes and as an insecticide, and the barium salts for phosphors.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is also commonly used for water fluoridation in several countries including the United States, Great Britain, and Ireland. In the U.S., about 40,000 tons of fluorosilic acid is recovered from phosphoric acid plants, and then used primarily in water fluoridation, sometimes after being processed into sodium silicofluoride.[3]

Content from External Source

So if the hexafluorosilicic acid is used in the production of Aluminum, then why is there any that needs disposing of?

Sorry if I ask stupid questions, I'm new to this subject.

 

[Charlie Primero]

We'll ask the bartenders for a fluoride-free beer and they will try.

Is there a website where you will publicize this event?

It sounds like a cool tactic to raise awareness.

 

[cheeple]

Is there a website where you will publicize this event?

It sounds like a cool tactic to raise awareness.

From what i can tell Bass, Heineken, and Sierra Nevada among some other lesser known brands have the lowest amount of Fluoride .1% Sierra Nevada would make sense since it's made with Spring Water ( I could be wrong, I know you debunkers will jump on the chance to "debunk" that)

here is a link to fluoride in beers:

http://ffbeers.com/

 

[cheeple]

So do you think there is a profit motive or are there other motives to maintain the fluoride distribution???

Pacifying the public, turning the citizenry into blind followers of the Mass Media, it's priceless.

 

[Mick West]

From what i can tell Bass, Heineken, and Sierra Nevada among some other lesser known brands have the lowest amount of Fluoride .1% Sierra Nevada would make sense since it's made with Spring Water ( I could be wrong, I know you debunkers will jump on the chance to "debunk" that)

here is a link to fluoride in beers:

http://ffbeers.com/

.1% sounds a tad high

Interesting on that list how many of the European beers have high fluoride content, but very few countries in Europe fluoridate their water. Spaten, from Germany, has a level of 0.4 ppm.

http://www.spatenbeer.com/spaten.html

The water for our beers comes from our own deep wells and is especially noted for its purity.

Content from External Source

Spring water does not necessarily mean low-fluoride, as many places have quite high naturally occurring fluoride in their groundwater.

 

[cheeple]

Interesting on that list how many of the European beers have high fluoride content, but very few countries in Europe fluoridate their water. Spaten, from Germany, has a level of 0.4 ppm.

From what I could find even if you get beer from countries that do not fluorinate the water most likely the ones we buy are still made here even though they carry the brand name from Germany etc.

Damn so spring water isnt even really safe, well Fluroride is natural in Tea and i dont avoid that, to me I'd just rather not drink any aluminum byproduct.