By Michael Dorausch, D.C.
News over the weekend regarding fluoride in tap water is evidence that the debate regarding the safety and effectiveness of the chemical process continues to be heated discussion.
There was a news report in Friday’s Globe and Mail, the Canadian publication, regarding a nearly half-century use of water fluoridation, and growing numbers of reports for medical officials and environmentalists regarding the process that has become so commonplace in many industrialized areas.
According to the news, recent research is suggesting that fluoride may be connected to a number of serious conditions, which includes the development of a rare bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in teenage boys, reduced levels of intelligence in children, and the impairment of thyroid function.
The article mentions that those complaining about water fluoridation were often portrayed as a “kooky fringe” and not taken very seriously. That view is changing as scientists have began to look at research that suggests the main protective action from fluoride does not come from ingesting the chemical, but rather from direct absorption through topical application to the teeth. Basically, they’re saying brushing one’s teeth (with toothpaste that contains the chemical), and then rinsing, appears to be more effective than adding fluoride to municipal water supplies.
The Globe and Mail article is titled: Critics raise red flag over fluoride in tap water
“An independent panel of experts commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the effect of fluoride in drinking water on public health and released a report this past week saying that the fluoride level in tap water allowed by the EPA should be lowered to protect from several health related conditions.”
Fluoride in the Fountain was published in September of 2007 and it discusses fluoride enthusiasts and California laws that stipulate all municipal water shall soon contain a form of fluoride.
“For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best,” — scientists at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
Also from March of 2006 was an article titled: California state law now requires fluoridation of municipal water.
From the article… California state law now requires fluoridation of municipal water. A large portion of San Diego County will begin receiving fluoridated water within a year or two, in spite of strong public opposition. The scientific and ethical arguments against fluoridation are so overwhelming, one must ask, how is it possible that fluoridation retains enough support that laws are enacted against popular will? The apparent answer was well stated by Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.” In order for the rest of us to understand fluoridation, let’s all go take a hike and follow the money trail!
The oldest article I could locate in the archives was from August of 2000, a report that was initially printed in the Mesa Tribune in Arizona. The article is titled Fluoridation Folly and the author asks Is it possible that we could all be nothing more than expendable guinea pigs with fewer fillings?
“To raise the natural fluoride levels of the water supply, Gilbert City Council proposes to dump in fluorosilicates, a waste by-product of the fertilizer industry. Fluoride apologists – led by dentists and 1 stray city council member – consistently fail to mention this toxic little fact. Instead they conveniently bury it under the “spit n’ rinse” category.”
Search news archives for all fluoride related articles.
planetc1.com-news @ 1:06 pm | Article ID: 1196111211