New York – March 2007 -- Trace amounts of arsenic are found in fluoride chemicals added to drinking water supplies, reports the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) website. (1)

Fluoridation is a controversial attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap-water consumers.

Fluoridation chemicals - sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid (FSA) – are all derived from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer, reports the CDC. Trace amounts of unwanted contaminants, such as antimony, barium, beryllium, arsenic and others, are allowed to remain in fluoridation chemicals before flowing through America’s faucets (2)

The CDC reports, tests by National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) revealed arsenic was present in sample batches of FSA. When trace amounts were present, the treated water had an average of 0.43 parts per billion (ppb) of arsenic, with a high of 1.66 ppb attributable to the fluoride additive. (2)

The NSF sets the allowable level of arsenic in fluoridation chemicals at 2.5 ppb. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) of arsenic in treated water is 10 ppb, set by the Environmental Protection Agency. But the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of arsenic in drinking water is zero (5) and is based on health risks; however, the actual level permitted (MCL) is above 0, to account for difficulty in removing it or in measuring it. (6)

“No water company should purposely be adding arsenic to water supplies –even when it’s attached to a chemical perceived to be beneficial,” says Beeber.

Trace levels of arsenic in drinking water increase a person's risk of developing cancer, according to a report from the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences. “People drinking water containing just one part per billion of arsenic have an increased risk of developing bladder or lung cancer of one in 1,000,” reports New Scientist magazine. (3)

In an analysis of 25 states, the National Resources Defense Council found about 8,000 U.S. water systems, serving 57,000,000 people, contained arsenic levels at 1 ppb or higher.(4)

“Fluoridation has proven useless in fighting tooth decay in America’s low-income population as the recent unfortunate ‘tooth-decay’ death of a 12-year-old Maryland boy living in a fluoridated area has proven,” says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “No child is or ever was fluoride-deficient. But many are dentist-deficient,” says Beeber.

“Besides, modern science establishes that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of taxpayer money,” says Beeber.

"We're glad the CDC finally admits that arsenic can be found in fluoridation chemicals. But CDC should go further and list all undesirable chemicals and impurities allowed in the fluoridation chemicals, and make it publicly known so consumers truly can make an informed choice," says Beeber.

References:

(1) U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dep’t of Health and Human Services – Water Fluoridation – Guidelines & Recommendations – Water Fluoridation Additives (accessed March 11, 2007)

(2) April 24,2000 letter from NSF International to State of Florida, Department of Public Health

(3) New Scientist, “Trace arsenic in water raises cancer risk,” by Emma Young, September 14, 2001

(4) National Resources Defense Council, “Arsenic and Old Laws.” Chapter 1 - Arsenic has been found at levels of health concern in the tap water of tens of millions of Americans in 25 states

(5)

(6)
:mad:

Sources 5 and 6 are yourself?

It's very hard to get something to be truly zero. Elements come in distributions everywhere. I'm sure you drink several atoms of arsenic and mercury everytime you drink milk or tea - probably much more.

Some compounds containing arsenic, notably the arsenosugars, are practically non-toxic to biological systems.

Very few people know that apple seeds contain cyanide.

But on topic... I am against having flouride in my water. I hate having some organization or government telling me that I have to take a drug.

“Besides, modern science establishes that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of taxpayer money,” says Beeber.

I despise people like you. You’re a filthy liar and a deliberate deceiver. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/sauer/angry-smiley-009.gif

That fluoride compounds are used in industry in the manufacture of fertiliser is irrelevant. That fluoride compounds are sometimes used as rat poison is irrelevant. Drawing attention to these points is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, a deliberate attempt at scaremongering.

Everything in nature is toxic – oxygen is toxic, vitamins are toxic, sunlight is toxic. It’s all a matter of dosage. Systemic fluoride at the appropriate dosage is safe and beneficial to dental health. It’s scientific and medical fact. Fluoridation is the most studied public health measure in history. Yes, you do get the occasional scientist who says otherwise, just like there are the occasional genuine scientists who claim that evolution is false and that global warming is not occurring. In the 21st century there are people who still claim the world is flat. Their testimony means nothing. The tiny minority of nutballs aside, the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is that fluoride at the appropriate does is safe and beneficial.

Sources 5 and 6 are yourself?


It's very hard to get something to be truly zero. Elements come in distributions everywhere. I'm sure you drink several atoms of arsenic and mercury everytime you drink milk or tea - probably much more.



Number 6 is actually a statement from a member of the National Academy of Sciences fluoride panel which is posted on the Fluoride Action Network's website. Number 5 is a link to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which is not me but your government.

It's understandable when water companies, maybe, can't get their natural water supply to reach zero arenic levels. That's why the MCLG exists - it's an unenforceable goal because the technology might be too prohibitive to remove the trace amounts of arsenic. However, fluoride chemicals are neither a nutrient nor required for healthy teeth or healthy water. So it makes no sense to purposely add arsenic into water supplies even when its part of the fluoridation chemicals.

I despise people like you. You’re a filthy liar and a deliberate deceiver. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/sauer/angry-smiley-009.gif

That fluoride compounds are used in industry in the manufacture of fertiliser is irrelevant. That fluoride compounds are sometimes used as rat poison is irrelevant. Drawing attention to these points is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, a deliberate attempt at scaremongering.

Everything in nature is toxic – oxygen is toxic, vitamins are toxic, sunlight is toxic. It’s all a matter of dosage. Systemic fluoride at the appropriate dosage is safe and beneficial to dental health. It’s scientific and medical fact. Fluoridation is the most studied public health measure in history. Yes, you do get the occasional scientist who says otherwise, just like there are the occasional genuine scientists who claim that evolution is false and that global warming is not occurring. In the 21st century there are people who still claim the world is flat. Their testimony means nothing. The tiny minority of nutballs aside, the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is that fluoride at the appropriate does is safe and beneficial.

Can you link to studies showing that the positive dental effects of flouride are a medical fact? I've spent a few months trying to find some, and have failed. I'd *really* like to see some good studies.
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/34709834/m/438006823831?r=438006823831#438006823831

In particular, the lack of a measurable difference between cavities in non-flouridated European nations and flouridated America, to me, throws a huge wrench into the whole idea.

That studies of African refugees show a significantly lower rate of dental caries that those of western european refugees, when western europe flouridates, and Africa does not, only adds to my incredulity. That WHO reports on the difference immediatly assume that the lower rates in African refugees must be due to some unknown high consentration of flouride in the groundwater (without bothering to go there and test) annoys me to no end.