"The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers and informed citizens," argues Rita Barnett-Rose, Chapman University Associate Law Professor, (online August 2014). Evidence of fluoride's harm is ignored, downplayed or not studied; benefits exaggerated and informed consent disregarded. "Claims that fluoridation is not mass medication are unpersuasive," she writes. After scientists disproved the 1945 theory assuming ingested fluoride was essential for healthy teeth, fluoridation promoters newly speculate, without evidence, that fluoridation benefits low-income children who have the most decay and least access to dental care – a problem that persists today despite 7 decades of fluoridation. In fact, dental socioeconomic disparities have increased. The National Research Council acknowledges significant fluoride health research has yet to be done - especially fluoride's effect on the young brain. Using case law, legal opinions and scientific reports, Barnett-Rose argues that fluoridation schemes allow public health officials to experiment on human subjects without their informed consent. "Adding a drug to the water supply to treat or prevent the disease of tooth decay is unquestionably a medical intervention, and the fact that the risks of this drug are still being determined by public agencies, supports an argument that water fluoridation is an ongoing human medical experiment," she writes. "Continued imposition of compulsory water fluoridation schemes violates numerous legal and ethical human subjects' research protocols," argues Barnett-Rose. "It is no longer acceptable for public health officials to simply dismiss the accruing negative data and to continue to insist that the levels of fluoride children and adults are receiving on a daily basis are without any serious health consequences," she writes. Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says, "Politics plays a heavy hand in fluoridation policy and promotion which seems to protect special interest groups, corporations and government agencies instead of the American public who are unwitting guinea pigs in this ongoing fluoridation experiment." Barnett-Rose writes: "Taking politics and long-entrenched agendas out of the mix, the risks of tooth decay, while perhaps still significant for a minority of individuals, are significantly outweighed by the human rights burdens, economic costs, and risks of other bodily harm for the majority of those affected." SOURCE .New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)
Exactly. The only evidence of suppposed harm to the intellect is from studies in China where , due to industrial pollution, far higher levels of fluoride were present than those we add deliberately. These studies appeared to show a reduction in IQ of 1/2 a point, the average IQ of a population being of course 100. It's all obsessive ballocks.
Exchemist you have a common misconception. Here's the truth The majority of the water studies examined by the Harvard team investigated fluoride levels which the US EPA says is safe – less than 4 mg/l. -- One study, sponsored by UNICEF, found reduced IQ at just 0.88 mg/l – a level within the “optimal” fluoride range added to the drinking water of over 200 million Americans. -- Seven found reduced IQs among children drinking water with fluoride levels between 2.1 and 4 mg/l — levels that 1.4 million Americans drink everyday. -- Four found effects at levels between 1.8 and 2.0 mg/l — levels that over 200,000 Americans drink everyday The Harvard team found that fluoride exposure was associated with a statistically significant reduction of 7 IQ points, not the ½ point claimed by many fluoridation advocates. . Only one of the studies, however, was at 11.5 mg/l. And the IQ studies keep on coming. Forty one out of 48 studies now show fluoride reduces IQ; 17 at levels the US EPA claims are safe. Over 100 animal studies show fluoride can directly damage the brain; with another 30 animal studies showing fluoride impairs learning or memory -- including four published in 2014. In one study published this year in the journal Physiology & Behavior, researchers found that fluoride "induces cognitive deficits and anxiety-depression-like behaviors in mice." (Liu 2014) Human research now shows that fluoride can damage the fetal brain, adversely affect newborn babies' behavior, damage the central nervous system of fluoride-exposed workers, and affect performance on neurological assessment tests. When an exceptional and highly regarded and well-funded researcher, Phyllis Mullenix was fired for publishing a rodent study showing fluoride gets into the brain and can cause deficits, instead of encouraging research to confirm or disprove her findings, Mullenix was fired which put a chilling effect on other researchers interest in doing any fluoride adverse effect research. But the same limitations aren't put on foreign researchers. Hence more research from other countries. However, the US EPA lists fluoride as having “Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity.” More fluoride/brain information here: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/brain/
They trying to pollute the "precious bodily fluids".Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
To be honest though... do we actually get any benefit from DRINKING flouridated water? I mean... toothpaste says pretty consistently NOT to swallow it (though I would presume this to be because of a host of other things present, except flouride free childrens toothpastes do not have this warning... odd), so is there any reason to continue adding it? To be honest, I'd much rather get the CHLORINE out of the water (city water in Pennsylvania tastes like pool water... blech)
my thinking too. toothpaste already has fluoride in it, so why add it to drinking water. i could understand if it saved your eyesight or hearing, but teeth? i lost all my teeth long ago, and the only thing i miss is eating apples. big deal.
People are free to purchase pure bottled water (distilled, filtered, or fresh) at about $.88/gallon at WalMart around here. One can also purchase 5-gallon jugs for drinking water. One does not have to drink the culinary water supplied by the city's water system if one chooses not to. Legally, I expect they are on poor footing, as the community as a whole has approved the drinking supply criteria, or at least the city elders have.
I'm fairly certain the "drinking supply criteria" was never even discussed when my wife and I moved to a different part of town to a townhouse with City water as opposed to Well water Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because many kids, like I once was, live in households where tooth brushing isn't the norm. I was lucky in that I am one of the few folks in this life who just don't get cavities. There is no evidence that fluoridating water at the levels we are talking about will have adverse health effects. But of course we all know water fluoridation is one of the original communist plots. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
I'm not asking if it has any ill effects - I'm asking if it actually has any verifiable evidence that it HELPS. I was always under the impression fluoride was supposed to stay ON the teeth to work... such as the fluoride gel things I used to have done by my dentist when I was younger (I had soft teeth when I had baby teeth)
