|
|
| |
|
Best veiw with
Firefox 3
|
|
|
Fluoride Poisoning Review
Our supposed newsworthy media allows fluoride pundits to plaster their
articles touting no harm to humans, and their conscience is in the gutter.
They have no case for fluoride poisoning our land.
 |
New Scientific Developments Subvert Pro-Fluoride Position
21 April 2007 - By Pat Arena - tcpalm.com
In recent months the News has written three or four
editorials supporting the use of fluoride in public drinking water.
I'd like to make residents aware of recent developments in the
scientific community that contradict this view.
Dramatic developments have changed the scientific understanding of
fluoridation's health risks. Most significant is the March 2006
report, "(Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's
Standards," issued by the National Research Council, an arm of the
National Academy of Sciences — our nation's top science adviser. This
watershed report represents three years of deliberations by a balanced
panel of 12 scientists and contains disturbing findings about
fluoride's harm to human health.
Although fluoridation proponents claim the 450-page NRC report isn't
relevant to fluoridation, it clearly cites newly identified adverse
effects — most of which occur at, and even below, the 1
part-per-million level used for fluoridation. These include dental fluorosis, decreased thyroid function, impaired glucose tolerance
(Type II pre-diabetes), arthritis (joint inflammation), brain cell
damage and possible bone cancer in males. Hip fractures and lowered IQ
in children were found to occur dangerously close to 1 ppm. Dr. Robert
Isaacson, an author of the NRC report, said it "should be a
wake-up
call."
The report cited fluoridated tap water as the major dietary source of
fluoride exposure. It also noted the wide range of individual fluoride
doses due to the variable amounts ingested from both water and food.
Many people are exposed to a total daily intake of fluoride that
exceeds the amount now known to cause harm. In fact, fluoride received
from food alone may exceed this amount. And, because of lower body
weight, children receive three to four times the fluoride dose as
compared to adults.
In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control reported
32 percent of all
U.S. children now have dental fluorosis (mottled/stained tooth
enamel). This visible evidence of systemic harm is caused by
increasingly unavoidable exposure to fluoridated water, food and
beverages processed with fluoridated water, toothpaste and dental
products, fluoride pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and industrial air
pollution. Despite this fluoride overload, tooth decay among
disadvantaged children is epidemic — even in long-fluoridated cities —
proving that fluoridation has dismally failed its intended target
group.
Further, the American Dental Association has finally admitted that
infants are at risk of fluoride overdose. It recently reversed its
long-standing policy, stating that fluoridated water should not be
used to prepare infant formula during the first year of life because
of elevated risk of dental fluorosis. This admission of harm to the
most vulnerable of our population is reason alone to end this
practice.
The fluoridation controversy is no longer about tooth decay.
It's about cumulative systemic effects of long-term fluoride
ingestion. It's about disposal into our drinking water of a toxic,
industrial grade waste from phosphate mining (hydrofluosilicic acid)
for which there are zero safety studies. Ultimately, it's about an
archaic health policy, set in stone 60 years ago, that falsely
claims fluoridation is good for everyone and harms no one.
Fluoridation proponents are entrenched in a scientifically
insupportable position, and our health is on the line.
As public awareness continues to grow, enlightened cities across
America are taking action to eliminate this toxin from their water (www.fluorideaction.net/).
Guest Columnist: Arena lives in Jensen Beach.
|
|
|
The
The
Labors in the Spirits of
Science
Living on the Lost Planet 
