The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White Friday means sugar beet growers won’t be able to use the modified seeds after harvesting the biotechnology beets already planted on more than 1 million acres spanning 10 states from Michigan to Oregon. All the seed comes from Oregon’s Willamette Valley.

Additional planting won’t be allowed until the U.S. Department of Agriculture submits an environmental impact statement. That sort of extensive examination can take two or three years.

White declined a request to issue an injunction that would have imposed a permanent ban on the biotech beets, which Monsanto Co. developed to resist its popular weed killer, Roundup Ready. Farmers have embraced the technology as a way to lower their costs on labor, fuel and equipment.

The Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance and Sierra Club have been trying to uproot the biotech beets since filing a 2008 lawsuit.

Andrew Kimbrell, the Center for Food Safety’s executive director, hailed Friday’s decision as a major victory in the fight against genetically engineered crops and chided the Agriculture Department for approving the genetically engineered seeds without a full environmental review.

“Hopefully, the agency will learn that their mandate is to protect farmers, consumers and the environment and not the bottom line of corporations such as Monsanto,” Kimbrell said in a statement.

Attempts to reach the Agriculture Department for comment Saturday were unsuccessful. Monsanto, based in St. Louis, referred requests for comment to the America Sugarbeet Growers Association, which pointed to a Saturday statement from the Sugar Industry Biotech Council.

In the statement, the sugar beet council said it intends to help the Agriculture Department come up with “interim measures” that would allow continued production of the genetically altered seeds while regulators conduct their environmental review.

If a temporary solution isn’t found, the planting restrictions are likely to cause major headaches for sugar beet growers and food processors.

The genetically altered sugar beets provide about one-half of the U.S. sugar supply and some farmers have warned there aren’t enough conventional seeds and herbicide to fill the void. The scientific seeds account for about 95 percent of the current sugar beet crop in the U.S.

“The value of sugar beet crops is critically important to rural communities and their economies,” the Sugar Industry Biotech Council said Saturday.

White expressed little sympathy for any disruption his decision might cause. He noted in his 10-page ruling that regulators had time to prepare for the disruption because he had already overturned the deregulation of the genetically altered beets in a decision issued last September.

The Agriculture Department “has already had more than sufficient time to take interim measures, but failed to act expediently,” White wrote.

Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups contend genetically altered crops such as the sugar beets could share their genes with conventionally grown food, such as chard and table beets.

Those arguments helped persuade another federal judge in San Francisco to stop the planting of genetically altered alfalfa seeds in 2007 pending a full environmental review that still hasn’t been completed.

Monsanto took that case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June overturned an injunction against the company’s sale of the modified seeds.

In 1956, it was reported, after one of the first fluoridation trials (1945-55) had been completed in Newburgh/Kingston NY, that young girls were starting to menstruate on average five months earlier in fluoridated Newburgh compared to non-fluoridated Kingston (2). This result was ignored and there was no follow-up research.

In 1997, Dr. Jennifer Luke in the UK, as part of her PhD thesis (3), reported that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland. The pineal gland produces the important hormone melatonin which acts like a biological clock. One of the processes it is thought to control is the onset of puberty. Luke published this work in 2001 but the result has been ignored and no fluoridating country has attempted to repeat her findings, something which would be easy to do if there was the will to do so.

Luke also found that animals exposed to fluoride had lowered melatonin levels and showed signs of reaching puberty earlier. Again this result has been ignored and no fluoridating government has attempted to repeat Luke’s work.

Connett says, “We are not saying that exposure to fluoride is a definite cause of early puberty in girls, but not pursuing this possibility is bad for science, bad for medicine and bad for public health.”

Simply put: if you don’t look, you don’t find. The medical community is being kept in the dark on the possibility that fluoride, a highly toxic substance, which is deliberately added to the drinking water of 184 million Americans daily, is causing a variety of harms from the subtle to the serious.

Connett says, “Apparently, it has become more important for the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies of the US Department of Health and Human Services to protect this outdated, unethical, ineffective and the dangerous practice than it is to protect the health of the American people. Key research is not being done. Doctors are not being warned.”

This and other tragic aspects of the US’s peculiar obsession with fluoridation are to be documented in an upcoming book co-authored by Connett. The book, titled “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep it There,” will be published by Chelsea Green in early October of this year.

This listing represents the beginning of an ongoing project, which aims to provide detailed information on fluorinated pharmaceuticals, listing them by category and providing both pharmacological (generic) name and commercial name.

When in its final form, this listing will be user-friendly for people seeking basic information about the prescription drugs they are taking, or for researchers who seek a more detailed summary of the relevant pharmacological data of each drug, including each drug’s metabolic fate (F ion release) as it impacts the drug’s overall toxicity.

At the present time, we are posting just the basic listing of drugs by their category, and generic and common names. This listing is a work in progress, but we are starting with enough of the most popular drugs that this list can be useful even in its present form.

This list is only to be used to identify drugs that are fluorinated. It is not to be used to determine any drug’s potential for toxicity.

It is also important to emphasize that fluorinated drugs represent a different category of fluorine compounds (organofluorines) than the fluorine compounds (inorganic fluorides) used in dentistry and water fluoridation. It is unclear to what extent, if any, the fluorinated drugs listed here may increase the body burden of inorganic fluoride. This uncertainty is amplified by the lack of available data from the pharmaceutical companies.

It is the position of the FTRC that more research be undertaken to clarify the potential for organofluorine compounds to metabolize into inorganic fluoride in the body. FTRC’s concern is based on recent research showing that some fluorinated drugs (e.g., many anesthetics) may in fact increase the body’s burden of fluoride. It is imperative, therefore, that additional research be conducted to determine how many other organofluorine drugs, and which ones, result in increased inorganic fluoride exposure.

source: Fluoride Toxicity Research Collaborative (FTRC)

	This table is for reference only and gives a general idea as to the high fluoride content in some foods and beverages.

	BEVERAGES:
	Juices

	6.8mg/l Gerber’s White Grape Juice #3 0.98 – 1.20mg/l Minute Maid OJ #6,#7 3.0mg/l Gerber’s Graduate Berry Juice #6 0.78mg/l Dole Pineapple #7 >0.6mg/l Prune Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Cranberry Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Pear Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Red Grape Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Cherry Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Apple Grape Juice #13 >0.6mg/l Apple Juice #13

	Soft Drinks

	0.82 -0.98mg/l Coca Cola Classic #6,#7 1.12mg/l Diet Coke #8 0.29mg/l Snapple #7 0.73mg/l Sprite #8 0.85mg/l Hawaiian Punch #8 0.45mg/l Hansen’s Soda #7 0.37mg/l Capri Sun #7 0.79mg/l Publix Orange Juice #8 0.44mg/l Gatorix Punch Concent. #8 0.56mg/l Lipton Ice Tea #8

Tea see also: Green Tea Article (L=Leafs, P=Prepared) UK TEAS

Iced Tea

180.16mg/kg Coarse Tea(L) #19 72.62-89.02mg/kg Green Tea(L) #19 71.11mg/kg Refined Green Tea(L) #19 30-340 mg/kg Black Tea(16 samples) #20 4.57mg/l Tea (P) #17 1.01-5.20mg/l De-caffeinated Teas(P) #21 2.58-3.69mg/l Milk Tea(fr.Brick Tea) #23 77mg/kg Pu’er Brick Tea (L) #24 441mg/kg Bianxiao Brick Tea(L) #24 6.0-6.9mg/kg Herbal Teas (L) #20 7.8mg per cup 1 Cup Black Tea (P) #16 15.6mg/L “Wisdom of the Ancients” Instant Green Tea (P) #37 2.95mg/L Dr. Oetker Black Tea (P) #38 3.99mg/L Apicha Black Tea (P) #38

	Fruit & Vegetables

	0.3 – 13mg/kg Potatoes #12 22mg/kg Potato Waste #30 0.2 – 70.0 mg/kg Spinach #12 14.0mg/kg Rice #12 14.0mg/kg Peas #12 8.2mg/kg Yams #4 2.10mg/kg Corn #4 17.7mg/kg Beets #4 0.205mg 1 Cup Cooked Kale #16 0.180mg 1 Cup Cooked Spinach #16 1mg 1 Medium Apple #33 125 – 250 mg/kg Alfalfa #36

	Sugar & Substitutes

	13.0 mg/kg Sugar #5 10.0ppm Fructooligosaccharides #5 12.0ppm Polydextrose #5 8.0ppm Sorbitol #5

	Meat

	9.0-14.0mg/kg Mech.De-bond Pork #11 2.0-3.0 mg/kg Hand De-boned Pork #11 14.0-42mg/kg Mech.De-boned Beef #11 2.0-4.0mg/kg Hand De-boned Beef #11 1.0mg/kg Chicken Skin #13 1.23mg/kg Cooked Veal #17 1.11mg One Big Mac #1

	Dairy

	0.72mg/l Lucerne 2%Milk #7 0.074mg 1 Cup Nonfat Milk #16 1.50mg/kg Butter #4 1.62mg/kg Cheese #4

	Fish

	61.0mg/kg Canned Sardines #1 61.73mg/kg Shrimp #19 3.36mg/kg Shellfish #17 4.57mg/kg Some Canned Fish #17 26.0mg/kg Mackerel #4

Water

SEE ALSO: F- in Mineral Waters

	0.7-1.2mg/l Tap Water in fl.areas 0.21mg/l Gerolsteiner Wasser #9 8.5mg/l Vichy Water #10 0.05mg/l Reverse Osmosis Water #9

Cereals

SEE ALSO: Fluoride in Cereals

	2.1mg/kg Kellogg’s Fruit Loops #6 1.02mg/kg Cooked Wheat Cereal #17 7.2mg/kg Wheat #4 9.6mg/kg Shredded Wheat #41

Infant Foods

See also: Formula/Soy Unfluoridated Area Fluoridated Area

	Mixed Cereal 0.93ppm 3.85ppm #32 Oatmeal Cereal 0.98ppm 4.87ppm #32 Barley Cereal 1.99ppm 4.30ppm #32 Rice Cereal 2.11ppm 6.35ppm #32

	0.01-8.38mg/kg 238 Infant Foods #29 1.08-2.68mg/l Soy-based Infant Formula #31 0.024-0.172mg/l Breastmilk (area w/0.7ppm in tap water) #22

	Strained Meats

	Chicken w/broth 5.29ppm Range 1.94-10.64ppm #32 Turkey w/broth 0.39ppm Range 0.34-0.43ppm #32

	Other

	250 – 765mg/kg Soil #39 44.0-220.0mg/kg Dolomite #5 0.66-6.8mg/kg 10 Table Salt Varieties #1 7.0mg/kg Sea Salt #1 1.36mg/kg Peanuts #4 3mg 1 Teaspoon Bone Meal #18 200 – 350 ppm Fluoridated salt #40 231 – 310 ppm “Himalaya Salt” #40

	SEE ALSO: Salt Fluoridation

	130.0-160mg/kg Gelatin #15 328 mg/kg Super Kelp Tablets #35

	Dental Products

	1920mg/kg Aquafresh For Kids #6 6,000-12,000ppm Topical Fluoride Gel #23 500-1,500ppm Most Toothpaste #23 12,300ppm Radent Prophy Paste #26 12,300ppm Topex Fluoride Foam #27 2000ppm School-based Oral Mouthrinse Program #28 60,000-120,000ppm Silver Fluoride Solutions #23

	Permissable Cryolite Content Application Federal Register Cryolite (Sodiumfluoaluminate)=>Fluorine=54.3% see also: Pesticides

Proposed

Current

	45mg/kg 7mg/kg Cabbage #14 95mg/kg 7mg/kg Citrus Fruits #14 35mg/kg 7mg/kg Collards #14 30mg/kg 7mg/kg Eggplant #14 180mg/kg 7mg/kg Lettuce, head #14 40mg/kg 7mg/kg Lettuce, leaf #14 10mg/kg 7mg/kg Peaches #14 55mg/kg none Raisins #14 30mg/kg 7mg/kg Tomatoes #14 45mg/kg 7mg/kg Tomato Paste #14

	References
	#1 – Siebert & Trautna, Dept Expt Dentistry, Univ Würzburg, Germany. “Z. Ernaehrungswiss. 24 (1985) pp. 54-66″. [Abstract:”Fluoride content of selected human food, pet food and related materials”, Fluoride 19(3):152-153 (1986) #2 – Walters CB – Journal of Sci Food Agric 34:523-8(1983) #3 -  Jan G. Stannard, et al. “Fluoride Levels and Fluoride Contamination of Fruit Juices,” Journal of Pediatric Dentistry, 16(1):38-40, (1991) #4 -  Leading Edge Research Group #5 -  Lab tests , courtesy Cathy J.Rookard, Director, ACIDD (Association for  Children and Infants with Digestive Disorders) #6 -  Fluoride Risk Assessment Symposium in San Diego, June 19-21,1998;(local media conducted an analysis of fluoride content in some foods) #7 -  Lab Tests, San Jose, California (non-fluoridated area) #8 -  Lab Tests, Jupiter, Florida (non-fluoridated area) #9 -  Label(Canada) #10- Lantz O, Jouvin MH, De Vernejoul MC, Druet P – “Fluoride-induced chronic renal failure”  Am J Kidney Dis  10:2, 136-9 (1987) #11 – Field RA, Kruggel WG, Riley ML – J. Animal Science 43 ,755 (1976) #12 – Bredemann G – Biochemie und Physiologie des Fluors und der industriellen Fluor-Rauchschaeden. Berlin, (1956) #13 – Journal of the American Dental Association (Heilman, et al.,July 1997) #14 – Federal Register: August 7, 1997(Volume 62, #152) (PF-750;FRL-5727-3) #15 – Kumpulainen, J.,Koivistoinen,P.:Residue Reviews 68 p. 37 (1977) #16 – BabyCenter Editorial Team w/ Medical Advisory Board (http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/674.html#3) #17 – Dabeka WD, McKenzie AD – “Survey  of lead, cadmium, fluoride, nickel, and cobalt in food composites and estimation of dietary   intakes of these elements by Canadians in 1986-1988”  Journal of AOAC International  78 :4,  897 -909  (1995) #18 – Label, Kal-Mart Meal Powder #19 – Asanami S, Tanabe Y, Koga H, Takaesu Y – “Fluoride Contents in Tea and Sakura Shrimp In Relation To Other Inorganic Constituents” Shikwa Gakuho,  89(8):1407-12 (1989) #20 – Nabrzyski M, Garjewska R – “Aluminum and Fluoride in Hospital Daily Diets and in Teas” Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 201 (4):307-10 (1995) #21 – Chan JT, Koh SH – “Fluoride content in caffeinated, decaffeinated and herbal teas” Caries Res 30(1):88-92 (1996) #22 – Latifah R,Razak IA – “Fluoride levels in mother’s milk” J Pedod 13(2):149-54 (1989) #23 -Gotjamanos T, Afonso F – “Unacceptably high levels of fluoride in commercial preparations of silver fluoride”  Dent J 42(1):52-3 (1997) #24 – Cao J, Zhao Y, Liu JW -  “Safety evaluation and fluorine concentration of Pu’er brick tea and Bianxiao brick tea” Food Chem Toxicol 36(12):1061-3 (1998) #25 – Cao J, Zhao Y, Liu J – “Brick tea consumption as the cause of dental  fluorosis among children from Mongol, Kazak and Yugu  populations in China” Food Chem Toxicol 35(8):827-33 (1997) #26 – http://www.pascaldental.com/Fluoride.htm #27 – http://www.sultandental.com/PGflfoam.htm #28 – Oxford County Board of Health, Community Dental Services at (519)539-6121/ 1- 800-755-0394http://www.ocl.net/oxf/ocbh/dnt-rins.html #29 – Heilmann JR, Kiritsy MC, Levy SM, Wefel JS – “Fluoride Concentrations of Infant Foods” JADA 857 (1997) #30 – Federal Register: March 12, 1997; Volume 62, Number 48, Page 11437-11441 #31 – Silva M, Reynolds EC – “Fluoride Content of Infant Formulae in Australia” Aust Dent J 41(1):37-42 (1996) #32 – Singer L, Ophaug R – “Total Fluoride Intake Of Infants” Pediatrics 63, p.460 (1979) #33 -Waldbott GL, Burgstahler AW, McKinney HL – “Fluoridation:The Great Dilemma” Coronado Press (1978) #35 -Trautner, K et al – “Die Bewertung der Fluoridzufuhr mit der Nahrung. Studien zur Bioverfuegbarkeit” Dtsch. Zahnaerztl.Z.38:50-53 (1983) #36 – Milhaud G, Riviere F, Enriquez B – “Experimental study of fluorosis in lambs” Ann Rech Vet 6(4):369-77 (1985) #37 – PFPC 2004 – Norwest Labs, Langley, British Columbia, Canada #38 – Buzalaf MAR, Bastos JRM, Granjeiro JM, Levy FM, Cardoso VE da S, Rodrigues MHC – “Fluoride content of several brands of teas and juices found in Brazil and risk of dental fluorosis” Rev Fac Odontol Bauru 10(4):263-267 (2002) #39 – Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft  (2000) #40 – PFPC – Salt Fluoridation (2003) #41 – PFPC – Fluoride in Cereals (2001)

Lettuce……………….. 8ppm
Parsley………………. 7.8ppm
Stinging Nettle……… 7.8ppm
Spinach……………….. 5.7ppm
Dill, garden Dill… …..5.3ppm
Allspice………………..5ppm
Clover Pepper………..5ppm
Jamaica pepper………5ppm
Pimenta………………. 5ppm
Bitter melon, Sorosi 4.8ppm
Rhubarb………………. 4ppm
Pistachio……………… 3.8ppm
Black Currant……….. 2.8ppm
Coconut……………….. 2.7ppm
Cauliflower………….. 2.5ppm
Cabbage,
Red cabbage
White Cabbage………..2.5 ppm
Apple
(Malus domestica BORKH.)… 2.1ppm
Ben Nut, Drumstick Tree, Horseradish Tree…. 4ppm
Black bean, Garden bean,
Green bean String bean……… 2ppm
Ginger………. 2ppm
Cloudberry… 1.9ppm
Carrot………. 1.8ppm
Red Currant, White Currant.. 1.8ppm
Brazilnut………………………. 1.7ppm
Tomato (Miller)…….1.7ppm
Pecan………………….1.6ppm
Black Walnut…………1.6ppm
Dog Rose, Dobbrier, Rose…. 1.5ppm
Rown Berry………. 1.5ppm
Cashew………1.4ppm
Shagbark Hickory…… 1.3ppm
Almond………….1.3ppm
English filbert …..1.2ppm
Butternut…… 1.1ppm
Bell pepper, Cheery Pepper,
Cone Pepper, Green Pepper,
Paprika, Sweet Pepper…… 1ppm
Pea…….. 1ppm
Mandarin, Tangerine…..1ppm
Gooseberry….1ppm
Peach ….1ppm
Onion…. 1ppm
Strawberry…. 1ppm

Source: Jim Duke, U.S. Agricultural Research Service 1992 http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/

More:
http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/fluoride/fluoridetoo-14.html#P1425_142839

Sorted by Fluoride (F-)

Average 0.878611959654179 mg/l (694 Waters)

Note: only brands with this content are displayed

RB Health Affiliate Program – Precision formulations for health and sexual wellness including pills, capsules, creams and much more. RB Health offers exclusive products for penile enhancement, bust enhancement, hormone balancing, vitamines and minerals, sexual stimulants, all the way

source: Mineral Waters of the World

Ten years later, 1955, researchers reported that newly fluoridated Newburgh children had more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation than never-fluoridated Kingston children, according to the March 1956 Journal of the American Dental Association. Adults weren’t even examined.

This is the first and only comprehensive U.S. research into fluoridation’s effects to the human body and not just the teeth.

Newburgh’s children were given complete physicals and x-rays, over the course of the study, from birth to age nine in the first year and up to age eighteen in the final year. “(R)outine laboratory studies were omitted in the control group during most of the study, they were included in the final examination,” report Schlesinger and colleagues, in “Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.”

The researchers also report that:

– “The average age at the menarche was 12 years among the girls studied in Newburgh and 12 years 5 months among the girls in Kingston.”

– Hemoglobin (iron-containing part of a red blood cell): “a few more children in the range below 12.9 grams per hundred milliliters in Newburgh”

— “…a slightly higher proportion of children in Newburgh were found to have a total erythrocyte (red blood cell) count below 4,400,000 per milliliter”

– Knee X-rays of Newburgh children reveals more cortical bone defects, and irregular mineralization of the thigh bone.

Only twenty-five Newburgh children had eye and ear exams. Two had apparent hearing loss. Eight had abnormal vision. Even though researchers discovered more adult cataracts in surveys conducted before 1944 in communities with naturally high water fluoride concentrations, Newburg and Kingston adults were never checked for this defect.

Only two groups of twelve-year-old boys were tested for fluoride’s toxic kidney effects.

“the University of Rochester conducted its own studies, measuring how much fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues. Health Department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Rochester scientists,” writes Christopher Bryson in “The Fluoride Deception,” Three times as much fluoride was found in the placentas and blood samples gathered from Newburgh as from non-fluoridated Rochester, reports Bryson.

Following back the scientific references in all current fluoridation safety literature will invariably lead back to the Newburgh/Kingston study which actually failed to prove fluoridation is safe.

After 65 years of fluoridation delivered to 70% of Americans on public water supplies and virtually all Americans via the food supply, the U.S. Surgeon General reports, tooth decay is a silent epidemic with cavity crises occurring in fluoridated cities, states and countries. See: http://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com

What about Newburgh? In 1998, it was reported that children in Newburgh have more cavities and more fluoride-caused discolored teeth (dental fluorosis) than children in never-fluoridated Kingston, according to a New York State Department of Health study.

ALL AMERICANS ARE GUINEA PIGS IN THIS ONGOING EXPERIMENT CALLED FLUORIDATION

The prestigious National Research Council says major gaps exist in the fluoride toxicology literature and encourages more fluoride resesarch, e.g. fluoride’s effects bone, endocrine system and brain function.

It’s time to retire fluoridation and take back our health and water from special interest groups. Tell your legislators and water companies to stop the unnecessary, health-robbing, money-wasting addition of fluoride chemicals into your public water supplies,

Also, take action to end fluoridation here on the national level http://congress.FluorideAction.net

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc (NYSCOF)

Follow NYSCOF on Twitter or Facebook

Fluoride Action Network

News Releases

Key Findings - Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries

In the second half of the 20th century, a steep decline in tooth decay occurred among children in the United States. Proponents of water fluoridation have long claimed that this reduction in tooth decay is primarily the result of adding fluoride to water.

When the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) nominated water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century, it published a graph (see Figure 1), which showed the reduction of cavities in US children coupled with the increase in water systems that have been fluoridated since the 1960′s. The CDC referred to the graph with the statement:

“as a result [of water fluoridation], dental caries declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th century.”

However, what the CDC failed to mention is that similar declines in tooth decay have occurred in virtually every western country, most of which do notfluoridate water (see Figure 2).

DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country
- World Health Organization Data (2004) -

Excerpts from the Scientific Literature -
“Universal Decline in Tooth Decay” in Western World Irrespective of Water Fluoridation: (back to top)

“Graphs of tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in 24 countries, prepared using the most recent World Health Organization data, show that the decline in dental decay in recent decades has been comparable in 16 nonfluoridated countries and 8 fluoridated countries which met the inclusion criteria of having (i) a mean annual per capita income in the year 2000 of US$10,000 or more, (ii) a population in the year 2000 of greater than 3 million, and (iii) suitable WHO caries data available. The WHO data do not support fluoridation as being a reason for the decline in dental decay in 12 year olds that has been occurring in recent decades.”
SOURCE: Neurath C. (2005). Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated and fluoridated countries. Fluoride 38:324-325.

“It is remarkable… that the dramatic decline in dental caries which we have witnessed in many different parts of the world has occurred without the dental profession being fully able to explain the relative role of fluoride in this intriguing process. It is a common belief that the wide distribution of fluoride from toothpastes may be a major explanation, but serious attempts to assess the role of fluoridated toothpastes have been able to attribute, at best, about 40-50% of the caries reduction to these fluoride products. This is not surprising, if one takes into account the fact that dental caries is not the result of fluoride deficiency.”
SOURCE: Aoba T, Fejerskov O. (2002). Dental fluorosis: chemistry and biology. Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine 13: 155-70.

“A very marked decline in caries prevalence [in Europe] was seen in children and adolescents…The number of edentulous adults in Europe has also been declining considerably.”
SOURCE: Reich E. (2001). Trends in caries and periodontal health epidemiology in Europe. International Dentistry Journal 51(6 Suppl 1):392-8.

“The caries attack rate in industrialized countries, including the United States and Canada, has decreased dramatically over the past 40 years.”
SOURCE: Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.

“Since the 1960s and 70s, however, a continuous reduction (in tooth decay) has taken place in most ‘westernized’ countries, it is no longer unusual to be caries-free… During the decades of caries decline, a number of actions have been taken to control the disease, and the literature describes numerous studies where one or several factors have been evaluated for their impact. Still, it is difficult to get a full picture of what has happened, as the background is so complex and because so many factors may have been involved both directly and indirectly. In fact, no single experimental study has addressed the issue of the relative impact of all possible factors, and it is unlikely that such a study can ever be performed.”
SOURCE: Bratthall D, Hansel-Petersson G, Sundberg H. (1996). Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe? European Journal of Oral Science 104:416-22.

“Caries prevalence data from recent studies in all European countries showed a general trend towards a further decline for children and adolescents…The available data on the use of toothbrushes, fluorides and other pertinent items provided few clues as to the causes of the decline in caries prevalence.”
SOURCE: Marthaler TM, O’Mullane DM, Vrbic V. (1996). The prevalence of dental caries in Europe 1990-1995. ORCA Saturday afternoon symposium 1995. Caries Research 30: 237-55

“The aim of this paper is to review publications discussing the declining prevalence of dental caries in the industrialized countries during the past decades…[T]here is a general agreement that a marked reduction in caries prevalence has occurred among children in most of the developed countries in recent decades.”
SOURCE: Petersson GH, Bratthall D. (1996). The caries decline: a review of reviews. European Journal of Oral Science 104: 436-43.

“The regular use of fluoridated toothpastes has been ascribed a major role in the observed decline in caries prevalence in industrialized countries during the last 20 to 25 years, but only indirect evidence supports this claim.”
SOURCE: Haugejorden O. (1996). Using the DMF gender difference to assess the “major” role of fluoride toothpastes in the caries decline in industrialized countries: a meta-analysis. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 24: 369-75.

“The marked caries reduction in many countries over the last two decades is thought to be mainly the result of the widespread and frequent use of fluoride-containing toothpaste… There seem to be no other factors which can explain the decline in dental caries, which has occurred worldwide during the same period, in geographic regions as far apart as the Scandinavian countries and Australia/New Zealand.”
SOURCE: Rolla G, Ekstrand J. (1996). Fluoride in Oral Fluids and Dental Plaque. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. p 215.

“Although difficult to prove, it is reasonable to assume that a good part of the decline in dental caries over recent years in most industrialized countries, notably those Northern European countries without water fluoridation, can be explained by the widespread use of fluoride toothpastes. This reduction in caries has not been paralleled by a reduction in sugar intake…”
SOURCE: Clarkson BH, Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt BA. (1996). Rational Use of Fluoride in Caries Control. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. p 354.

“During the past 40 years dental caries h as been declining in the US, as well as in most other developed nations of the world… The decline in dental caries has occurred both in fluoride and in fluoride-deficient communities, lending further credence to the notion that modes other than water fluoridation, especially dentrifices, have made a major contribution.”
SOURCE: Leverett DH. (1991). Appropriate uses of systemic fluoride: considerations for the ’90s. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 51: 42-7.

“In most European countries, the 12-year-old DMFT index is now relatively low as compared with figures from 1970-1974. WHO (World Health Organization) data relating to availability of fluoride in water and toothpaste appear reliable. However, these data did not explain differences between countries with respect to the DMFT index of 12-year-olds.”
SOURCE: Kalsbeek H, Verrips GH. (1990). Dental caries prevalence and the use of fluorides in different European countries. Journal of Dental Research69(Spec Iss): 728-32.

“The most striking feature of some industrialized countries is a dramatic reduction of the prevalence of dental caries among school-aged children.”
SOURCE: Binus W, Lowinger K, Walther G. (1989). [Caries decline and changing pattern of dental therapy] [Article in German] Stomatol DDR 39: 322-6.

“The current reported decline in caries tooth decay in the US and other Western industrialized countries has been observed in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, with percentage reductions in each community apparently about the same.”
SOURCE: Heifetz SB, et al. (1988). Prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with optimal and above-optimal water-fluoride concentrations: a 5-year follow-up survey. Journal of the American Dental Association 116: 490-5.

“[D]uring the period 1979-81, especially in western Europe where there is little fluoridation, a number of dental examinations were made and compared with surveys carried out a decade or so before. It soon became clear that large reductions in caries had been occurring in unfluoridated areas. The magnitudes of these reductions are generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods of time.”
SOURCE: Diesendorf, D. (1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature 322: 125-129.

“Even the most cursory review of the dental literature since 1978 reveals a wealth of data documenting a secular, or long term, generalized decline in dental caries throughout the Western, industrialized world. Reports indicate that this decline has occurred in both fluoridated and fluoride-deficient areas,and in the presence and absence of organized preventive programs.”
SOURCE: Bohannan HM, et al. (1985). Effect of secular decline on the evaluation of preventive dentistry demonstrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 45: 83-89.

“The decline in caries prevalence in communities without fluoridated water in various countries is well documented. The cause or causes are, at this time, a matter of speculation.”
SOURCE: Leverett DH. (1982). Fluorides and the changing prevalence of dental caries. Science 217: 26-30.

Back to top

BELGIUM - Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt: (back to top)

“Caries-free children increased from 4% to 50%…A remarkable decline in dental caries was observed during the 15-yr period.”
SOURCEL Carvalho JC, Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D’Hoore W. (2001). The decline in dental caries among Belgian children between 1983 and 1998.Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 55-61.

DENMARK – Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“The paper presents an overview of the oral health situation in Denmark…[N]ational oral epidemiological data have been provided since 1972. Partly due to the preventive approach, a general decrease over-time in the prevalence of dental caries has been documented for children and adolescents. For example, in 1972 children in first class had a mean caries experience of 12.4 def-s against 3.9 def-s in 1990.”
SOURCE: Petersen PE. (1992). Effectiveness of oral health care–some Danish experiences. Proceedings of the Finnish Dental Society 88: 13-23.

FINLAND - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“During the 10 years, substantial decreases were seen in the mean numbers of dental visits (from 4.0 to 2.4) and fillings (from 2.9 to 1.2). The greatest decrease was seen in the number of fillings made in incisors.”
SOURCE: Vehkalahti M, Rytomaa I, Helminen S. (1991). Decline in dental caries and public oral health care of adolescents. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 49: 323-8.

FRANCE – Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt:

“Epidemiological surveys showed a marked decrease of caries prevalence in French children during the last 20 years.”
SOURCE: Obry-Musset AM. (1998). [Epidemiology of dental caries in children] [Article in French] Arch Pediatr 5: 1145-8.

GERMANY – Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt:

“Caries rates are on the decline in the Federal Republic of Germany, too. And, in some cases considerable, increase in the number of children with caries-free teeth and a clear reduction in the average number of carious teeth has been recorded, above all in kindergartens with preventive dentistry programmes.”
SOURCE: Gulzow HJ. (1990). [Preventive dentistry in the Federal Republic of Germany] [Article in German] Oralprophylaxe 12: 53-60.

GREECE – Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“The percentage of caries-free children for the total examined population increased by 94% while the reduction in DMFT index ranged between 38 and 70%. Treatment need was significantly lower in 1991 compared to 1982 in both dentitions.”
SOURCE: Athanassouli I, et al. (1994). Dental caries changes between 1982 and 1991 in children aged 6-12 in Athens, Greece. Caries Research28(5):378-82.

ICELAND – Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“During the last decade, a continuous decrease in dental caries has been observed among schoolchildren in Iceland…There does not seem to be any single factor responsible for the onset of the caries decline.”
SOURCE: Einarsdottir KG, Bratthall D. (1996). Restoring oral health: On the rise and fall of dental caries in Iceland. European Journal of Oral Science104: 459-69.

THE NETHERLANDS - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“According to WHO criteria, 12-year-old children in The Netherlands now have a very low caries experience.”
SOURCE: Truin GJ, Konig KG, Bronkhorst EM. (1994). Caries prevalence in Belgium and The Netherlands. International Dentistry Journal 44: 379-8.

NORWAY & all SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES - Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have all had a similar decline in dental caries during the last 20 years, although the decline has come later in Iceland. Despite the differences in choice of preventive methods, the dental health of children varies little across the frontiers.”
SOURCE: Kallestal C, et al. (1999). Caries-preventive methods used for children and adolescents in Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 27: 144-51.

“Despite differences in the dental health care services and the recording and reporting systems, a consistent and similar decline in dental caries is evident for Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden during the last two decades.”
SOURCE: von der Fehr FR. (1994). Caries prevalence in the Nordic countries. International Dentistry Journal 44: 371-8.

SWEDEN – Unfluoridated Water, Unfluoridated Salt:

“Between 1967 and 1992 the mean dmfs values declined from 7.8 to 1.8. The decline was greatest between 1967 and 1980 and then levelled off.”
SOURCE: Stecksen-Blicks C, Holm AK. (1995). Dental caries, tooth trauma, malocclusion, fluoride usage, toothbrushing and dietary habits in 4-year-old Swedish children: changes between 1967 and 1992. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 5: 143-8

SWITZERLAND – Unfluoridated Water, Fluoridated Salt:

“Caries prevalence has declined by 70-84 percent since the late sixties.”
SOURCE: Marthaler TM. (1991). [School dentistry in Zurich Canton: changes as a result of caries reduction of 80 to 85 percent] [Article in German]Oralprophylaxe 13: 115-22.

“Surveys of dental caries prevalence were carried out from 1970-1993 in schoolchildren of the city of Zurich. DMFT experience declined by 68 to 80%,while the average dmft decreased by 48-53% (ages 7 to 9).”
SOURCE: Steiner M, Menghini G, Curilovic Z, Marthaler T. (1994). [The caries occurrence in schoolchildren of the city of Zurich in 1970-1993. A view of prevention in new immigrants] [Article in German]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 104: 1210-8.

source: Fluoride Action Network

Paul Connett (Author), James Beck (Author), H. Spedding Micklem(Author)

• Paperback: 384 pages
• Publisher: Chelsea Green Publishing (October 7, 2010)

“Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s and, in this excellent book, these three scientists have confirmed the wisdom of that decision. Our children have not suffered greater tooth decay, as World Health Organization figures attest, and in turn our citizens have not borne the other hazards fluoride may cause. In any case, since fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, you don’t have to force it on people.”–Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology (2000) and Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, University of Gothenburg

“Alfred North Whitehead said the scientific method means leaving ‘options open for revision.’ An ancient Roman adage says that ‘whatever touches all must be approved by all.’ These characterizations of science and democracy are the reasons for reading this book. Especially if you and your family are drinking administratively mandated fluoridated water.”–Ralph Nader

“This book clearly shows that water fluoridation is poor public policy and must end. As a concerned citizen, I applaud the authors for bringing this issue to the world’s attention.”–Ed Asner

For anyone who has ever wondered why cities add fluoride to water-and questioned whether they should. Written with clear and easy-to-read prose, and supporting citations, The Case Against Fluoride carefully lays out the arguments against fluoridation and reasons why it should be discontinued. The authors examine the evidence on fluoridation and conclude convincingly that it should now be considered ‘harmful and ineffective.’–Dr. Hardy Limeback, Professor and Head of Preventative Dentistry, University of Toronto

Fluoride pollution from aluminum smelters has long been known to cause problems such as damage to plants and risk to livestock grazing grasses exposed to the chemical. But there are not many highly publicized studies that look at the ecological impact of fluoridating municipal water supplies. Past research, however, shows that the practice hailed by the CDC as one of the greatest public health advances of the 20th century for humans may be causing damage to the environment.

An excerpt from a research review by Edward Groth III, a former staff member of the Environmental Studies Board of the National Research Council, sets the stage:

“To date, except for instances of gross spillage of fluoride into the air or water, fluoride has received relatively little attention as a contaminant of the ecosystem. In the case of water pollution especially, there have been many other pollutants which have been present in massive amounts, and which have had a very significant impact. It is easy to understand how a pollutant like fluoride, which is usually present at fairly low levels, and which has more subtle, insidious effects, when it has effects at all, has been given relatively low priority, both in terms of research attention and regulatory control. It is possible that fluoride may have had some adverse effects on aquatic life, but that such damage has been masked by the far more severe effects of untreated sewage, industrial effluents, pesticides, and other major pollutants. As controls on these more easily recognized pollution problems are becoming more effective and widespread, attention can turn to less prominent pollutants such as fluoride, whose impacts may be more easily detected as water quality improves in respect to other parameters.”

At the Source

Ninety percent of artificially fluoridated water supplies in the U.S. do not purchase pharmaceutical grade fluoride but instead purchase fluosilicic acid, a waste product mainly of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

The fluosilicic acid is extracted from wet scrubbers, according to Michael Connett, Research Director of the Fluoride Action Network, an international coalition of scientists, medical professionals, environmentalists, and others working for fluoride awareness. Connett describes wet scrubbers as pollution management tools that were devised to capture the fluoride gases produced during phosphate fertilizer production. The designated hazardous waste, which is too toxic to be dumped in rivers or soil, is recovered from the scrubbers, packaged unrefined, and sent out to municipalities across the U.S. ready to be applied to local drinking water.

In a Canadian Broadcasting Company piece from 1967 called “Air of Death,” the severe toxicity of the waste from the fertilizer industry and the need for pollution control is clear.

“Farmers noticed it first… Something mysterious burned the peppers, burned the fruit, dwarfed and shriveled the grains, damaged everything that grew. Something in the air destroyed the crops. Anyone could see it… They noticed it first in 1961. Again in ‘62. Worse each year. Plants that didn’t burn, were dwarfed. Grain yields cut in half…Finally, a greater disaster revealed the source of the trouble. A plume from a silver stack, once the symbol of Dunville’s progress, spreading for miles around poison – fluorine. It was identified by veterinarians. There was no doubt. What happened to the cattle was unmistakable, and it broke the farmers’ hearts. Fluorosis – swollen joints, falling teeth, pain until cattle lie down and die. Hundreds of them. The cause – fluorine poisoning from the air.”

Following incidents such as the one detailed above, the phosphate fertilizer industry has drastically cleaned up in large part due to stringent Environmental Protection Agency regulations. And large amounts of fluoride are no longer finding their way into our air, water, and soil. Much smaller amounts of fluoride from the phosphate fertilizer industry, however, are still finding their way into the environment and stricter limits on these lower levels of the waste have yet to be set.

Industrial Waste in the Water

The risk to the environment from fluoride comes as the sewage effluent from municipalities enters rivers and streams after processing.

Groth, who has a PhD in biological sciences, says aside from some waste still coming from industry, another significant source of fluoride water pollution is domestic sewage.

In his 1975 review of the environmental impact of fluoride Groth explained that most of the fluoridated water used in urban areas is returned through sewage systems to the aquatic environment. Groth described a number of studies that related environmental fluoride concentrations to specific sources. One such study measured tributaries of the East Gallatin River above the town of Bozeman, Montana, as containing 0.1 ppm (parts per million) fluoride or less, while the river below the city’s sewage outfall (the only fluoride source in the area) was found to have concentrations of 0.3 to 0.8 ppm. This clearly illustrates that fluoride added to municipal water supplies finds its way to our rivers through our sewage systems and raises background levels of the chemical.

Groth also mentions a study of fluoride input to Narragansett Bay, in Rhode Island, which showed that “36 percent of the fluoride entering the bay was due to fluoridation of water supplies in five communities on rivers feeding into the estuary. In midsummer, pollution from these sources was enough to double the fluoride content of the rivers.”

Fluoridated Fish

In a 1994 research review, Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada, researchers Richard G. Foulkes and Anne C. Anderson reviewed the literature to find that concentrations of fluoride lower than 1.5 ppm, the level “permissible” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has both lethal and adverse effects on salmon.

The EPA allowed a “permissible level” of 1.5 ppm for fluoride discharged into fresh water. But the researchers suggest a level of 0.2 ppm is required to remove the risk to aquatic species. British Columbia’s “recommended guideline” is actually 0.2 ppm, but it does not have legislation to back it up.

The research review covers a field study, which demonstrated that relatively low level fluoride contamination from an aluminum smelter 1.6 km above the John Day Dam caused inhibition of migration in the salmon, which led to high salmon loss at on the Columbia River from 1982-1986. In 1982, the average daily discharge of fluoride caused a fluoride concentration of 0.5 ppm at the dam and a migration time of more than 150 hours leading to a 55% loss of the salmon. In 1983, the concentration was reduced to 0.17 ppm and the migration time to less than 28 hours with a loss of 11%. In 1985, the concentration was 0.2 ppm with a salmon loss of 5%. This study clearly shows that even lower levels of fluoride, the same levels that are discharged from artificial fluoridation of municipal water supplies, can cause a large loss of the salmon population

Other studies reviewed by Foulkes and Anderson support the findings that fluoride levels below 1.5 ppm have lethal and other adverse effects on aquatic species. One study shows delayed hatching of rainbow trout at 1.5 ppm; another shows brown mussels died at 1.4 ppm; yet another shows that levels below 0.1 ppm were lethal to the water flea.

The researchers argue that these studies provide evidence that the “safe” level of fluoride in the fresh water habitat of salmon species is not 1.5 ppm but, 0.2 ppm. They also make the point that the decline in salmon stocks, especially Chinook and Coho, is a major economic problem for both commercial and sport fisheries and that fluoride pollution, even at relatively low levels, plays a role in this problem. The researchers argue that “until evidence to the contrary based on impartially, conducted field studies, is available, the “critical level” of fluoride, in fresh water, to protect salmon species in the US Northwest and British Columbia, should be 0.2 ppm.”  They say this would require, among other actions, the cessation of deliberate metering of fluoride waste into community water supplies.

source: DC Bureau

Photo: Cresultsviapurchased

So why is Fluoride still being added to our water? The story begins as many stories do when well-meaning folks try to mimic something in nature and it goes horribly wrong. Way back when, people recognized the positive effects of calcium fluoride in drinking water and wanted to replicate it. Thus, Grand Rapids, MI, began adding sodium fluoride — a less expensive version of calcium fluoride — to its water supply in 1945. The key difference being that calcium fluoride is naturally occurring and sodium fluoride is not. Not to mention that sodium fluoride is a synthetic waste product of the nuclear industry and often contaminated with lead, aluminum and cadmium.

Photo: creativecommons

For decades after sodium fluoride was first introduced, it became synonymous with bright, vibrant smiles. That was until reports started to surface that stated otherwise. For instance, a National Research Council (NRC) panel of dentists, toxicologist and epidemiologists determined thatfluoride levels in drinking water are too high and might actually damage teeth (isn’t that ironic). And a recent report out of India reveals that children have been crippled and even blinded after fluoride was added to their drinking water.

Fluoride has also been cited for causing depression, creating liver and kidney damage, weakening the immune system and even promoting cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. However, even as more detrimental evidence comes to light, many are still convinced of the benefits of sodium fluoride, which is slowing any widespread call for removal.

Photo: AquaLiv

What can you do to protect yourself from sodium fluoride?
Thankfully, if you are concerned about excessive fluoride exposure there are many strategies you can take to lessen your risk. Beyond opting for a fluoride-free toothpaste, you can find other easy tools to avoid it and/or help alleviate its potential ill effects. Iodine and lecithin and careful cleansing of the liver have been touted for helping the body extract fluorides. AquaLiv, a revolutionary water filtration system based on the laws of homeopathy, is one of the only water filtrating systems available today that safely removes fluoride without stripping water of its nutrients.

source: Environmental Graffiti

Concern

Identification

Effects

About 1 percent of the population is allergic to fluoride. However, there also is evidence that fluoride can interfere with normal brain functions in children. Topical fluoride application is reported to be the only necessary fluoride to prevent tooth decay, so brushing your teeth is safe and effective.

Read more: Baby Skin Problems & Water Fluoridation | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_6823200_baby-skin-problems-water-fluoridation.html#ixzz0wA451TXd

source: eHow.com

The High Court is to rule whether South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should have taken more account of public opinion before backing the plans in February last year.

During the public consultation, 72 per cent of people living in the affected area who gave their views opposed fluoridation.

But the authority’s 12 board members unanimously approved the scheme, saying it would benefit dental health.

That sparked calls, backed by the Daily Echo, for a binding referendum.

A date for the judicial review hasn’t been set, because the campaigner who lodged the legal bid is appealing against a ruling she could not challenge the way the SHA weighed up its evidence.

The SHA, which has consistently argued it met or exceeded all its legal requirements during the consultation, has set aside £400,000 to fight the action.

That is seen as a test case and has caused other health authorities around the country to delay their own fluoride schemes.

source: Daily Echo

Chiefs at Southern Water have said they wouldn’t add “unnecessary chemicals” if they didn’t have to, but their hands are tied by a change in the law giving the final say to health officials.

The declaration has been hailed by anti-fluoride campaigners as further proof South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should abandon its controversial plans to fluoridate tap water delivered to almost 200,000 people.

Until now, Southern Water had insisted it had a “neutral” opinion of the scheme, which will affect residents in two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh,Totton, Netley and Rownhams.

The firm only gave technical advice and information on the water supply system during the public consultation on the plans. But company secretary Kevin Hall has admitted in a letter to a local campaigner that the company would not add fluoride to the water if it didn’t have to.

He said: “Our position is clear that we are statutory water suppliers and our expertise lies in engineering and water treatment for this purpose.

“We would choose not to have to add chemicals that are not directly necessary for the provision of drinking water.

“However, there is a statutory process for the requirement of the addition of fluoride to drinking water we supply, and, if this is met, we have a statutory duty to comply with the requirement.

“I repeat that we have great regard to the interests of our customers.”

The law was changed in 2003 to put the decision on fluoridation in the hands of health authorities, after several schemes were scrapped by utility firms fearful of legal reprisals from upset customers.

Once SHA has made a decision to approve plans for fluoridation, which it must do following a public consultation, it can order a water firm to introduce the chemical to supplies.

The chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, which has been leading the campaign fighting the Southampton scheme, last night said he welcomed the company’s position as further evidence of the opposition to the plans.

Stephen Peckham told the Daily Echo: “They’re in a sense caught between a rock and a hard place – whatever they think they’ll be forced to do what they’re told by the health authority. But I do think it’s significant that they wouldn’t do it.

“They’re a water provider. That’s their concern, not to add anything that isn’t there to make the water suitable for consumption. From that point of view, adding fluoride changes their whole role. Lots of people have written to Southern Water and I think it just shows that they are paying heed to their customers.’’ A Southern Water spokeswoman said last night the firm “cannot take a medical or ethical view” on fluoridation.

She said: “By law, if requested by a strategic health authority to add fluoride to the water supply, then we must do so.

“The decision to add fluoride was not taken by us and it is not our place to make such a decision, as stated in the letter.”

An SHA spokeswoman said last night Southern Water had been invited to comment as part of the consultation, and insisted the organisation still believes in fluoridation.

source: Daily Echo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifvp3Fxi7Uo
Police raided the Rawsome Foods organic grocery store with guns drawn in search of “raw-foods”. George Hemminger (George4Title) said the battle over organic foods is heating up because large agricultural businesses and corporations feel threatened by local co-ops and have hijacked the FDA and other government regulatory agencies.

RAW VIDEO: California Police raid Organic Food store GUNS DRAWN looking for raw milk!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHoFY7h-do8
California Police raid organic food store looking for raw milk!!

Keep Raw Milk LEGAL!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56tiOnGSgyQ
In October 2007, California State Legislature passed a bill banning the sale of raw milk. Despite its medicinal value, raw milk will no longer be available to the public. Republican Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul has introduced a bill to legalize the transportation of unpasteurized milk. Please help save raw milk. Visit www.organicpastures.com to make a donation.

H. R. 778 Unpasteurized (Raw) Milk Legalization Bill

To authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.

Water fluoridation has come to refer to the addition of over 40 chemicals into the water supply that synergistically come together to wreak havoc on the body and its processes. Paul Joseph Watson and Matt Ryan recently came together to expose what water fluoridation really amounts to: disease. Scientists and doctors around the world are speaking out against water fluoridation, and its effects on the human body.
Real or perceived danger?

If water fluoridation truly is a killer, then why is it still being added to the water supply? The truth is that only about 5% of the world is current fluoridated. Of the 5% that is fluoridated, 50% of them reside in the United States. Other countries have rejected fluoridation due to a wide variety of health concerns, with one primary factor being thyroid damage.

Studies have shown many times over that fluoride really does pose a threat to the body. Even if there were only a few studies proving that fluoride is harmful, then the government should act to protect the people. If the government felt that the studies were conducted improperly, then an independent investigation should be funded. There really is no excuse for not examining the issue further. Supporters of fluoridation would most likely argue that there is no necessity to investigate fluoridation further, and that there is no implication that  fluoride is unsafe for general consumption.

This argument would be somewhat effective if there were not so many studies highlighting the harmful effects of fluoride. In addition to the studies, officials from around the globe have been calling for an end to fluoridation since its inception. The Department of Health in New Jersey found that areas with fluoridated water had between two and seven times higher bone cancer rates than communities that were not fluoridated. In another famous study, neurotoxicologist and former Director of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix found that even moderate levels of fluoride exposure led to varying degrees of brain damage. The damage was caused due to fluoride building up in the brain.

What is more shocking is that even the offspring of the studied animals were affected. While the doses were relatively low, the animals experienced permanent effects to the brain that were similar to ADD symptoms. Other studies throughout the past 50 years have linked fluoride to osteoarthritis, inhibited thyroid function, decreased sperm count, cancer, decreased strength, and much more. One of the most recent studies found that  fluoride may not help teeth at all .

The flagship of chemical pollution

Fluoride is not the only thing in your water. Cocaine was recently  found in the drinking water , along with various hormones. Unfortunately, traces of cocaine may be the least of your worries. Other toxic pollutants are often found in the drinking water across the United States. Even if you do not drink tap water directly, it can also be in many products such as soda or beer. Foods absorb water as well, and your food may be absorbing these pollutants. One of the best options to prevent against exposure to these chemicals is to purchase a high quality water filter, or get your water from a pure source such as a spring. Other pollutants typically found in the drinking water:

• Lead , which can enter the water supply through corrosive pipes or improper water treatment
• Pathogens  that cause disease and are especially crippling to those with weakened immune systems
• By-products of chlorine treatment such as  trihalomethanes  and  haloacetic acids , which have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems
• Arsenic , which may cause cancer, serious skin problems, birth defects and reproductive problems
• Radon , a carcinogen linked to lung cancer

It is important to remember that these pollutants can also be absorbed or inhaled by the body during showering. A high quality shower filter is a necessity for everyone who does not have a house-wide filtration system. Protecting yourself from toxic tap water is very important, but it is vital that the citizens of the world correct the problem the correct way. It is time that water fluoridation comes to an end worldwide. With many nations leading the way in the war against water fluoridation, the proper momentum has been generated. Tell everyone you know about the toxic effects of water fluoridation, and allow them to research the facts for themselves. Through peaceful and intelligent means, water fluoridation can easily be stopped.
Sources:

1. Cohn PD , A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males, NJ Depart. of Health, Environ. Health Service, 1992, 1- 17
2. Cheng YX, IQ of children in areas of high fluorine content,  Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases,  Supplement 1991.
3. J Epidemiol (CL8), 1996 Dec; 6 (4): 184-91
4. Chrischilles E, Shireman T, Wallace R. Costs and health effects of osteoporotic fractures. Bone 1994;15:377-386.
5. Dambacher MA, Ittner J, Ruegsegger P. Long-term fluoride therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Bone 1986;7:199-205.
6. Riggs BL, Hodson SF, O’Fallon WM, et al. Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. NEJM 1990;322:802-809.
7. Kleerkoper ME, Peterson E, Phillips E, et al. Continuous sodium fluoride therapy does not reduce vertebral fracture rate in postmenopausal osteoporosis (abstract) J Bone Miner Res 1989; Res 4 [Suppl]:S376.
8. Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride. J Bone Miner Res 1989;4:223-225.
9. Avioli LV. Fluoride treatment of osteoporosis. Postgrad Med: a special report, 14 Sept 1987:26-27.

Source: PrisonPlanet.com

“We were shocked to see there was a substantial amount of fluoride in the water supply,” said Chase Warden, 18, speaking at Monday’s city council meeting. “Fluoride is a very toxic substance.”

Warden and a group of his friends said their research of independent sources found that the benefits of fluoride are outweighed by the risks, which include fluorosis, a dental condition characterized by cracking, mottling and pitting of the teeth.

The teenagers cited the city’s 2009 Annual Water Quality Report as proof of there being dangerous levels of fluoride in Huber Heights’ drinking water.

The report indicates the city’s drinking water contains between 0.82 to 1.14 milligrams per liter of fluoride.

But according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drinking water is safe as long as it does not reach the maximum contaminant level of 4 grams per litre.

The CDC estimates about 70 percent of U.S. residents who have public water systems receive fluoridated water. The agency said fluoridating public water was one of the 10 greatest public health interventions in the U.S. in the 20th century because of the dramatic decline in tooth decay it helped facilitate.

Jen House, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Health, said more than 60 years of research shows that fluoridating drinking water is safe and highly beneficial to oral health.

“We certainly believe fluoridation is the single most important step a community can take to improve the dental health of their residents,” House said.

Huber Heights has added fluoride to its drinking water since 1969, when the state passed a law requiring cities with more than 5,000 people to fluoridate their drinking water. It would take an act of the legislature to change the law.

Alexandria Turpin, 18, said her group is seeking exactly that: They want the city’s endorsement before they lobby state officials to change the law.

Turpin said the group expects to meet with council members in August to argue their case against fluoride. She said the chemical can cause bone cancer and other diseases.

Source: Dayton Daily News

Poison tap water has become the number one trending search term on Google Trends today after our efforts to bring attention to how sodium fluoride in tap water is a deadly health threat went viral.

The subject hit “volcanic” status shortly after Alex Jones launched the new anti-fluoride campaign on his show today.

Click for enlargement.

However, Google appears to be censoring the Prison Planet story we wrote on the subject from appearing in its news section.

The story appears under a routine Google search but is apparently being blocked from the news aggregator, thereby preventing people who see the “poison tap water” search trend from finding out more information about the subject.

Alex Jones is launching a new campaign to inform the public about the toxic chemical fluoride being added to tap water across the country. While EPA scientists and workers are calling for an end to water fluoridation, the government is doing everything in its power to continue and even increase the amount of toxic chemicals being added to public water supplies.

Click for Large PDF

The flyer listed above is a tool that can be used to get the message out about this serious crime against the people. Fluoride is a toxic poison that has known serious side effects. Spread the word. Post this flyer in legal, easily visible locations. Pass it out to friends, family, and people you meet.

RELATED: Sodium Fluoride: Poison In The Tap Water

Source: PrisonPlanet.com

MORE INFORMATION ABOUT FLUORIDATION

Aaron Dykes
Prison Planet.com
August 1, 2010

In a 2008 paper titled, “Fluoride and the Future: Population Level Cognitive Enhancement,” Oxford bioethics professor Julian Savulescu claims that water fluoridation may be key to the “future of humanity.” He argues that “fluoridation may not merely be about tooth decay… [but] the drive to be better.”

Drugging the population’s water supply, Savulescu claims, is a form of “enhancement” that can pave the way to a future where mental abilities and other functions could be improved with drugs. Savulescu writes:

“Fluoridation is the tip of the enhancement iceberg. Science is progressing fast to develop safe and effective cognitive enhancers, drugs which will improve our mental abilities. For years, people have used crude enhancers, usually to promote wakefulness, like nicotine, caffeine and amphetamines. A new generation of more effective enhancers is emerging modafenil, ritalin, Adderral and ampakines and the piracetam family of memory improvers.”

But once highly safe and effective cognitive enhancers are developed – as they almost surely will be – the question will arise whether they should be added to the water, like fluoride, or our cereals, like folate. It seems likely that widespread population level cognitive enhancement will be irresistible.

The dream Savulescu argues for is based upon the lie that fluoridation of the public water supply has been a tremendous human advancement. Supporting that lie is the boasted claim by the Center for Disease Control that water fluoridation ranks among the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th Century. Instead, fluoride has been linked with neurological effects,thyroid problems, bone cancer and even crippling-blindness. What’s more, much of it is not even the common-but-toxic sodium fluoride, but an industrial waste derivative known as hydrofluosilicic acid– in an estimated 2/3 of the fluoridated public water in the U.S. and known to be very deadly.

Savulescu is flawed to hope fluoride can pave the way to an alchemically-”improved” society, especially where forced-medication is involved. The vision is distinctly like that of Brave New World, wherein author Aldous Huxley predicts a future dictatorship where people “learn to love their servitude.” What Huxley terms in the novel “Soma” would most likely come in reality in the form of numerous drugs that would tackle individual happiness, and the larger complacency of the masses at large. Solidified by a Scientific Dictatorship, a pharmacologically-treated population would be rendered very unlikely to ever revolt against the regime in power.

Huxley stated:

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

A ‘scientific’ form of control doesn’t necessarily imply the rise of enlightenment or technological innovation, but rather the guaranteed control of its population through a tested understanding of human behavior– including breaking point, resistance, anger– and the the ability to systematically stay one-step or many more ahead of what anyone might do.

DRUGS AND CHEMICALS ALREADY IN OUR FOOD & WATER

So could “cognitive enhancers” like Ritalin, Prozac and other chemically-engineered drugs be added to the water supply in the future to make humans better, smarter or faster? Or could they make humans docile, complacent and dangerously subservient?

Such proposals are already underway, and what’s more, whether intentional or not, spiked water supplies are already affecting populations in the U.S. and across the globe.

Kurt Nimmo reported in December 2009 on a newspiece advocating adding lithium to the water supply as a mood stabilizer:

Japanese researchers, according to Georgiou, are “investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough — in a really positive way without having the bad effects of lithium — to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate.”

Moreover, the AP exposed in 2008 that pharmaceutical drugs were found in the majority of the United States’ water supply. According to the AP, at least 46 million people are affected by the issue.

The New York Times sums in ‘There are drugs in the drinking water. Now what?‘ that: “There are traces of sedatives in New York City’s water. Ibuprofen and naproxen in Washington, D.C. Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety drugs in southern California… But how bad is it, exactly?”

The U.S. Geological Survey lists the “emerging contaminants in the environment” and specifically notes what is affecting the water supply. Contaminating compounds range from herbicides to pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and household chemicals.

New research has also uncovered the presence of chemicals known as Antiandrogens that are finding their way into the water supply. Paul Joseph Watson writes:

Antiandrogens used in pesticides sprayed on our food have also been identified as “endocrine disruptors” that have been “demonstrated to induce demasculinization in rats.”

More shockingly, population control advocates like White House Science Advisor John P. Holdren have advocated adding sterilants to the water supply. He wrote about it alongsidePopulation Bomb author Paul Ehrlich in their 1977 book Ecoscience.

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.”

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Spreading disease, like “enhancements” or sterilization, could be the intention of food or water additives. In 2002, The Melbourne Age reported on Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet’s plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other “overpopulated” countries of South-East Asia. From the article:

Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases. His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.

“Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions,” Sir Macfarlane said.

Alex Jones recently exposed the fact that all the adulterated and dangerous chemical additives in our food and water are put there intentionally as put of a larger eugenics program.

The potential to use food and water as a weapon of mass-medication has long been used in times of war, under the principle of attrition and destabilization. Lord Bertrand Russell has underscored this concept rather bluntly in how it applies to societies living under the scientific age:

“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” - The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

“Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.“ - Education in a Scientific Society p.251

CHEMICAL LOBOTOMY: ENLIGHTENMENT IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

It’s a brave new world indeed where Oxford professor Julian Savulescu argues for the “Ethics of Enhancement.” In his 2002 paper, “Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings,” Savulesco argues for using gene therapy and drug therapy to make “happier, healthier people.” It could mean adding both mental-boosting and mood-enhancing chemicals to the things everyone eats or drinks.

It is interesting that Savulescu mentions fluoride alongside “cognitive enhancements,” as many critics have pointed towards the use of fluoride in Nazi concentration camps to keep the inmates passive, and questioned whether a docile population is a hidden purpose of the water fluoridation campaigns in the United States and post-war Western world. Further, fluoride is a basic ingredient in both Prozac, which is the leading brand-name for Fluoxetine (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) as well as Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride), which are fundamentally mind-altering substances.

Fluoride isn’t the only controversial substance Savulescu terms as an advance in human civilization. He touts the widespread use of Prozac and points to the use of Modafenil, an amphetamine, to keep Air Force pilots alert during missions in Iraq. Savulescu is also a proponent of most types of genetic-enhancement that have been proposed. He sees experiments like the genetically-engineered “supermouse” as a model for the potentialsupermen of the future.

However, all of these “enhancements” come with risks. Genetically-engineered foods have proved deadly and dangerous; gene-splicing has proved to have unforeseeable consequences; fluorides and pharmaceutical chemicals pose dangers of addiction, brain damage, cancer or other problems.

Savulescu poses the potential to “enhance” a.k.a. “control” behavior: “If the results of recent animal studies into hard work and monogamy apply to humans, it may be possible in the future to genetically change how we are predisposed to behave. This raises a new question: should we try to engineer better, happier people?” p. 7-8

NOT UTILIZING ENHANCEMENTS COULD BE ‘WRONG’

He goes on to argue that while many have raised questions about the moral and ethical dilemmas of biological enhancement, NOT enhancing could be most wrong. In this scenario, not feeding offspring “enhanced” food additives could be considered as an offense:

“First Argument for Enhancement: Choosing Not to Enhance Is Wrong – Consider the case of the Neglectful Parents. The Neglectful parents give birth to a child with a special condition. The child has a stunning intellect but requires a simple, readily available, cheap dietary supplement to sustain his intellect.But they neglect the diet of this child and this results in a child with a stunning intellect becoming normal. This is clearly wrong.”

“But now consider the case of the Lazy Parents. They have a child who has a normal intellect but if they introduced the same dietary supplement, the child’s intellect would rise to the same level as the child of the Neglectful Parent. They can’t be bothered with improving the child’s diet so the child remains with a normal intellect. Failure to institute dietary supplementation means a normal child fails to achieve a stunning intellect. The inaction of the Lazy Parents is as wrong as the inaction of the Neglectful parents. It has exactly the same consequence: a child exists who could have had a stunning intellect but is instead normal. Some argue that it is not wrong to fail to bring about” p. 10

Savulescu’s vision is distinctly “transhumanist” a branch of the eugenics movement which seeks to improve the human species to the point that highly-gifted individuals would transcend into a new & improved proto-human species– becoming godlike creatures with unique creative potential and abilities. Transhumanism was first termed by UNESCO founder Julian Huxley in 1952, the grandson of Charles Darwin’s partner at the Royal Society of Science, T.H. Huxley.

“I believe in transhumanism”: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny.
-Julian Huxley, 1957

LIBERAL EUGENICS: “VOLUNTARY” ENHANCEMENTS THROUGH MASS-MEDICATED WATER

That philosophy of Transhumanism, moreover, is necessarily rooted in the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century that was led by the scientific elite of the Royal Society, which included Charles Darwin, his cousin Francis Galton and Thomas H. Huxley. This circle and their allies floated Utopian visions for a scientifically- and eugenically- engineered society that would be progressive and even transformative, theoretically producing a ‘better’, albeit tightly-authoritarian society (science demands control, in that sense).

Savulescu identifies with much of this “liberal Eugenics,” defensibly separate from Nazi eugenics because there is ‘no belief in only one gene-type’ and because its measures remain “voluntary.”

“What was objectionable about the eugenics movement, besides its shoddy scientific basis, was that it involved the imposition of a State vision for a healthy population and aimed to achieve this through coercion.” p. 21

However, proposals to add medication to the population’s water supply are involuntary, and would violate individual rights. It would be mass-medication, and avoiding the substances treated with it would be costly, burdensome and difficult to do with any finality. Savulescu apparently views compulsory water treatment in the same vein as compulsory vaccinations, and anything else that can be justified on a public health care basis, even when such treatments prove not to be healthy at all.

“Some interventions, however, may still be clearly enhancements for our children and so just like vaccinations or other preventative health care.” p. 27

Additionally, while the figures of “liberal eugenics” which Savulescu looked up to often espoused semi-tolerant “voluntary” proposals, it was always clear that the long-term vision encompassed measures of control ‘for the betterment of all’ that could not function under voluntary or ‘democratic’ conditions. What’s more, eugenical laws passed in the 1920s and 1930s in the United States and Britain– some of which weren’t repealed until the late 1970s– gave the State authority over forcible sterilization and beyond. Thus, these “voluntary” enhancement-visionaries have already crossed the line of trust and betrayed the fact that they mean to control with force.

Advancements and innovations in science, technology and health have obvious potential benefits, but with kind of dangerous ideology driving the science policy, public health is at a serious risk. Worse still, driving the population into that system has been an intentional scheme by certain ideologues. We cannot flirt with ushering a Brave New World knowing its sweet poison is certain despotism.