NEW YORK, Aug. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The medical and public health community is shocked by the news that young American girls are reaching puberty at ages as young as 7 years (1). However, according to Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network, “If fluoride’s dangers had not been taken off the scientific radar screen by the US Public Health Service when it prematurely endorsed fluoridation in 1950, maybe key warning signals would not have been ignored for over 50 years.”

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for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies of the US Department of Health and Human Services to protect this outdated, unethical, ineffective and the dangerous practice than it is to protect the health of the American people.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.

Index of Fluorinated Pharmaceuticals

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

Mineral Waters of the World

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

New York — May 2, 2010 — Sixty-five years ago today, officials added fluoride chemicals into Newburgh, NY’s public water supply making residents guinea pigs in a failed experiment to discover whether fluoride could safely reduce tooth decay. It didn’t. But political pressure declared it a success. Any high school biology student can find the flaws in this “study.” Fluoride researchers are still using our bodies and tax dollars for their own benefit.

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

The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There [Paperback Book]

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

Water Fluoridation Impacts the Environment

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

According to the Fluoride Action Network, as of July 2010, more than 3,000 professionals from around the globe have banded together in an attempt to end the fluoridation of drinking water. Why? Since the petition first began circulating in 2007 — to the chagrin of dentistseverywhere — evidence continues to mount that sodium fluoride isn’t something to smile about. In fact, it could actually be one of the biggest health risks of our time. And it’s not just the aptly named Fluoride Action Network that thinks so. Sources such as Natural News, Prevention Magazine and even the Wall Street Journal have all questioned the merits of fluoridation of drinking water.

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

The tap water in many cities contains fluoride as well as in specifically-labeled bottled water for children. Fluoride is a chemical added to water to help prevent tooth decay. However, there are reports of negative side effects.

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