Thread: DOW wants Legal Levels of fluoride in food RAISED

so off topic but concerning..

http://www.ems.org/nws/2005/09/21/environmental_gr

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 21, 2005



Environmental groups petition EPA to retract fluoride pesticide tolerances on food

Two national environmental organizations, Environmental Working Group and Beyond Pesticides, joined today with the Fluoride Action Network in challenging the safety of new food tolerances issued by the EPA for the fluoride based pesticide, sulfuryl fluoride. This action marks growing concern among mainstream scientists and environmental organizations that total exposure to fluoride, from water, food, and dental uses like toothpaste and rinses, is not safe for vulnerable populations, particularly young children.

The challenge was directed at the maximum legal limits for the fluoride-based pesticide in foods, which have been set at levels that dwarf the amount allowed in tap water. In just one case, the EPA is allowing 900 parts per million of fluoride in dried eggs, as opposed to the maximum 4 ppm allowed in tap water. One third of the nation’s eggs are sold and consumed in dried, reconstituted form.

The groups noted that 900 ppm set for dried eggs is extremely close to that used in toothpaste (1,000 ppm), a level that is considered toxic if consumed in greater than pea sized portions. “How can the EPA consider 900 ppm in eggs safe, while the Food and Drug Administration directs parents to call poison control centers if their children consume more than a pea sized portion of toothpaste with fluoride at 1,000 ppm?� asked Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director of FAN. “Unlike toothpaste, eggs are meant to be eaten, not spit out.�

The precise FDA required label on toothpastes with fluoride levels of 1000 ppm is:

"WARNING: Do not swallow. Use only a pea-sized amount for children under six… If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."

The EPA has set fluoride tolerances for over 200 foodstuffs ranging from 5 ppm in cheese all the way up to 900 ppm in powdered eggs. The groups warn that at the maximum level of fluoride a serving of scrambled eggs made with as few as two egg equivalents could make a child vomit and a four egg omelet could have the same effect on an adult.

The tolerances were requested by Dow AgroSciences, which is expanding its use of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride (trade named ProFume) to fumigate food processing facilities and storage areas. Dow has never conducted crucial safety tests on fluoride residues yet scientific studies point to serious health risks from ingesting even small amounts. A wealth of independent, peer reviewed studies have found adverse effects on children’s developing brains, the male reproductive system, kidneys, and bones.

According to Fluoride Action Network (FAN) researcher Chris Neurath, “It isn't just powdered eggs that will have dangerous levels of fluoride allowed. All processed foods will be allowed 70 ppm fluoride residues. That includes everything from breakfast cereal to hamburger helper to cake mix. Wheat flour is allowed up to 125 ppm. For comparison, the maximum level of fluoride allowed in drinking water is 4 ppm and the natural level of fluoride in mothers’ milk is approximately 0.008 ppm. The EPA argues that most fumigated foods won’t contain the highest allowed levels so there is no need to worry. Yet the USDA’s surveillance program for pesticide residues on foods routinely finds samples bought at stores that exceed the EPA tolerances. The potential for a significant number of acute poisoning cases every year is very real.�

"We are very concerned that total fluoride exposure is not safe for children,� said Richard Wiles, Senior Vice-President of Environmental Working Group (EWG). “EPA is relying on outdated science to support this increase in fluoride exposure, and in our view has not discharged its legal duty to thoroughly consider the effects of fluoride on infants and children, from all routes of exposure, based on a thorough review of the most recent peer-reviewed science.�

Jay Feldman of Beyond Pesticides adds, "This is yet another example of the EPA pesticide division protecting the bottom line of Dow AgroSciences rather than the health of the American public.�

According to Connett, "It is ironic that, while 11 EPA Unions, representing over 7000 professionals, are calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation because of its likely role in causing osteosarcoma in young males, the EPA’s pesticide division has approved the highest fluoride tolerances in US history. With the Centers for Disease Control admitting that 1 in 3 American children have dental fluorosis [the telltale sign of overexposure to fluoride during early childhood] now is not the time to be adding more fluoride to the nation's food supply.�

The appeal by FAN, EWG, & Beyond Pesticides can be accessed at:
http://www.fluorideaction.org/pesticide ... ssion.html

The EPA Unions resolution can be found here:
http://www.fluorideaction.net/epa-unions1.pdf

###

For further information, contact:

Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network
315-379-9200 or 315-229-5853; paul@fluoridealert.org

Flouride is a neuro-toxin...it causes brain cancer. It should NOT be in ANY food supply, water supply, toothpaste, etc.

RR

Just like mercury in the vaccines, MSG in the food, it is good for you. Be quiet and be a good global citizen!

Just kidding RR. You are correct. Isn’t it nice they want us to eat poison? At least we can buy the medicine to treat the symptoms of the sickness they give us.

http://www.rense.com/general67/theeffectsoffluoride.htm

The Effects Of Fluoride
On The Thyroid Gland
By Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield
MBBS LRCP MRCS
Medical Advisor to Thyroid UK
9-22-5

There is a daunting amount of research studies showing that the widely acclaimed benefits on fluoride dental health are more imagined than real. My main concern however, is the effect of sustained fluoride intake on general health. Again, there is a huge body of research literature on this subject, freely available and in the public domain.

But this body of work was not considered by the York Review when their remit was changed from "Studies of the effects of fluoride on health" to "Studies on the effects of fluoridated water on health." It is clearly evident that it was not considered by the BMA (Britsh Medical Association), British Dental Association (BDA), BFS (British Fluoridation Society) and FPHM, (Faculty for Public Health and Medicine) since they all insist, as in the briefing paper to Members of Parliament - that fluoridation is safe and non-injurious to health.

This is a public disgrace, I will now show by reviewing the damaging effects of fluoridation, with special reference to thyroid illness.

It has been known since the latter part of the 19th century that certain communities, notably in Argentina, India and Turkey were chronically ill, with premature ageing, arthritis, mental retardation, and infertility; and high levels of natural fluorides in the water were responsible. Not only was it clear that the fluoride was having a general effect on the health of the community, but in the early 1920s Goldemberg, working in Argentina showed that fluoride was displacing iodine; thus compounding the damage and rendering the community also hypothyroid from iodine deficiency.

Highly Damaging To The Thyroid Gland

This was the basis of the research in the 1930s of May, Litzka, Gorlitzer von Mundy, who used fluoride preparations to treat over-active thyroid illness. Their patients either drank fluoridated water, swallowed fluoride pills or were bathed in fluoridated bath water; and their thyroid function was as a result, greatly depressed. The use in 1937 of fluorotyrosine for this purpose showed how effective this treatment was; but the effectiveness was difficult to predict and many patients suffered total thyroid loss. So it was given a new role and received a new name, Pardinon. It was marketed not for over-active thyroid disease but as a pesticide. (Note the manufacturer of fluorotyrosine was IG Farben who also made sarin, a gas used in World War II).

This bit of history illustrates the fact that fluorides are dangerous in general and in particular highly damaging to the thyroid gland, a matter to which I shall return shortly. While it is unlikely that it will be disputed that fluorides are toxic - let us be reminded that they are Schedule 2 Poisons under the Poisons Act 1972, the matter in dispute is the level of toxicity attributable to given amounts; in today's context the degree of damage caused by given concentrations in the water supply. While admitting its toxicity, proponents rely on the fact that it is diluted and therefore, it is claimed, unlikely to have deleterious effects.

They Could Not Be More Mistaken

It seems to me that we must be aware of how fluoride does its damage. It is an enzyme poison. Enzymes are complex protein compounds that vastly speed up biological chemical reactions while themselves remaining unchanged. As we speak, there occurs in all of us a vast multitude of these reactions to maintain life and produce the energy to sustain it. The chains of amino acids that make up these complex proteins are linked by simple compounds called amides; and it is with these that fluorine molecules react, splitting and distorting them, thus damaging the enzymes and their activity. Let it be said at once, this effect can occur at extraordinary low concentrations; even lower than the one part per million which is the dilution proposed for fluoridation in our water supply.

The Body Can Only Eliminate Half

Moreover, fluorides are cumulative and build up steadily with ingestion of fluoride from all sources, which include not just water but the air we breathe and the food we eat. The use of fluoride toothpaste in dental hygiene and the coating of teeth are further sources of substantial levels of fluoride intake. The body can only eliminate half of the total intake, which means that the older you are the more fluoride will have accumulated in your body. Inevitably this means the ageing population is particularly targeted. And even worse for the very young there is a major element of risk in baby formula made with fluoridated water. The extreme sensitivity of the very young to fluoride toxicity makes this unacceptable. Since there are so many sources of fluoride in our everyday living, it will prove impossible to maintain an average level of 1ppm as is suggested.

What Is The Result Of These Toxic Effects?

First the immune system. The distortion of protein structure causes the immune proteins to fail to recognise body proteins, and so instigate an attack on them, which is Autoimmune Disease. Autoimmune diseases constitute a body of disease processes troubling many thousands of people: Rheumatoid Arthritis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosis, Asthma and Systemic Sclerosis are examples; but in my particular context today, thyroid antibodies will be produced which will cause Thyroiditis resulting in the common hypothyroid disease, Hashimoto's Disease and the hyperthyroidism of Graves' Disease.

Musculo Skeletal damage results further from the enzyme toxic effect; the collagen tissue of which muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones are made, is damaged. Rheumatoid illness, osteoporosis and deformation of bones inevitably follow. This toxic effect extends to the ameloblasts making tooth enamel, which is consequently weakened and then made brittle; and its visible appearance is, of course, dental fluorosis.

The enzyme poison effect extends to our genes; DNA cannot repair itself, and chromosomes are damaged. Work at the University of Missouri showed genital damage, targeting ovaries and testes. Also affected is inter uterine growth and development of the foetus, especially the nervous system. Increased incidence of Down's Syndrome has been documented.

Fluorides are mutagenic. That is, they can cause the uncontrolled proliferation of cells we call cancer. This applies to cancer anywhere in the body; but bones are particularly picked out. The incidence of osteosarcoma in a study reporting in 1991 showed an unbelievable 50% increase. A report in 1955 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed a 400% increase in cancer of the thyroid in San Francisco during the period their water was fluoridated.

My Particular Concern Is The Effect Of Fluorides On The Thyroid Gland

Perhaps I may remind you about thyroid disease. The thyroid gland produces hormones which control our metabolism - the rate at which we burn our fuel. Deficiency is relatively common, much more than is generally accepted by many medical authorities: a figure of 1:4 or 1:3 by mid life is more likely. The illness is insidious in its onset and progression. People become tired, cold, overweight, depressed, constipated; they suffer arthritis, hair loss, infertility, atherosclerosis and chronic illness. Sadly, it is poorly diagnosed and poorly managed by very many doctors in this country.

What concerns me so deeply is that in concentrations as low as 1ppm, fluorides damage the thyroid system on 4 levels.

1. The enzyme manufacture of thyroid hormones within the thyroid gland itself. The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and liothyronine (T3), is slowed.

2. The stimulation of certain G proteins from the toxic effect of fluoride (whose function is to govern uptake of substances into each of the cells of the body), has the effect of switching off the uptake into the cell of the active thyroid hormone.

3. The thyroid control mechanism is compromised. The thyroid stimulating hormone output from the pituitary gland is inhibited by fluoride, thus reducing thyroid output of thyroid hormones.

4. Fluoride competes for the receptor sites on the thyroid gland which respond to the thyroid stimulating hormone; so that less of this hormone reaches the thyroid gland and so less thyroid hormone is manufactured. These damaging effects, all of which occur with small concentrations of fluoride, have obvious and easily identifiable effects on thyroid status. The running down of thyroid hormone means a slow slide into hypothyroidism. Already the incidence of hypothyroidism is increasing as a result of other environmental toxins and pollutions together with wide spread nutritional deficiencies.

141 Million Europeans Are At Risk

One further factor should give us deep anxiety. Professor Hume of Dundee, in his paper given earlier this year to the Novartis Foundation, pointed out that iodine deficiency is growing worldwide. There are 141 million Europeans are at risk; only 5 European countries are iodine sufficient. UK now falls into the marginal and focal category. Professor Hume recently produced figures to show that 40% of pregnant women in the Tayside region of Scotland were deficient by at least half of the iodine required for a normal pregnancy. A relatively high level of missing, decayed, filled teeth was noted in this non-fluoridated area, suggesting that the iodine deficiency was causing early hypothyroidism which interferes with the health of teeth. Dare one speculate on the result of now fluoridating the water?...

Displaces Iodine In The Body

Do you think it should be marketed?

Fluoridation of the nation's water supply will do little for our dental health; but will have catastrophic effects on our general health. We cannot, must not, dare not, subject our nation to this appalling risk....

References

L Goldemberg - La Semana Med 28:628 (1921) - cited in Wilson RH, DeEds F -"The Synergistic Action Of Thyroid On Fluoride Toxicity" Endocrinology 26:851 (1940).

G Litzka - "Die experimentellen Grundlagen der Behandlung des Morbus Basedow und der Hyperthyreose mittels Fluortyrosin" Med Wochenschr 63:1037-1040 (1937) (discusses the basis of the use of fluorides in anti-thyroid medication, documents activity on liver, inhibition of glycolysis, etc.).

W May - "Behandlung der Hypothyreosen einschlieblich des schweren genuinen Morbus Basedow mit Fluor" Klin Wochenschr 16: 562 - 564 (1937).

Sarin: (GB: isopropyl methylphosono-fluoridate) is a colorless, odorless volatile liquid, soluble in water, first synthesized at IG Farben in 1938. It kills mainly through inhalation.

Cyclosarin (GF) and Thiosarin are variants. Pennsylvania Department of Health
http://www.dsf.health.state.pa.us/
health/cwp/view.asp?a=171&q=233740

Sarin: (GB: CH3-P(=O)(-F)(-OCH(CH3)2)

Source: A FOA Briefing Book on Chemical Weapons
Gerhard Schrader, a chemist at IG Farben, was given the task of developing a pesticide. Two years later a phosphorus compound with extremely high toxicity was produced for the first time. IG Farben: "...the board of American IG Farben had three directors from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most influential of the various Federal Reserve Banks. American IG Farben. also had interlocks with Standard Oil of New Jersey, Ford Motor Company, Bank of Manhattan (later to become the Chase Manhattan Bank), and AEG. (German General Electric) Source: Moody's Manual of Investments; 1930, page 2149."

http://reformed-theology.org/html/
books/wall_street/chapter_02.htm

http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk/
Back%20Issues.htm

The full text of this article can be found in Namaste Magazine Vol.7 Issue 1


This article is extracted from Namaste Magazine Vol. 7 Issue 1
PO Box 127, Shrewsbury SY3 7WS
Email: info@namastepublishing.co.uk
Tele: + 44 (0)1743 341303

http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk/The%
20Effects%20of%20Fluoride%20on%20
the%20Thyroid%20Gland.htm

mMmMmMmMm....floride....ughghghghghgh

I hope to be offering fluoride free toothpaste and water filters that can reduce the fluoride in drinking water in the very near future. Both made in the USA.


Thanks for the post tms. Anyone hungry? I think I remember an article about fluoride being a waste product from some other products that are produced. They needed a cheap way to get rid of it and they found a way for people like us to pay for it through our taxes and then we consume it.

http://www.johnleemd.net/breaking_news/ ... on_01.html

The Selling of Fluoridation In America
Americans’ Health is Being Compromised for Industrial Profit
By John R. Lee, M.D.

*This article may be copied, reproduced and quoted in full in any media, as long as the text is not changed in any way, or edited out of context, and as long as Dr. Lee’s byline above remains, and the copyright and contact information at the end of the article remains intact.

Typical American citizens rarely think of fluoridation. If they hear of some debate or squabble about fluoridation they pass it off as insignificant, old news, nothing to worry about, nothing that competes with all the other anxieties and stresses of life these days. This laissez faire attitude is evidence of the success of media misrepresentation in the matter of fluoridation. Before your brain goes on autopilot and you lose focus, consider the following facts.

Within the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) there is something called the Food and Nutrition Board that, in 1997, attempted to include fluoride as an essential nutrient. The fact is that no study has ever found fluoride to be essential for any human metabolic need, and there is no such thing as a fluoride-deficiency disease state. Numerous respected and reputable scientists wrote to the Food and Nutrition Board to object to that classification of fluoride.

Now, the Food and Nutrition Board met again (21 January 1999) and, this time, acknowledges that, while fluoride is not truly an essential nutrient, it is a "beneficial element for humans" because of its supposed dental benefits. Therefore, they again put fluoride on their agenda that included four truly essential nutrients, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamin D. They hope to raise the recommended upper limit (UL) to allow even higher concentrations of fluoride in our drinking water than those previously set.

There are a number of things wrong with the claim that fluoride is a beneficial element for humans. I will not, in this report, recount all the evidence that demolishes the Public Health claim of fluoride’s supposed dental benefit. It is not necessary. Even if it worked, fluoride’s toxicity is sufficient to discontinue fluoridation. However, you should know that the majority of industrialized countries have banned or discontinued fluoridation because of their own studies showing (1) lack of effect and/or (2) evidence of toxicity. Their public health programs attempt to prevent, as much as possible, environmental public fluoride exposure.

You might find it interesting that, in 1981, the Rand Corporation performed an extensive review of the fluoride/dental health literature and found that the Public Health fluoride studies "suffer from poor experimental design and from analysis plans that largely ignore the possible effects of other factors of tooth decay." They stated that the studies are so poor that they "have no relevance to any criterion of public policy-making." It is a sad fact that the specific errors they identified have yet to be corrected.

It should be sobering to realize that low-concentration fluoride powder was once commonly used as a potent pesticide for chicken lice, to preserve important papers from earwigs and other insects, and also as a rodenticide (to kill rats). Because of fluoride’s potent toxicity, such use is no longer allowed. The fluoride promoters do not want you to know of this history, however.

Further, it should be apparent that there is something truly bizarre about the Food and Nutrition Board’s inclusion of fluoride on the basis of its being "a beneficial element for humans." By the same argument, one could include antibiotics, aspirin, and thousands of other agents, not to mention music, prayer, and clean cotton underwear. The Board’s selection of fluoride raises the question of their motive in linking it to essential nutrients.

Consider the problem of the "upper limit" of safety. According to the Federal Code of Regulations, the concentration of any substance in drinking water must be no more than one hundred times less than that shown to toxic in any manner. This is the normal safety factor allowed in water sold to the public. Only fluoride is an exception to this rule. The only problem the Food and Nutrition Board’s panel had with defining the upper limit of safety for its four nutrients (calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamin D) is that the toxic levels are so much higher than optimal levels they are difficult pinpoint. In the case of fluoride, however, there is no margin of safety; the so-called optimal concentration of 1 mg/L is guaranteed to cause dental fluorosis in at least 10% of children. If fluoride followed the Federal Code of Regulations, the allowable concentration would be 0.01 mg/L. PHS authorities avoid this dilemma by redefining dental fluorosis as a mere "cosmetic" effect rather than a "toxic" effect.

Consider, on the other hand, another recognized toxic effect of fluroide - osteofluorosis (also known as osteosclerosis) – that results in calcification of connective tissue that holds bones together. Throughout the world, this is routinely found to occur with water fluoride at 4 mg/L. Under the Federal Code of Regulations, the allowable level would be 0.04 mg/L. Even though fluoride has been removed from the Federal Code of Regulations, the panel members are still confronted with the dilemma that the PHS-recommended fluoride level in water exceeds known toxic effects. The concept of an upper limit for safety for fluoride is an oxymoron; and the panel members are being asked to be the morons.

Twenty years ago, the PHS turned to a different scheme to solve the fluoridation problem presented by osteofluorosis. They floated a new diagnosis – the DISH syndrome. DISH was an acronym for disseminated interstitial hypercalcinosis. Whenever an X-ray showed calcium accumulation in connective tissue, the physician merely diagnosed it as the DISH syndrome, presumably of unknown etiology. The idea that fluoride was the cause was never considered. Later, when better X-rays showed excessive bone calcification, physicians were taught to interpret this as a bone benefit rather than an abnormality.

The inclusion of fluoride in the present meeting of the Food and Nutrition Board strongly challenged by many top-flight scientists. As examples I will list four of them who are actively challenging the Board’s action.

Professor of Chemistry Dr. Albert Burgstahler (U. of Kansas), an active researcher on the toxic effects and chemistry of fluoride for over thirty years, planned to report the errors in the NAS’s arithmetic and reasoning on the subject. He also planned to point out the inherent bias of the NAS panel members involved – their professional life depended on pleasing the NAS program.

Professor of Chemistry Dr. Paul Connett (St. Lawrence U.) planned to discuss the mechanisms of fluoride’s toxic effects, including recent information of fluoride-induced suppression of the pineal gland and its effect on aging and adaptation. He also planned to point out the present over-dosing by fluoride throughout in America.

Dr. William Hirzy, representing the scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), planned to explain why his union, the National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 20, voted to endorse efforts to ban water fluoridation. He would gave examples of how fluoride has been treated as a "protected pollutant" by the EPA, and explain how the union is trying to change that situation.

Professor Lennart Krook (Cornell U.) planned to summarize his years of work on the toxicity of fluoride on bone in animals as well as the work of other researchers and epidemiologists who have reported on the bone-weakening effects of fluoride, work that has been virtually ignored by the NAS. His work includes seminal studies of the massive damage to cattle herds in upstate New York by industrial fluoride emissions.

At the Food and Nutrition Board meeting, these scientists were told that, despite their signed intention of speaking at the public section of the meeting, they would not be allowed to do so because they had not submitted a summary of their planned remarks. After extensive argument, they were told they would have only a total of 15 minutes to do so. Fifteen minutes for four reputable scientists, all experts in the field! By common consent, they selected Professor Paul Connett to be their spokesman. He astounded the panel members by his mastery of the subject. He challenged them to use the same criteria of safety for fluoride as they did with the essential nutrients. He educated them on the biochemistry and mechanisms of action of fluoride toxicity. He revealed to them the errors of PHS fluoridation trials. He awakened in them the concept of the deception to which they were being asked to subscribe. When he finished, an NAS "manager" (to use the euphemism employed by the Clinton impeachment prosecutors) rose to announce that the fluoride upper limit of safety was a product of NAS policy, not the panel’s judgement. It would have been fascinating to know the thoughts of the panelists at that announcement.

Dr. Hirzy, having been denied the opportunity to speak, brought his videocamera to record Professor Connett’s talk. He was told that this, too, was denied to him. What is the Board trying to hide?

Don’t you wonder why reputable scientists, without any financial gain, put their careers on the line to oppose fluoride and fluoridation?

On the other hand, don’t you wonder why fluoride is so heavily promoted and so protected by government denial of its toxicity despite all this scientific opposition?

How did all this obfuscation and deception come about? The true genesis of the fluoridation deception occurred during World War II. From records derived via the Freedom of Information act, we now know that our atomic bomb program created fluoride waste in the use of fluoride flux to produce uranium 235. The waste fluoride that piled up resulted in run-off that entered local waterways and resulted in "dead" lakes. The fluoride killed animal and plant life in the lakes. Also, the synthesis of uranium hexafluoride, used in atom bomb manufacturing, added to the problem.

By ignorance and carelessness, chemical industries in New Jersey producing bomb-grade uranium allowed an escape of waste fluoride into the air, severely damaging fruit trees and animal life downwind of these industries. A legal suit for damages brought by folks in New Jersey was silenced by payoffs to the plaintiffs. Our government’s motive at the time was a desire for secrecy of our atomic bomb making. The problem of disposal of fluoride waste had to be resolved in a manner that disguised its true nature. Thus arose the fluoridation concept. Without evidence or adequate testing, a campaign was mounted to trickle away the waste fluoride into multiple community water supplies for the supposed benefit of dental decay prevention.

What keeps the deception going? World War II is history. Everyone knows fluoride is used in the making of atom bombs. Why does the PHS continue the pretense of fluoridation safety? Read on.

Since fluoride waste also accumulates in the process of extracting aluminum from bauxite ore for the business of airplane manufacturing, this disposal plan was a great boon for the aluminum industries. In 1947, Oscar Ewing, chief legal counsel for Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), was named head of Federal Security Administration in charge of the Public Health Service (PHS). It was he who changed the Federal Code of Regulations to remove fluoride from the regulations that control food levels of other potentially toxic materials and placed all control of drinking water fluoride concentration in the hands of the PHS. He then made fluoridation promotion an official policy of the PHS. This, of course, led to subversion of science in order to maintain the fiction of fluoride’s dental benefits and supposed safety. Scientists willing to go along with the deception were rewarded with secure positions within the PHS and other government agencies. Scientists unwilling to do this found their careers halted or destroyed. The climate of the times dictated the rise of the pseudo-science that persists today in the fluoridation scam.

The climate is now changed but the beat goes on. We are in an era of liability litigation. To admit to fluoridation-caused dental fluorosis and other toxic fluoride effects at this time would instigate a huge volume of liability legal suits. The fiction must be kept alive. When Dr. Phyllis Mullenix published her research on the brain-damaging effect of fluoride in rodents, she lost all funding of future, planned research projects. Dr. Harold C. Hodge was one of her senior advisors on this research. During the early days of atom bomb building, he had a leading role in the medical surveillance of the project during which he observed brain damage in workers exposed to fluoride. He initiated a study to investigate it. This study was aborted after 6 months by orders from the War Department. In 1965 he (with Frank A. Smith) wrote his magnum opus, Fluorine Chemistry, and never mentioned a central nervous system problem from fluoride. While senior advisor to the Mullenix research in the 1990’s, he also never mentioned it. He kept his professorships and his silence on this matter to his grave.

When Dr. Grey, senior public health dental officer in British Columbia, published his report showing no fluoridation dental benefit among British Columbia school children (and publicly questioned the usual claims of fluoride dental benefit), he was sent off to an exile in the bowels of the national public health offices in Ottawa. When Dr. Colquhoun, senior public health dental officer in New Zealand, published his report showing no dental benefit to the schoolchildren of Auckland, he lost his post, was demoted, and was forced to accept a lower retirement benefit than his due. Many other examples could be provided.

Since so many countries have chosen not to fluoridate their drinking water, potential markets for that mode of fluoride disposal have literally evaporated. Therefore, sites here in the U.S. become even more important to the fluoride-generating industries. The underlying motive for the Food and Nutrition Board is merely an attempt to "validate" fluoridation. Industry needs fluoridation as a dumpsite for their toxic fluoride waste. Without it, industry suffers. With it, the people suffer. Who has political power in America? The people should, but the reality is that industry has the political clout in America today. Only an educated and aroused citizenry will get our government back on course to safeguard and serve the people as it is intended to do.

Final thought. On 21 January 1999, another important governmental agency was engaged in a matter of pesticides and artificial hormones in food. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reversed its previous position and now plans to issue rules prohibiting the label "organic" for any food that is irradiated, genetically engineered, or treated with pesticides or antibiotics. It took 280,000 letters to get the government’s attention on this matter. If the USDA can decide to help people choose food that is not contaminated with a pesticide, why doesn’t the PHS and the Food and Nutrition Board help people to drink water that is not contaminated with the pesticide, fluoride?

We now await the decision of the Food and Nutrition Board panelists.

This article may be copied, reproduced and quoted in full in any media, as long as the text is not changed in any way, or edited out of context, and as long as Dr. Lee’s byline above remains, and the information below remains intact.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John R. Lee, M.D.
info@johnleemd.com
Copyright Hormones Etc. Inc., 2000 All rights reserved.
Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without express written permission of the author.