EVIDENCE OF FRAUD IN THE MATTER OF WATER FLUORIDATION
Is your town fluoridated? Are they considering adding fluoride to the water supply? If so, you should know that the CDC recommends fluoridation based on the Institute of Medicine's fraudulent interpretation of their own references.
Increases in fluoride intake from a variety of sources have made water fluoridation the source of an overdose. Children who live in non-fluoridated areas are ingesting just as much fluoride as they did in 1 ppm fluoridated areas sixty years ago.
Adding more fluoride to their diet will not improve dental health - it will produce more cases of disfiguring mottled enamel.
The information below is proof of either fraud or incompetence on the part of
_________________________________________________________________________________
WHAT IS THE SAFE AND ADEQUATE DAILY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE?
According to the Experts ...
"Dean's initial research established 1.0 mg/L as the approximate concentration
of fluoride in drinking water that best prevented caries while keeping
unsightly dental fluorosis to a minimum (Dean, 1942) ... As was the case with
all fluoride research at that time, drinking water was virtually the only
source of measurable fluoride. (Foods usually contained only trace amounts of
fluoride.)" [Source: Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, Subcommittee on
Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, Committee on Toxicology, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National
Research Council 1993 p. 29-30]In 1991 the U.S. Public Health Service said "The daily intake of most adults
is about equally divided among food, drinking water, beverages, and mouthwash."
[Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, Department of Health and Human
Services, February 1991 p 15]FROM ONE TO FOUR ... SOUNDS LIKE AN INCREASE TO ME.
During the 1940s fluoride was not added to toothpaste or mouthwash, not widely
used in prescription drugs, not present in pesticide residues in fruits and
vegetables, and not present in ground meats. Fluoride supplements in tablet or
liquid form came later, along with mechanically deboned meats. The machines
leave tiny bone fragments - and bones contain fluoride. One cup of ordinary tea
now provides upwards of 5 milligrams of fluoride because air pollution has
increased and tea plants absorb large quantities of fluoride. We simply don't
know how much fluoride the average child ingests today, or the range of intake.
All we know is that in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas almost all
children have some degree of dental fluorosis. More and more children are
developing disfiguring pits and stains on their teeth. Even in non-fluoridated
areas you don't see young people with "pearly white" teeth ... most are
"eggshell white," and easily stained.The question is obvious ...
WHY ADD FLUORIDE TO WATER SUPPLIES IN THE 21st CENTURY?
The CDC's current recommendation to add fluoride to public drinking water
supplies is based on the Institute of Medicine's recent publication titled
"Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D,
and Fluoride (1999). According to page 298 of this document: "The cariostatic
effect of fluoride is a strong indicator for an Adequate Intake (AI) of the
ion. Figure 8-1 summarizes the results of the pioneering epidemiological
studies of the relationship between the concentration of fluoride in drinking
water and dental caries and enamel fluorosis (mottling) (Dean 1942).
... reduction in the average number of dental caries per child was nearly
maximal in communities having water fluoride concentrations close to
1.0 mg/liter. This is how 1.0 mg/liter became the "optimal" concentration.
That is, it was associated with a high degree of protection against caries
and a low prevalence of the milder forms of enamel fluorosis."NOTE: Figure 8-1 contains only part of McClure's data ... the intake figures
for older children and adults have been ignored.Their only reference for the 1940s - before other sources of fluoride became
widely available - is "Ingestion of fluoride and dental caries - quantitative
relations based on food and water requirements of children 1 to 12 years old,"
McClure, Frank J., American Journal Diseases of Children, 66:362, 1943.McClure's paper contains two tables showing intake figures for children of
various ages. The more detailed Table 3, which appears directly below, and the
summary Table 5. Note that the maximum calorie and water requirements for
children age twelve are about the same as the requirements for mature adults.THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE HAS COOKED THE BOOKS TO PROTECT FLUORIDATION!
_______________________________________________________________________________
McClure - Table 3. - Estimated Daily Intake of Fluorine from Drinking Water
Containing 1 part per Million of Fluorine and from Food Containing
0.1 to 1 Part per Million of Fluorine in the Dry Substance
_______________________________________________________________________________
Age (years) ..................... 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12
Energy Allowance (calories) ..... 1200 1600 2000 2500
Water Requirement (cc.) ......... 1200 1600 2000 2500Drinking water consumption
(1) When water drunk is equal to 25 per cent of the total daily water
requirement and (a) 10 per cent and (b) 20 per cent of the total water
content of the food is of drinking water origin, the total daily consumption
of drinking water would equal:(a) ........................... 390 cc 520 cc 650 cc 812 cc
(b) ........................... 480 cc 640 cc 800 cc 1000 cc(2) When water drunk is equal to 33 per cent of the total daily water
requirement and (c) 10 per cent and (d) 20 per cent of the total water content
of the food is of drinking water origin, the total daily consumption of
drinking water would equal:(c) ........................... 480 cc 640 cc 800 cc 1000 cc
(d) ........................... 560 cc 746 cc 933 cc 1166 ccTotal daily fluoride ingested from drinking water containing 1 part per million
of fluorine under the preceding conditions of water ingestion would equal:In water intake (a) .............. 0.390 mg 0.520 mg 0.650 mg 0.810 mg
In water intake (b) and (c) ...... 0.480 mg 0.640 mg 0.800 mg 1.000 mg
In water intake (d) .............. 0.560 mg 0.745 mg 0.930 mg 1.165 mgTotal dry substance in daily food allowance when 1 Gm of dry substance of the
food furnished 4.5 calories of energyTotal daily intake of dry substance .. 265 Gm 355 Gm 445 Gm 555 Gm
Fluorine ingested daily in food in which the dry substance of the food
contained the following concentrations of fluorine:(a) 0.10 part per million ..... 0.027 mg 0.036 mg. 0.045 mg 0.056 mg
(b) 0.20 part per million ..... 0.053 mg 0.071 mg 0.089 mg 0.111 mg
(c) 0.50 part per million ..... 0.133 mg 0.178 mg. 0.223 mg 0.278 mg
(d) 1.00 part per million ..... 0.265 mg 0.360 mg 0.450 mg 0.560 mg
Estimated total daily fluorine ingested in food and drinking water:
Food (a) plus water (a) ....... 0.417 mg 0.556 mg 0.045 mg 0.866 mg
Food (b) plus water (a) ....... 0.443 mg 0.591 mg 0.739 mg 0.921 mg
Food (c) plus water (a) ....... 0.523 mg 0.693 mg 0.872mg 1.088 mg
Food (d) plus water (a) ....... 0.653 mg 0.880 mg 1.100 mg 1.370 mg
Food (a) plus water (b) or (c) 0.507 mg 0.676 mg 0.845 mg 1.056 mg
Food (b) plus water (b) or (c) 0.533 mg 0.711 mg 0.889 mg 1.111 mg
Food (c) plus water (b) or (c) 0.613 mg 0.818 mg 1.023 mg 1.278 mg
Food (d) plus water (b) or (c) 0.745 mg 1.000 mg 1.250 mg 1.560 mg
Food (a) plus water (d) ....... 0.587 mg 0.781 mg 0.975 mg 1.221 mg
Food (b) plus water (d) ....... 0.613 mg 0.816 mg 1.019 mg 1.276 mg
Food (c) plus water (d) ....... 0.693 mg 0.923 mg 1.153 mg 1.443 mg
Food (d) plus water (d) ....... 0.825 mg 1.105 mg 1.380 mg 1.725 mg
______________________________________________________________________________McClure wrote: "The figures for water consumption in table 3 may be compared
with other estimates and actual measurements of water drinking. Macy found
that the total amount of water consumed daily by children 8 to 12 years of
age ranged from 1,658 to 1.745 cc; 449 to 568 cc of these amounts, i.e.,
about 25 to 30 per cent, was ingested as drinking water. Richter and Brailey
regarded 2,400 cc as a good average for water intake daily by an average man
weighing 65 Kg."McClure, page 368:
"The estimates of fluorine intake shown in table 3 may be compared with the
actual fluorine content of an average diet consumed by a man, as determined
by Machle, Scott, and Largent. The actual fluorine intake based on a nine
month study was approximately 0.45 mg. daily. The drinking water contained no
fluorine, all the dietary fluorine being ingested in food and beverages. It
was noted that almost twice as much fluorine was contributed by fluids (tea,
coffee, milk, beverages and beer) as was present in the solid food. As would
be expected, the consumption of iced tea during the summer seemed to account
for a notable elevation in intake of fluorine."NOTE: 0.45 mg fluoride daily in a non-fluoridated area was about 0.16 mg from
food and "almost twice as much" 0.29 mg from beverages"In table 5 are summary estimates of fluorine intake such as appear in table 3.
The quantity of fluorine ingested by children from drinking water containing
1 part per million of fluorine according to these estimates will equal
approximately 0.5 to 1 mg. of fluorine daily. This quantity of water-borne
fluorine plus fluorine contained in foods may bring the total amount of
fluorine contained in the average diet up to 1 to 1.50 mg. ..."
Compare the DRI figures with McClure's data - look at the bottom line
and keep in mind that McClure is their only reference for the 1940s.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Table 5 - McClure 1943 Dietary Reference Intakes
age weight total intake age weight total intake
years kg mg/day years kg mg/day1-3 8-16 0.417 to 0.825 1-3 13 0.7
4-6 13-24 0.556 to 1.105 4-8 22 1.0
7-9 16-35 0.695 to 1.380 9-13 40 2.0
10-12 25-54 0.866 to 1.715 14-18 57-64 2.9 to 3.2
19+ 61-76 1.000 to 1.500 19+ 61-76 3.1 to 3.8
_______________________________________________________________________________HOW DID 1.5 BECOME 3.8? IS IT FRAUD OR INCOMPETENCE?
The Institute of Medicine has applied the 0.05 mg/kg/day figure to people of
all ages. This is wrong. In terms of calories per pound of body weight, the
older we get the less food we need to maintain body weight. An infant needs
far more calories per pound of body weight than an adult. Similarly, water
intake for mature adults is about the same as for older children.The following is from HEALTH EFFECTS OF INGESTED FLUORIDE 1993, page 31-32:
"The concept of an optimal dose goes back to the early days of fluoride
research in dentistry. In 1943, the normal daily fluoride intake of children
1-12 years old was estimated to be 0.4 to 1.7 mg, which provided an average
intake of fluoride at 0.05 mg/kg of body weight per day (McClure, 1943).
Actual fluoride intake for an individual depended on age, diet, and fluoride
content of water. That estimate somehow evolved into a recommendation (Farkas
and Farkas, 1974) and then to apparent acceptance of 0.05-0.07 mg/kg per day
as an optimal dose (Ophaug et al., 1980a).
...
"Despite its dubious genesis, that dose might be a fair estimate, based on
empirical evidence, of the upper limit for fluoride intake in children to
minimize fluorosis (Burt, 1992). If all fluoride intake comes from drinking
water, that dose for a child weighing 10 kg (an average 1-year-old) would be
ingested in 0.5-0.7 L of water fluoridated at 1.0 mg/L. For a child weighing
22 kg (an average 6-year-old), it would be ingested in 1.1-1.5 L of water.
Because the scientific base is weak, however, the range of 0.05-0.07 mg/kg
should not be referred to as an optimal dose, and it should not be considered
more than a guide to the upper limit of intake for minimizing fluorosis.
...
"The intake of fluoride that leads to clinically detectable dental fluorosis,
relative to body weight at different stages of growth, still requires
considerable clarification. Forsman (1977) stated that a daily intake of 0.1
mg/kg was sufficient to cause dental fluorosis, an estimate that was later
revised downward to 0.04 mg/kg (Baelum et al., 1987). ... Further research is
necessary to clarify the relation between fluoride intake in childhood and
development of dental fluorosis. Recent estimates of daily intake of fluoride
from food and drink by North American children up to 2 years of age are
0.01-0.16 mg/kg in areas without fluoridation and 0.03-0.13 mg/kg in areas
with fluoridation (Burt, 1992).
...
"Because dental fluorosis is a dose-response condition (Myers, 1983), severity
ranges from barely discernible, even to a trained observer, to the most severe
manifestations of stained and pitted enamel."1953 - "Exclusive of drinking water, the average diet in the United States
is calculated to provide 0.2 to 0.3 milligram of fluoride daily. ... drinking
water ... can provide an optimal internal supplement of approximately one-half
to 1 milligram of fluoride per day." [Source: "The problem of providing
optimum fluoride intake for prevention of dental caries," Food and Nutrition
Board, Division of Biology and Agriculture, National Academy of Sciences,
National Research Council, Pub. #294]THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE COOKED THE BOOKS TO PROTECT FLUORIDATION
This is nothing more than an attempt to show that 1.0 ppm is still the
optimum for dental health, in spite of the fact that "The daily intake
of most adults is about equally divided among food, drinking water,
beverages, and mouthwash." [Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks,
Department of Health and Human Services, February 1991 p 15]But will the Institute of Medicine correct their error? Or will they
continue to recommend daily doses of fluoride known to cause disfiguring
mottled enamel and them blame it on toothpaste? Will they consider life-long
exposures known to result in crippling arthritic symptoms?WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ADULTS?
1977 - "Recent studies indicate that the total intake of fluoride is as high
as 3 mg/day rather than the earlier figure of 1.5 mg/day, primarily because
of increases in the estimated levels of fluoride in food. (1970) Balance data
presented by Spencer also suggest a higher retention by bone, nearly 2 mg/day
rather than the 0.2 mg/day indicated earlier. ... These findings are important
. . . a retention of 2 mg/day would mean that an average individual would
experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 yr, based on an accumulation of
10,000 ppm fluoride in bone ash." [Source: Drinking Water and Health, Safe
Drinking Water Committee, National Academy of Sciences, NAS/NRC, p371-372]1991 - Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis with a bone ash concentration of 6,000 to
7,000 ppm fluoride is described by the U.S. Public Health Service as sporadic
pain and stiffness of joints. Above 7,500 ppm the symptoms are "chronic
joint pain; arthritic symptoms; slight calcification of ligaments; increased
osteosclerosis/cancellous bones; with/without osteoporosis of long bones."
With more than 8,400 ppm in bone ash the symptoms are described as
"limitation of joint movement; calcification of ligaments/neck, vert. column;
crippling deformities/spine & major joints; muscle wasting; neurological
defects/compression of spinal cord." [Source: Review of Fluoride Benefits
and Risks, USDHHS, page 46]1978 - "This pattern of a higher crude death rate in the cities with
fluoridated water supplies was apparent for all categories of death except
for those by accidental means and suicide." [Source: Mortality in Selected
Cities With Fluoridated and NonFluoridated Water, New England Journal of
Medicine, Erickson, J. David, May]Note: Although this study has been offered as evidence for the safety of
fluoridation, the basic facts are clear in the statement above. To remove the
stigma, the author adjusted his data based on one group of cities having an
average of 11.5 years of formal education vs. the other group with an average
of 12 years. The only way to remove the obvious connection between cancer and
fluoridation was to claim that graduating from high school is the most
important factor in cancer prevention.THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE ALSO COOKED THE BOOKS REGARDING "TOLERABLE" INTAKE
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) increased the "tolerable" daily intake of
fluoride - from 4 mg/day (1989 RDAs) to 10 mg/day (DRI 1997). The reference
cited by IOM is Hodge 1979. However, Hodge's reference is an earlier article
by Hodge in which he cites Largent 1961. Largent mentioned just one 30-year
old individual in Texas who used some high fluoride water for only eight
years. The water contained so much magnesium and sulfates that few could
stand the taste. According to Largent, "this supply was not used extensively
for drinking purposes, and other sources of water were being explored."IOM described this one man in one town in Texas as "communities in the United
States" as though it involved more than one person, more than one town, and
something more than a 45-day observation - but no studies. [See: Largent, E.J.
Fluorosis. The health aspects of fluorine compounds (1961) Ohio State
University Press, Columbus, Ohio.]IOM also misrepresented Hodge 79 and NAS/NRC 1993 regarding the degree of
skeletal fluorosis which can develop after 10 years at 10 mg/day. Hodge
actually said that crippling skeletal fluorosis occurs with 10 to 25 mg/day
for 10 to 20 years. NAS/NRC said "Crippling skeletal fluorosis might occur in
people who have ingested 10-20 mg of fluoride per day for 10-20 years."
[See Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, page 59]Crippling is not a "mild" form of skeletal fluorosis, but "mild" is the term
IOM used in Dietary Reference Intakes.WHAT ABOUT THOSE HUNDREDS OF SAFETY STUDIES?
According to the CDC, the safety of water fluoridation "is supported by
extensive peer-reviewed scientific research." However, no one seems to be
able to name even one legitimate safety study. In fact, there were no studies
capable of identifying people still in the pre-crippling stages of skeletal
fluorosis because there has been no method available in the United States to
distinguish between arthritic symptoms caused by fluoride and arthritic
symptoms caused by something else. The CDC won't name a study. The National
Center For Fluoridation Policy and Research can't name a study. Their Board
Of Science, Technology, and Policy Advisors includes Stephen Barrett, M.D.,
Chairman, Board of Directors, Quackwatch, Inc., Allentown, Pennsylvania;
Robert H. Dumbaugh, D.D.S., M.P.H., Director, Division of Public Health
Dentistry, Palm Beach County Health Department, West Palm Beach, Florida;
Thomas G. Reeves, M.S., P.E., National Fluoridation Engineer, Division of Oral
Health, U. S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; and
a number of others with similar credentials - yet none of these people can
name even one legitimate safety study.They say there are three types of lies ... lies, damn lies, and statistics.
_____________________________________________________________________________NOTE: This message may be reproduced and distributed at will.
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/iom-fraud.htm
Darlene Sherrell
Woburn Post Office
St. George's, GRENADA
West Indiesdarlene@caribsurf.com
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/
posted by Chris Gupta on Saturday June 21 2003
updated on Saturday September 24 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/06/21/evidence_of_fraud_in_the_matter_of_water_fluoridation.htm
Related ArticlesArtificial Water Fluoridation: Off To A Poor Start / Fluoride Injures The Newborn
Please watch this short 5 minute video: Little Things Matter: The Impact of Toxins on the Developing Brain Toxins such as Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Aluminum and other known and unknown chemicals, that are often above the legal limits, are deliberately added to our water to manage the disposal of toxic industrial waste chemicals under the pretense of "safe and effective" for water fluoridation mantra.Knowing and acting on the above should... [read more]
December 30, 2014 - Chris GuptaDrinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic
This paper by Prof. Joe Cummins is a very important 5 minute delegation made to London Ontario Canada "Civic Works Committee" public participation meeting on January 25, 2012 on fluoride*. While a bit technical it is short and easy to grasp. A must read as it goes to the heart of the matter regarding the well established toxicity of fluoride which is well in all scientific circles even before water... [read more]
February 06, 2012 - Chris GuptaDemocracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride
Here is a commentary on the recent (Jan, 25th, 2011) Public Participation Meeting (PPM) on Fluoride in the City of London, Ontario. The meeting started with a strong pro fluoride stance form the City engineer. His lack of knowledge on chemistry of the toxic wastes used to fluoridate water could embarrass even a high school student never mind his own profession. He blatantly violated his "duty to public welfare" as... [read more]
January 29, 2012 - Chris Gupta
