Questions For Water Fluoridation
The following was my input to the Windsor, Ontario, Canada sham debate. Thought, this significantly updated version, may be useful when dealing with, so called, pro fluoridation experts in your area.
Unfortunately, the Windsor fluoridation was rammed through as most of us where not familiar with the "How to Stop Being Manipulated!" tricks. Please familiarize yourselves with these manipulation techniques before taking on these industry buffoons.
Chris Gupta
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arlene, here are some questions your brother can ask city council.Are you familiar with the 1999 update of Dr. Lockers report: "Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation"?
In the Executive summary of this report it is quoted: "The magnitude of the effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." And "Canadian studies do not provide systematic evidence that water fluoridation is effective in reducing decay in contemporary child populations." (After 40 years of fluoridation experiments we still don't enough data? Yet this and other reports recommend more studies to determine dangers & advantages for ongoing use! Ongoing injury to the constituents seems to be of no concern - imagine?)
If after 40 years there is no "systematic evidence" than why on earth do to we need to fluoridate the water?
Are you not aware that Fluoride is toxic?
If yes than why do some of you want to put a toxic substance in our water?
Where is the precautionary principle here?
Do you know that hydrofluorosilicic acid (as waste byproduct), widely used in water fluoridation, is unlicensed medicinal substances and has never been tested for purity and consistency and has no Drug Identification Number is manufactured and packaged in unsanitary conditions; is adulterated with arsenic and mercury and is non-compliant with the prescribed standard for fluoride drugs?
Keep in mind that putting this toxin in water will administer this poison to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner. They don't even know all the other impurities that may be with the hydrofluorosilicic acid.
If the City introduces a referendum to add Fluoride in water it will medicate all residents (even those who vote against or did not vote on water Fluoridation) and visitors without first obtaining their legal informed consent.
Are you aware that in 2003, on average, we are already exposed to enough fluoride today from beverages, foods and toothpaste. Because of this, children today ingest as much fluoride compared to water fluoridated at 1ppm in 1957? In fact un-fluoridated water in some areas today will exceed the recommended dose in infants!
Given the above why then is it necessary to add more to the water?
Don't you think knowing the above and the current data on injury and toxicity the City is setting it self up for legal action?
Chris Gupta
-----------------------------------------
Following is from:John Remington Graham, an attorney, has successfully prosecuted water fluoridation cases in US and Canadian courts. The following illuminating extracts are taken from his manuscript
THE FLUORIDE DRAGON has some good data to keep in mind when dealing with the So called "water Fluoridation Experts"
Often - and it may be regarded as a maxim of dirty politics - when scheming adults have selfish or oppressive ends in mind, they try to sell their program by appealing to the welfare of children. This approach has been even more effective in getting otherwise good citizens to do stupid things than the most rabid anti-communist hysteria.
It so happens that, on October 15, 1984, I had occasion to take a deposition from Dr Echternacht, who, with Dr Uppgaard, had repeatedly appeared before committees of the legislature of the State [of Minnesota] to proclaim that artificial fluoridation of public water supplies is "safe, effective and economical." The deposition went like this:
Q: You wouldn't be in a position to tell me, basically, what happened in the Newburgh-Kingston Study, would you?
A: Well, I just remember the outcome, and I don't remember whether it was Kingston or Newburgh that did fluoridate the water supply for the control city. It showed fluoridation was very beneficial, and there were no harmful side effects found from the use of fluoridation.Q: Do you have any recollection in your reading what the nature of that evidence was?
A: No.Q: Have you read any laboratory studies or other work on living tissue about the effects of fluoride in water?
A: I have read summaries presented in papers regarding it through my dental literature.Q: Have you read any by a Dr Alfred Taylor?
A: No.Q: How about Drs Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton?
A: No.Q: Have you ever read anything about Wolfgang Klein?
A: No.Q: Have you read the report put out by the National Research Council of Canada by Rose and Marier in 1977, entitled 'Environmental Fluoride, 1977'?
A: No.Q: Have you ever read anything about Dr Chong Chang that came out in about 1968?
A: No.Q: Have you ever read anything about Dr Danuta Jachimczak published in 1978?
A: No.Q: Have you ever read anything about Dr John Emsley and his co-workers at the University of London on the hydrogen bonding potential of fluoride?
A: No.Q: Have you ever read anything about Dr Takeki Tsutsui from Japan on the possible effects of fluoride on living tissue, either of a cancer-related nature or otherwise?
A: No.Q: Have you ever read the work of Drs Burk and Yamouyiannis on fluoridation and cancer, the epidemiological studies?
A: No.Q: I take it, then, that you have not read a compendium of scientific material that was gathered in congressional hearings entitled Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 1st Session, September 21 and October 12, 1977, of which I show you a copy?
A: No.Q: I take it, then, that you simply are not familiar with and do not consider yourself an expert with any particular intensive knowledge with respect to any of these subjects of epidemiology or the laboratory studies that have been done on both sides of the question of whether or not fluoridation may be harmful to human health in terms of cancer or anything else?
A: I haven't read them, but scientists whose articles I have read, and whom I respect, have certainly covered these various articles, and I accept their decision.Q: What scientists whose articles you have read would you include on your list, can you give me one name?
A: No, not really.
**********
I was called to try a case before the District Court of Texas in Houston. The matter was entitled Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of Houston, 151st Judicial District, No. 80-52271. The chief counsel on the case advised me that we had to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that artificial fluoridation of public water supplies causes cancer and other ailments in man. Judge Anthony Farris, tough-minded and blunt, heard the evidence. He was exceedingly fair to both sides. It was an international confrontation of the leading experts in the world.
When we rested our case on January 20, 1982, I was never so proud of a group of professional men in my life. And they all proved the truth of the seasoned lawyer's maxim that if an adverse witness is really strong, avoid cross-examination if you can. Naturally, Dean Burk was there. I think history will show that, when he testified, Dr Burk was the most eminent cancer scientist then living. He stated the awful truth, a truth so awful that you do not want to believe it:Q: In assessing the total percentage of cancer increase in the United States . . . do you have an opinion, based on a reasonable degree of scientific probability, as to what percentage of those would be associated with fluoridation?
A: Not in terms of percentage. That would be estimated, but it is my firm opinion that fluoridation contributes very materially to the increase that is observed. I have had that opinion for quite a few years now. In other words, we wouldn't see by any means as much increase in cancer but for this fluoridation, or, to look at it from the other way around, I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year.Q: At any expense?
A: No, it would save money.Q: And at any great effort?
A: No, you just wouldn't bother to put it in the water. And why people don't fully appreciate it, or take action to oppose it, I cannot understand without going into the question of politics and the root of all evil and those things. But, scientifically, I can't understand any basis.The other side appeared with their team of polished witnesses. Their first witness was the Director of the Health Department for the City of Houston. She held the degrees of doctor of medicine and master of public health. In an erudite and poised manner, with demeanor of a kind which naturally commands respect and confidence, she had enthusiastically and unreservedly recommended, for the good of children, especially those in low socioeconomic groups, that the City of Houston "adjust the fluoride in the municipal water supply to the optimal level for reduction of dental caries."
Q: Doctor, have you read a report which has been marked and introduced as plaintiff's exhibit 23, entitled Fluoride, Fluoridation and Environmental Quality, a translation of a report prepared for the Minister for the Environment [for the Province of Quebec] by the Advisory Committee on the Fluoridation of Water Supplies?
A: No.Q: Doctor, I am showing you what has been marked as plaintiff's exhibit 3, an article [by Burk and Yiamouyiannis], published in the journal Fluoride, entitled Fluoridation and Cancer: Age-Dependence of Cancer Mortality Related to Artificial Fluoridation. Have you read that before?
A: No.Q: Doctor, I am showing what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 7, a book by George Waldbott, MD, and Professors Burghstahler and McKinney, University of Kansas, entitled Fluoridation: the Great Dilemma. Have you read that book?
A: No.Q: Doctor, showing what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 8, a publication by the National Research Council of Canada, entitled Environmental Fluoride 1977, by Dyson Rose and John Marier, have you read that report?
A: No.Q: Doctor, I am showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 13, a paper entitled Cytological Effects of Sodium Fluoride on Mice by Aly Mohamed and Mary Chandler of the Biology Department at the University of Missouri in Kansas City. Have you read that report?
A: No.Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked as plaintiff's exhibit 20, a translation of an article in the original German, the translation being entitled Fluoridated Water and Teeth, by Rudolf Ziegelbecker in Austria, published in the journal Fluoride, have you read that report?
A: No.Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 9, a paper by Dr Alfred Taylor in 1954 in the journal Dental Digest, entitled Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of Mice, have you read that report?
A: No.Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 15, a paper by Danuta and Jachimszak and others of Department of Biology in the Institute of Biostructure in the Pomeranian Medical Academy, published in volume 19 of Genetica Polonica, entitled The Effect of Fluorine and Lead Ions on the Chromosomes of Human Leukocytes in Vitro, have you read that report?
A: No.Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 10, a paper published in the journal Genetics, volume 48, in 1963 by Herskowitz and Norton, entitled Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumours in Two Strains of Drosophila Melanogaster Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride, have you read that paper?
A: No.Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked as plaintiff's exhibit 24, a paper by John Lee, MD, entitled Optimal Fluoridation: the Concept and its Application to Municipal Water Fluoridation, it is reprinted from the Western Journal of Medicine, have you read that report?
A: No.Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 25, a paper by George Waldbott, MD, Fluoridation: A Clinician's Experience, in volume 73 of the Southern Journal of Medicine, published in March 1980. Have you read that study?
A: No.Q: Doctor, I am showing you what has been marked as plaintiff's exhibit 16, a paper done by John Emsley, published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, entitled An Unexpectedly Strong Hydrogen Bond: Ab Initio Calculations and Spectroscopic Studies of Amide-Fluoride Systems. Have you read that paper?
A: No.Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 12, a paper in Plant Physiology, volume 43, by Dr Chong Chang of the United States Department of Agriculture, entitled Effect of Fluoride on Nucleotides and Ribonucleic Acid In Germinating Corn Seedling Roots. Have you read that report?
A: No.Q: Have you read anything in the way of literature by Dr Ionel Rappaport?
A: No.I "passed the witness", as they say in Texas. The assistant city attorney then asked,
Q: You are not an expert in fluoride, are you?
A: No.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Health Care Consent and Care Facility Admission Act, s. 6); (3) unlawfully and without good faith sell public water fluoridation as a health program in the year 2003 (Sale of Goods Act, s. 2); (4) unlawfully allow the unconscionable deceptive consumer transaction of public water fluoridation (Trade and Practice Act, s. 18(1)); (5) unlawfully allow public water fluoridation to cause a health hazard that endangers and harms public health, and prevents and hinders the prevention and suppression of dental fluorosis and other diseases, by poisoning public water with highly toxic fluorides, making the public water fail to meet the prescribed standard of being potable water (Health Act, s. 55(2)(b)); and, (6) unlawfully allow public water fluoridation projects to introduce into the environment hazardous waste fluorides; at levels harming fish, etc. (Waste Management Act, s. 3(2))Precedents:
Charter rights in Canada under Canadian AIDS Society v. Ontario because: (1) there is a serious issue as to the validityof the Local Government Act, and any other Act in Canada that authorizes public water fluoridation by referendum; (2) the constituents are directly affectedand has a genuine interest in the validityof the Local Government Act, and any other Act in Canada that authorizes public water fluoridation in Canada; and (3) there are no other reasonable and effective wayto bring the validity of the Local Government Act, or any other Act in Canada that authorizes public water fluoridation, before the court. Also, RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney-General) gives the constituents public interest standing because the suspension of s. 523(3) of the Local Government Act would itself provide a public benefit.Likewise, MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson and CDN Egg Marketing v. Richardson gives the constituents standing to advance the public interestbecause the constituents' and others &rights are affected by criminal conduct&because public water fluoridation under s. 523(3) of the Local Government Act, or any other Act in Canada, is criminal and unconstitutional.
At 11:47 AM 01/05/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Chris:
My brother is going to speak against Fluoridation .
They want to put this issue to a public vote and have it on the ballot we want them to make a decision that nite and vote to keep it out for good which they can do.
Could you please email me the conservation we had the other day I want to email it to my brother.
Take Care
Arlene.See also:
Experts challenge Water Fluoridation
Questions and Concerns for the City of Windsor on Water Fluoridation
posted by Chris Gupta on Wednesday May 12 2004
updated on Saturday September 24 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/05/12/questions_for_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
