Скачать 249.25 Kb.
|Eclub print edition, Feb 1st 2002|
the big issue
"There are more than 40,000 studies published in medical and biochemical journals, many of which attest to the dangers of exposure to fluorides from all sources, including water fluoridation. The adverse effects are numerous - they include cancers, thyroid dysfunction, skin disorders, kidney and brain damage, and more." Jane Jones, National Pure Water Association
"The government depends on the ingrained apathy and trustful nature of the population for its draconian and totalitarian health law." Glen Walker, Freedom from Fluoridation Federation of Australia
"Contrary to frequent claims, fluoride is not a nutrient. This fact is supported by the finding that the average level in mothers' milk is one hundred times lower than the level added to water. Clearly, if fluoride were a nutrient needed for healthy teeth, then it is in mothers' milk where one would expect to find it." Paul Connett, International Fluoride Information Network (USA)
This EClub we bring you the latest news from across the world on fluoridation, with articles from the experts themselves including Jane Jones - head of The National Pure Water Association in the UK; Glen Walker - the chairman of Freedom From Fluoride Federation of Australia and Dr Paul Connett of International Fluoride Information Network, the main voice on fluoridation in the US. These three prominent voices bring us the latest intelligence on fluoride and between them, offer advice on the most efficient way directly to campaign against the enforced medication of our water supplies with hazardous waste products posing as 'medicine'.
JANE JONES, THE NATIONAL PURE WATER ASSOCIATION (UK)
Despite the existence of an All Party Group against water fluoridation in Parliament, far too many MPs seem more concerned about scrambling up the Party ladder than paying attention to a serious problem affecting nearly six million people in the areas supplied by Severn Trent, Northumbrian Water, Anglian Water and North West Water, organisations which artificially fluoridate their drinking water supplies, ostensibly to reduce tooth decay in children. There is currently no artificial water fluoridation in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.
Chlorination is outdated technology - there are other, safer technologies available today. However, chlorine is added to treat the water, to make it safe to drink. However, 'fluoride' (toxic industrial waste in the form of captured hazardous air pollutants from the phosphate fertiliser industry) is added with the intention of treating PEOPLE, whether they want or need it or not. This is not only an extremely dangerous practice, it also robs every individual of his/her sovereign right to refuse certain treatments.
There are more than 40,000 studies published in medical and biochemical journals, many of which attest to the dangers of exposure to fluorides from all sources, including water fluoridation. The adverse effects are numerous - they include cancers, thyroid dysfunction, skin disorders, kidney, brain and genetic damage, and more. In every case, proponents of fluoridation dismiss these findings with spurious and sometimes laughable argument.
The preoccupation of public health officials with tooth cavities and fluoridation has led to a fifty-year, near-maniacal drive artificially to fluoridate our drinking water. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been poured into the promotion of artificial fluoridation. 'Studies' have been published in dental journals, suggesting that tooth decay is a communicable disease that can be spread through kissing. Other studies claim that the tooth-rotting bugs can be transmitted prenatally from mother to her unborn child. In the heady world of the oral cavity, some public health dentists vehemently assert that 'their' mercury is not neurotoxic. Many also insist that 'fluoride' (a toxic industrial waste chemical) is 'specially produced' for water fluoridation.
Dental fluorosis, (often referred to as 'mottled teeth'), is a condition caused by over-exposure to fluorides. It is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. The recent Government review of water fluoridation revealed that 48% of people living in fluoridated areas (nearly three million people in England) have dental fluorosis and that in 12.5% of those residents, (750,000 souls), the condition is 'of concern'.
"Nonsense," say the fluoride-pushers, "It's just a cosmetic problem." When directly confronted, many public health officials have described dental fluorosis as "a classic public health trade-off" for fewer cavities. Well, try telling that to a person whose teeth have been ruined by fluoride - or to parents, angered by the distress caused to their children. The dental veneers required to disguise such damage are costly - and this treatment must be renewed every five or six years at the victim's expense. Who ultimately 'benefits' from this 'classic public health trade-off'? Cosmetic dentists - theirs is a boom industry. Extended water fluoridation means more money for dentists.
Fluoridation has been tried and stopped by many Western European countries and rejected out of hand by others. What can we, who support the Campaign for Truth in Medicine, do to stop fluoridation in England - and in the USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?
The first move must be to become part of the international
anti-fluoridation campaign. If you reside in the UK, then please support the National Pure Water Association, an independent organisation funded by membership subscriptions, which has been campaigning against water fluoridation since 1960. It has been a long, hard and costly battle, but the tide is turning. The fraud is, at last, being exposed. A huge collective "push" is needed NOW.
Write to your MP, telling him/her that you withhold your consent to water fluoridation - ask for your MP's position on this matter. Write to your Ward Councillor in similar fashion - and to your water company, withholding your consent to water fluoridation. Write a brief letter to the editor of your local paper, making it clear that you oppose water fluoridation. Any letters published in local newspapers are widely read. Invite readers to visit the website of the National Pure Water Association - and join the NPWA yourself at www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk
Please remember, it isn't difficult to take action. So why not take action NOW? The public water supplies affect your health and the future wellbeing of your children. If you have any queries, please contact myself, Jane Jones, campaign director at firstname.lastname@example.org
For further reading on this subject, please see: 'Your Child's Vulnerability to Toxic Substances in the Environment.' by George Glasser and Andreas Schuld.
And here's a stunning letter written recently by a US attorney:
Thank you for reading this important information,
This is great advice from Jane and a reminder that registering your concerns over fluoridation isn’t difficult. If you have just read this article and you live in the UK, we would encourage you immediately to contact your local water authority and find out if your area is fluoridated. Write a letter to your local paper directing readers to the NPWA website and then copy the letter to your local MP and to the UK’s main water department at Office of Water Services, Centre City Tower, 7 Hill St, Birmingham, B5 4VA. This will be a very profitable forty-five minutes spent investing your concern into real and profitable action!
The subscription to join NPWA is only £12.50 per annum! Please send your cheque (made payable to NPWA) and any donation to The National Pure Water Association, 12 Dennington Lane, Crigglestone, Wakefield, WF4 3ET. The NPWA is what we at CTM term 'a trench organisation', fighting on the front line for the scrapping of fluoridation, as well as keeping you informed of latest the developments, enabling you to pass on accurate and valuable information to your neighbours, family and friends.
GLEN WALKER, AUSTRALIA
Australia has a nationwide organisation representing those against compulsory fluoridation, in the shape of Freedom from Fluoridation Federation of Australia. Membership to the FFFA is set at $20 AUS per annum and includes the bi-monthly 'Australian Fluoridation News' edited by myself, Glen Walker, chairman of the Federation and chairman of the Victorian Anti-Fluoride Association.
Our membership covers all states where water is mass medicated with sodium silicofluoride - a waste product pollutant, collected from exhaust chimneys from fertiliser factories making superphosphate.
Successive Australian governments have prohibited public referenda on mass fluoridation, ignored the Australian Constitution and ignored principles of pharmacology. The present government continues to endorse and promote the daily drugging of the population with a chemical that has never been tested or registered anywhere in the world as a chemical considered safe for human consumption.
In Australia, doctors are prohibited from forcing any medication on a patient without that patient's consent. But with fluoridation, the population is being denied freedom of choice over this medication by the present Australian government, which depends on our ingrained apathy and trustful nature for the continuance of its draconian and totalitarian health laws. The community just stands back and allows their elected politicians to represent them in this manner. But who is looking out for us in this matter?
If you live in Australia, please support FFFA - an independent organisation, free of outside influence and with a single platform only - TO STOP MASS-MEDICATION WITH ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION VIA THE KITCHEN TAP IN EVERY HOME.
Thank you for your support,
If you live in Australia, you can register your immediate protest with the relevant authorities by JOINING FFFA TODAY. You may send a cheque for AUS$20, made payable to FFFA, Box 935G, G.P.O. Melbourne, VIC, 3001 Phone: (03) 9592 5088 Fax: (03) 9592 4544. You will receive a regular newsletter containing well-researched and highly explosive information on the issues involved, samples of which can be found at http://www.fieryhorseuk.f2s.com/ausfnews/copy_list.htm
DR. PAUL CONNETT USA Dr. Paul Connett is Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY where he teaches General Chemistry, Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology. He has researched the issue of fluoridation for approximately six years and is a founding member of the US Fluoride Action Network and is the editor of regular bulletins for the International Fluoride Information Network which are available free of charge from email@example.com Thank you, Paul, for the following article.
UNRAVELLING THE SPIN ON FLUORIDATION IN THE US.
Fluoridation, the practice of adding sodium fluoride (or substances that yield the fluoride ion) to the public water supply, began in the United States in 1945, at a time of massive overconfidence in what chemicals could achieve. This was when children at picnics were sprayed with DDT; PCBs filled our transformers; asbestos lined our pipes and tetraethyl lead helped our gasolineS burn more smoothly. One by one these shortsighted chemical "advances" have fallen by the wayside, but fluoridation clings on, with enormous help from the US Public Health Service (US PHS).
Since 1950, fluoridation has been enthusiastically promoted by every US Surgeon General and, as recently as October 1999, the CDC described fluoridation as one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century (1). With such heavy hitters backing fluoridation for so many years, it is not surprising that many Americans think of fluoride and fluoridation as one of those nice things which fit in well with motherhood and apple pie.
Part of the US public's embrace of fluoridation was achieved via a propaganda campaign which would have made Goebbels blush. Professionals who have dared to question the practice have often found themselves ostracised or sacked. Members of the public who have expressed concerns have been likened to the mad General in the movie Dr. Strangelove, who saw fluoridation as a communist conspiracy to takeover his precious body fluids. If nothing else, this denigration of fluoridation opponents has made many shy away from the issue. However, over the last few years, a growing number of scientists and public health activists have taken a closer look at the fluoride controversy and have been appalled at what they have found.
They have been shocked to find that:
1) The benefits of fluoridation to teeth have been grossly exaggerated. For example, the largest survey carried out in the US indicates a saving of less than one half of one tooth surface, which is less than 0.5% of the 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth (2).
2) Most countries in the world, despite heavy lobbying from the US, do not fluoridate their water. In Europe, where more objective scrutiny of the science has taken place and more consideration given to individual rights, the practice has been overwhelmingly rejected and yet European children's teeth are just as good if not better than those of American children (3).
3) The dangers of fluoridation have been downplayed. Most Americans are not aware that naturally occurring fluoride has damaged the health of millions of people worldwide. Moreover, the margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic dose (1 mg per day) and the toxic dose is zero for dental fluorosis (4), less than 2 for increased chance of hip fracture (5), 3 for an increase in infertility rates (6) and 4 for the lowering of IQ in children (7). Such margins of safety would be ridiculously small for any drug, but for one delivered to the whole population under circumstances where one cannot control the dose or observe individual response, it is utterly reckless by any conventional, toxicological standard. One normally wants a factor of 100 between the therapeutic dose and the toxic dose.
4) There is no argument that fluoride is highly toxic at high doses. It interferes with calcium metabolism and is a potent enzyme poison; it complexes with toxic metals, allowing them passage to places where they otherwise would not reach. In one experiment, 1 ppm of fluoride administered to rats in their drinking water as either aluminum fluoride or sodium fluoride led to a greater uptake of aluminum and amyloid deposits in their brains, similar to those seen in Alzheimers' patients (8). It is also well established in literally hundreds of biochemical experiments that fluoride in the presence of trace amounts of aluminum interferes with hormone signalling mechanisms (9).
5) The US Public Health Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950 before one single trial had been completed. This was clear indication that this was more of a political decision than a scientific one. Today, the level of dental fluorosis in optimally fluoridated communities is three times higher than the original goal of the program (4).
6) 50% of the fluoride ingested on a daily basis accumulates in our bones. These levels are not being tracked in the US. Nor are doctors trained to look for early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis which are identical to the early signs of osteoarthritis (10). Fluoride (50 mg per day) given to patients with osteoporosis to harden their bones, has increased their rate of hip fracture (11, 12). Since 1990 10 studies (2 unpublished) have found an association between hip fractures in the elderly and water fluoridation. 8 others have not (13). Even more serious is the fact that while the results are mixed, there is some evidence that fluoride causes osteo-sarcoma (bone cancer) in rats and young men (14, 15).
7) The CDC is six years out of date in the documentation they cite in support of their claims of safety (1, 13). Such an agency should not be more than a few weeks out of date. They should be on top of every journal in every language.
8) Contrary to frequent claims, fluoride is not a nutrient. This fact is supported by the finding that the average level in mothers' milk is one hundred times lower than the level added to water (16). Clearly, if fluoride were a nutrient needed for healthy teeth, then it is precisely in mothers' milk where one would expect to find it. Even the CDC is now conceding that what benefits exist from fluoride accrue from topical application, not systemic exposure (1). Although the CDC doesn't admit it, any rational person must conclude that if you don't have to swallow the stuff to get the benefit and that there are some risks involved with swallowing too much, the last place you should put fluoride is in the drinking water!
9) The level of fluoride once used by doctors to lower the activity of the thyroid gland in patients suffering from overactive thyroid gland (hyperthyroidism) (17) actually overlaps the level now being ingested by many Americans (18). A question which has not been considered by US authorities is how many of the 40 million American suffering from hypothyroidism have had the condition caused or exacerbated by fluoride exposure.
10) Recent research indicates that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland in humans (19), lowers melatonin levels in animals and shortens the time to puberty (20). No US authority has responded to this finding.
In addition to these startling facts is the incredible revelation that the substances most frequently used to artificially fluoridate water (hexafluorosilic acid or its sodium salt) are not food-grade quality but are contaminated industrial waste products which the US EPA confirms have never been subjected to long-term animal testing (21). Two published epidemiological studies indicate an increased uptake of lead in children's blood in both Massachusetts and New York, associated with the use of these chemicals for fluoridating water (22, 23).
Despite these incredible findings, local and state officials continue to promote fluoridation using four tactics.
1) They point to a list of "authorities" which endorse fluoridation.
2) They repeat ad nauseum the mantra "fluoridation is safe and effective, effective and safe" without citing any studies to support the mantra.
3) They denigrate opponents as a bunch of crazies.
4) They use the claim that there is no serious scientific debate on the issue to refuse to debate opponents in public.
But today these tactics are not working. The government can no longer keep the public in the dark, despite the help of an acquiescent press. Solid, well-referenced information is being provided on a number of web pages on the internet. More and more independent scientists and activists are getting involved and have joined a worldwide campaign to end this madness. Those who have expressed their opposition to fluoridation include Ralph Nader, the late David Brower, Dr. Arvid Carlsson (last year's recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine). Key help has been provided to this movement by the announcement by the union which represents the 1500 professionals at the headquarters of the US EPA that they are opposed to fluoridation (24).
Since 1990, over 100 communities in the US and Canada have either voted not to start fluoridation or to halt fluoridation after it has been started. In January of this year, fluoridation was rejected in Bennington, Vermont; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Kinnewick; Washington and Lanai in Hawaii. At the last national election (6th November 2001), fluoridation was rejected in Worcester, Mass. Meanwhile, more and more communities are taking a second look at this practice. Fluoridated Fort Collins in Colorado has set up an independent team of local professionals to examine the practice. On January 8, a committee of the New Hampshire legislature, after hearing pro-fluoridation testimony from the Department of Health, voted 13-0 to set up a committee to re-investigate the efficacy and safety of fluoridation. These representatives and many other citizens are beginning to smell a rat in the tactics used by those promoting fluoridation. As one of the NH representatives, Barbara Hull Richardson, stated in the discussion leading to the vote:
"It is interesting that those advocating mandatory fluoridation, who claimed to have all the scientific data on their side, were not willing to stand up and defend that evidence."
The first order of business for anyone wishing to get involved in this issue is to get informed. This is relatively easy with the help of the internet. Readers can start with the Fluoride Action Network's web page at http://www.fluoridealert.org which is linked to several other sites. The next step is to find out if your local community is fluoridated and if it is then raise the issue with the Council. Present them the '50 Reasons for Opposing Fluoridation' which can be found on the above web page and ask them to get those who support fluoridation in the town or in the state to respond to these 50 Reasons. If they cannot respond, then urge them to halt a practice they cannot defend. Do not let them resort to "authority" on this matter. The authorities which they frequently cite have been discredited time and time again. The only acceptable response is a rational one which offers cogent arguments backed up with peer reviewed references from the literature. If they engage in this process, then challenge the proponents to an open public debate on the matter. I and others will gladly participate in such a debate without fee.
We hope this information has been helpful. Everything you need to register your protest on the dangerous practice of fluoridation in your neighbourhood has been made available to you. Contact these organisations today and help CTM to turbo-charge the effort by unifying huge numbers of the public behind this issue. If you represent or know of organisations in other countries that oppose mandatory fluoridation, let us know and we will run articles in the coming bulletins to co-ordinate efforts in these areas. Huge numbers of people, unified behind a single cause and taking action in a consistent manner will ALWAYS GET A RESULT. Make your protest heard today. Please copy your correspondence to the offices of CTM at firstname.lastname@example.org
Health researcher and reporter Phillip Day: “I recommend that everyone in the UK team up with CTM and the National Pure Water Association to move UK fluoridation into the history books. Europe has already kicked it into touch. Water fluoridation is deceitful mass medication and almost always without consent. A concerted effort by CTM members through regional organisations in your world zone will add tremendous weight and firepower to this cause. Let's send a strong and determined message to the minnows at City Hall and let’s do it together.”
1) CDC (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of
Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly
Review (MMWR), 48(41);933-940 October 22, 1999.
2) Brunelle, J.A. and Carlos, J.P. (1990). Recent trends in dental caries
in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. J. Dent. Res 69,
(Special edition), 723-727 ( see Table VI).
3) World Health Organization. Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme
Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO
Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden.
http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html (Accessed Online, August 2001) and summarized on www.fluoridealert.org
4) Heller KE et al (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying
Water Fluoride Concentrations. J of Pub Health Dent, 57;No. 3, 136-143.
5) Li Y, et al. (2001). Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. J Bone Miner Res.16(5):932-9.
6) Freni SC. (1994). Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking
water is associated with decreased birth rates. J Toxicology and
Environmental Health 1994;42:109-121.
7) Zhao, L.B. et al (1996). Effect of high water water supply on
children's intelligence. Fluoride, 29, 190-192.
8) Varner, J.A. et al (1998). Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride
or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and
cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Research, 784, 284-298.
9) Strunecka, A. and Patocka, J. (1999). Pharmacological and toxicological
effects of aluminofluoride complexes. Fluoride, 32, 230-242.
10) Hileman, B. (1988). Fluoridation of water. Questions about health risks
and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News. August 1, 1988, 26-42. http://www.fluoridealert.org/hileman.htm
11) Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. (1989). Increased incidence of hip fracture in
osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride. J Bone Miner Res
12) Riggs, B.L. et al (1990). Effect of Fluoride treatment on the Fracture
Rates in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis. N. Eng. J. Med., 322,
13) Connett, P. and Connett, M. (2000). The Emperor Has No Clothes: A
Critique of the CDC's Promotion of Fluoridation. Waste Not #468. Waste Not,
judson Street, Canton, NY 13617 see also http://www.fluoridealert.org.
14) National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C. The results of
this study are summarized in the Department of Health and Human Services
15) Cohn, P.D. (1992). An Epidemiologic Report on Drinking Water and
Fluoridation. New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, NJ.
16) Institute of Medicine (1997). Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium,
Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition
Board. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
17) Galletti, P. & Joyet, G. (1958). Effect of Fluorine on Thyroidal Iodine
Metabolism in Hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology.
18) DHHS (1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, Report of the Ad
Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental
Health and Related Programs. Department of Health and Human Services, USA.
19) Luke, J. (2001). Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland.
Caries Res. 35:125-128.
20) Luke, J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal
Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford.
21) Letter from Robert C. Thurnau, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency to Roger Masters. Nov 16, 2000. See http://www.fluoridealert.org/EPA-Masters.jpg
22) Masters RD, Coplan MJ. (1999). Water treatment with silico-fluorides and
lead toxicity. Int J Environ Stud 56:435-49.
23) Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. (2000). Association of
silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology
24) Hirzy, J.W. (1999). Why the EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists
Opposes Fluoridation. Press release from National Treasury Employees Union, May 1,1999. (for text see http://www.fluoridealert.org/HP-EPA.htm
Онищенко Г. Г. Проблемы качества питьевой воды в Российской Федерации и пути их решения 5