18 September 2009

European Court Ruling Spells an End to Water Fluoridation.

America is just about to one-up this intelligent decision, of course...

"Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods. That is the decision of the European Court of Justice, in a landmark case dealing with the classification and regulation of 'functional drinks' in member states of the European Community. "

UK Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF)

Fluoride in Tea Weakens Bones

‘‘In our study of people’s health in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, we found that the bones of those who consumed water and beverages containing high fluorine density over a long time could develop a propensity to break,’’ Shimmura said. ‘‘They are not in any immediate risk. However, it is desirable that a standard be set and displayed for tea drinks.’’

17 June 2009

Have... some of THIS!

California Victory: Fluoride makes it into the TOP 9 of chemicals to be reviewed under Proposition 65

So pat yourself on the back if you sent in comments to the OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). This was a mighty victory and could well spell the end of fluoridation if the Carcinogen Identification Committee eventually rules that fluoride is a probable carcinogen.

The paper (by the): Environmental Working Group

And more here: Fluoride Action Network

Light and Truth,

09 June 2009

What a Tangled Web We Weave

(abstract from: Medical Hypotheses, Volume 72, Issue 5, Pages 501-503; K. Zachariassen, T. Flaten.)

"East African immigrants to Scandinavia are admitted to mental hospitals far more frequently than native Scandinavians. Most of these patients are admitted for psychosis, commonly ascribed to problems adapting to the new culture. However, psychosis is also known to be associated with hyperthyroidism, and the high frequency of psychosis among East Africans in Scandinavia may at least in part be due to hyperthyroidism rather than cultural problems. Large areas in East Africa are notorious for high natural concentrations of fluoride in water and plants. Fluoride inhibits the production of thyroid hormones. To maintain normal thyroxin levels the body increases the capacity for thyroxin production. Goitre is caused by such a compensatory mechanism, and endemic goitre is widespread in many high-fluoride areas, even where dietary access to iodine is adequate. When people from such areas arrive in a low-fluoride area, their elevated capacity to produce thyroid hormones may lead to hyperthyroidism and subsequently to psychosis."


I can say from personal experience, as one who was exposed to heavy amounts of sodium fluoride (the standard) throughout his life until 46 months ago, that leaving a F- rich environment, and attempting to remove it completely from the diet by eating 'naturally,' is a surefire way to undergo some interesting mental and physical changes over the course of a couple years. At least. Although far healthier than I've ever been before, I am now incredibly sensitive to the 'fluoride response' when I consume it via the city water, or via inorganic foods which have usually been sprayed by fluoride pesticides (which are the most common). I usually take kelp (for the iodine), calcium (to bond the F-), and iron pills with me whenever I travel. Some fluoride stil enters my diet through groundwater uptake into vegetables, grains, and fruits; and, by way of reconstitution into muscle mass from grazing foods by the animals and animal products I consume. Without those minimal sources, I'd probably have flipped my wig by now, too! I seriously despise the idea of being so biochemically attached to something just because it was a cofactor in my developmental stages -- it is thenceforth my body's expectations to consume it somewhat regularly -- and, that I must wait a total of 7 years to replace bodily cells for a true and complete acclimation to a regimen without it. Akin to quitting smoking (of which I've just hit my 8 year mark). I've been running 4, so far; 3 more to go, but I still haven't removed it completely from my diet. How can I?

And you know, I am not the only one who's had to undergo this genetic engineering experiment:

"Why We Changed Our Minds About Fluoridation: The Fluoride/Thyroid Connection"

08 June 2009

The News

Hey "pro" fluoridationists! Save face and read this!

(from Fluoride Journal, by The International Society for Fluoride Research:
Fluoride [Fluoride]. Vol. 41, no. 3, p. 253. Jul-Sep 2008.)

"The US National Research Council (2006) concluded that fluoride is an endocrine disrupter: normal endocrine function or response in humans is altered by exposure to fluoride. The major effects examined to date include alterations of thyroid function, calcium metabolism, pineal function, and glucose metabolism. Both direct and indirect mechanisms of action appear likely, including direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes necessary for activation of a normal hormone. People with reduced thyroid function are at higher risk of clinical hypothyroidism and cardiac disease, among other things. In particular, reduced thyroid function in a pregnant woman, even if asymptomatic, can result in lowered IQ of her offspring. Fluoride exposure results in an increased requirement for calcium and a higher risk for calcium deficiency and consequent problems. Altered pineal function could impact a number of bodily processes or systems, including calcium metabolism, bone growth, and central nervous system function. Fluoride exposure appears to result in increased blood glucose levels or impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals. Also, diabetic individuals often have higher than normal intake of drinking water and consequent higher fluoride exposures. Many endocrine effects are associated with fluoride intakes in the range typically observed in the U.S. In general, adverse effects are more likely in the presence of dietary deficiencies (e.g., iodine or calcium). The increasing "epidemics" of thyroid disease, diabetes, and other health problems in the U.S. warrant examination of the possible role of nearly universal exposure of the population to fluoride. Reference: National Research Council (2006). Fluoride in Drinking water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press."

Hmmmmmm. Not looking good! What happens when people start consulting their health insurance companies and lawyers and OSHA and more? I'd say to change your mind quick.

Oh, and then, straight from the JADA (Journal of the American Dental Association) and the CDC:


"In the earliest days of fluoride research, investigators hypothesized that fluoride affects enamel and inhibits dental caries only when incorporated into developing dental enamel (i.e., preeruptively, before the tooth erupts into the mouth) (30,31). Evidence supports this hypothesis (32--34), but distinguishing a true preeruptive effect after teeth erupt into a mouth where topical fluoride exposure occurs regularly is difficult. However, a high fluoride concentration in sound enamel cannot alone explain the marked reduction in dental caries that fluoride produces (35,36). The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel (37), and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries (38).

The laboratory and epidemiologic research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates that fluoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical and that the effect depends on fluoride being in the right amount in the right place at the right time. Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva (37). Thus, adults also benefit from fluoride, rather than only children, as was previously assumed."

Might it help much to understand that silico-fluorides are bactericidal? Like regular old saltwater gargle is, in fact?

Mmmmmm... yeah. About that. BEING THAT FLUORIDE IS TOPICAL, one could surmount a gigantic and firestorm argument against proponents of said mass medication (being that, indeed, it is medicinally applied for human consumption), SUGGESTIVE THAT WE ALL SIMPLY BRUSH OUR TEETH REGULARLY.

Wall Street Journal covered this whole problem back in 1998... what the heck is going on???

06 June 2009

My Response to the Prior

It seems that this has become a battle with the Department of Health here in CO, because if your city opts out of the fluoridation program, it opts out of all CDOH programs. Gosh. Whatever would they need to be so stringent for? That's not terribly malignant/sketchy at all. Quote (from CDPHE):

"Community Water Fluoridation within the state of Colorado is not regulated or non-enforceable. However, all US Environmental Protection Agency rules and regulations apply to the Community Water Fluoridation Program just as they normally would if not adjusting, or managing the natural fluoride levels found in all water sources. Communities can volunteer into the program by Mayoral delegation, Council or Board Decision, or even by public vote. Once a community volunteers to provide the great public health benefit that comes from having optimal levels of fluoride in their public water, the community agrees to participate fully in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment program."

I actually sent the below message, via email, to the Durango City Water Board before the newspaper article even came out... which is republished through the last post ("the prior" I spoke of above).

6 January 2009

To All Water Commission Board Members,

I am writing this letter to you as a review, for important consideration, regarding the pro-fluoride presentation given on January 5th this year by the CO Department of Health. I will simply address a few topics identified at that meeting, and then ask questions and/or assert data about proclamations made and crucial information which was left out of this presentation.

* If, as explained, and made known by the WHO, community DTMF levels are decreasing everywhere, no matter the level of fluoride, then precisely what quantitative purpose does fluoride serve?

* If, as explained, the NAS report covered “mainly naturally occurring fluoride” in their report, and if, as known by the ACS, sodium fluoride ion is quite different from calcium fluoride ion (with 80x the human danger), would this mean that artificial fluoridation is much more able to affect physiological systems?

* If, as admitted, the levels of fluoride obtained in food (mainly from fluoride pesticides) are well above and beyond the levels ‘optimal’ for treatment of dental caries, and, as admitted, fluoride is systemic and bio-accumulative – always excreting in the saliva and stored in bones as a replacement of vital calcium -- why fluoridate at all?? And, moreover, what does this say for the percentage charts regarding periods of non-fluoridation in certain areas; if fluoride is supposed to help us systemically, then why, when it is still in people’s bodies as an accumulative contaminant, would the absence of merely topical treatment affect the decline of caries so much?? Does this prove that it truly is topical, as the JADA report states?

* Even if osteosarcoma is not studied well enough as relative to fluoride, which it may or may not be, the documented affects of fluoride on human thyroid systems is well known as far back as 1869 – and, in fact, simple sodium fluoride at levels no greater than 2mg per day (2 liters of water) were used through the 1970s in America as a hyperthyroid treatment. The FDA has never since regulated fluoride chemicals as pharmaceutical grade medicine, making them simple industrial waste byproducts instead, and, the EPA continues to consider fluoride a “contaminant.” In as such, should everybody be treated the same and be forced to take a large dose of thyroid-suppressing chemical every single day that they drink water in their home town? Even the NAS report has given this alone as a reason, amongst myriad studies, for the public to be seriously concerned with PWS fluoridation; further research, before any more continuance of fluoridation practices, was suggested in this voluminous record.

* At the start, fluoride was called “essential.” This is not true, as no country has listed fluoride as an essential nutrient, and, in fact, it is rather considered an EPA regulated toxin. Dental health can be perfect without any fluoride - even calcium fluoride - in the water (anthropological fact).

* The newest article in November by the Journal of Health Dentistry, made the scientific adjustment to literature suggesting that the term “optimal” be removed from fluoride applications entirely.

* The claim that milder forms of dental fluorosis have no clinical significance… is there proof of that?

* ”No health effects have been documented related to fluoride.” This statement is entirely contrary to the truth, in many countries of the world – including the USA.

* If fluorosis is evident, and connections can be made to reductions in hip fractures dependent upon consumption of fluoride, can fluoride, as a bone matrix mutagen, cause marrow – and therefore protoplasmic (like the AMA claim in 1943) or immune system - imbalances?

* Good for developing children?? FDA and ADA have now laid claim that no child under 6 should even come near fluoride consumptives!

* Fluoride is bactericidal – could it be that this is the main mode of any sort of caries prevention; would this effect be the same as organic lifestyle tea-drinking & vegetable dietary prevalence?

* Why were hardly any health effects regarded, aside from osteosarcoma and fluorosis, at the presentation? Why are dentists allowed to decide upon a drug that we are all mass medicated by? How does the dental health benefit, if it exists at all, outweigh the nature of systemic toxic effects on human neuro-physiological systems?? Opponents of fluoridation don’t majorly focus on whether or not fluoride helps caries; they focus on systemic bodily tolerances and reactions. Heavily diluted hydrogen peroxide, too, can prevent caries and mouth infections, but nobody is drinking it – each bottle of the substance is labeled with “drug facts” because of its capable negative side effects, just like toothpaste. Who has the licensure to mass medicate society without consent or against educated protest?

With Respect in Duty,


ps: I am a little creeped out when I think of how the biological, paleoanthropological, and forensics sciences all use (from time to time) a method of relative dating which utilizes Fluoride-Nitrogen ratio differences in bone remains. The older the bone remains are, generally, the less nitrogen (and calcium) they contain and the more fluoride (from ground sources only) it is all replaced with. As I'd mentioned above, chemical history has it that the anthropological record, up to the last hundred years or so, can use such methods for dating the deceased. Can it any longer? Now that, as Theresa Anselmo (director of the oral health unit at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) and local Durango dentist Ryan Mickelson mentioned, "sodium fluoride readily replaces calcium in bones;" might we all appear as walking dead, by these standards?

Durango Fluoride Battle: Front page in The Herald

As only a mere portion of my (and thousands of others') ongoing health freedom battle:

(from Durango Herald)

City weighs fluoride issues

Herald Staff Writer
Article Last Updated; Saturday, January 17, 2009
City of Durango water commissioners last week finished hearing presentations in a new debate on an old topic - whether the city should continue to fluoridate its drinking water.

The question arises periodically, said Jack Rogers, the city's public works director. Residents voiced concern in 1957 about government-sponsored mass medication when the city began to fluoridate water, and in 2005 several fluoridation opponents tried, and failed, to put a referendum on the city ballot, Rogers said.

Photo by JERRY McBRIDE/Herald

The consistency of the fluoride is that of powdered sugar. In one day this week, the treatment plant added 30 pounds to 2.5 million gallons of water.


Click image to enlarge

Photo by JERRY McBRIDE/Herald

The consistency of the fluoride is that of powdered sugar. In one day this week, the treatment plant added 30 pounds to 2.5 million gallons of water.

Compound killed animals, says Pagosa couple

By Dale Rodebaugh

Herald Staff Writer

People who oppose the fluoridation of drinking water say that livestock, as well as humans, are susceptible to the effect of the chemical.

A Pagosa Springs couple, Way-ne and Cathy Justus, say six of their quarter horses and four dogs died from drinking fluoridated water between the mid-1980s and 2005, when the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District discontinued the treatment.

Lennart Krook, a veterinarian and Cornell University professor emeritus, says in a video that fluoride poisoning was responsible for a host of the Justuses’ horse health problems, including hoof deformities, wheezing, constant urination and lung cancer.

Dr. Stacy Hudelson, a past president of the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association, wouldn’t dismiss the experience of the Justuses out of hand.

“If there’s a trend it bears investigation,” Hudelson said by telephone Thursday. “But scientific research must be done scientifically. You have to look for cause and effect.

“It’s easy for people to connect the dots in their own mind, but I’d have to see the evidence,” Hudelson said. “There can be such a thing as too much fluoride, but it would take a ton. Without a necropsy on each and every horse it’s a bold statement to make.”

Dwayne Hamar, a biochemist at the Colorado State University diagnostic laboratory, has his doubts.

“I know of no real good controlled data that shows that the proper amount of fluoride in drinking water causes any problem with animals,” Hamar said Tuesday by telephone.

Hamar said fluoride poisoning of livestock could occur from other sources. He recalled a case years ago – confirmed by Dr. Jeffrey Hall, a veterinarian toxicologist in Logan, Utah – in which cattle and horses suffered fluoride poisoning from grazing on land near a fertilizer plant south of Salt Lake City. The purification of phosphate shale to produce fertilizer contaminated forage.


In the latest round, water commissioners in November heard from opponents of fluoridation and on Jan. 5, from proponents. Commissioners are scheduled to decide which way to go in February or March. If they support the status quo, they probably won't send a recommendation to the City Council, Rogers said.

Roots of fluoridation

The foundation for fluoridation of drinking water nationally was laid in Manitou Springs in the first decade of the 20th century when dentist Frederick McKay noticed that many residents of the Front Range community had stained - but sound - teeth. McKay's curiosity led to investigations that around 1930 revealed that the stain was caused by the naturally high concentration of fluoride in the water.

Additional studies found that fluoride prevents cavities, and in the mid-1940s, Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first city to fluoridate its public water system. Today, about two-thirds of U.S. residents have fluoridated water.

Opponents of fluoridation offer health and ethical reasons against the practice. They say fluoridation violates certain religious beliefs, is big government forcing itself on citizens and could turn out to be as detrimental to human health as other substances once considered safe - asbestos, saccharin, DDT, agent orange and thalidomide. Brendan Bombaci, a second-year anthropology student at Fort Lewis College who opposes fluoridation of public water, asked to speak to water commissioners in November.

'Systematic toxin'

"Fluoride is a systematic toxin," Bombaci said last week in an interview with The Durango Herald. "Maybe it kills bacteria in your mouth that causes tooth decay, but it's not something that we should ingest."

Bombaci, 26, spent his formative years in Albuquerque, which fluoridates its water. He said he brushed twice daily and flossed but still ended up with a cavity.

Bombaci shared the presentation he made to water commissioners. In it, he quotes from a range of sources, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Journal of the American Dental Association and independent studies that are critical of fluoridation.

He quoted from an Aug. 17, 2001, report from the CDC that said the prevalence of dental cavities in a population "is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental (cavities)."

Bombaci also cites a statement from the International Society of Doctors for the Environment: "The development of a fetus and of an infant (breast-feeding) can be negatively affected by drinking water with 'optimal' sodium fluoride levels because it is a toxin, and especially a neurotoxin, scientifically proven capable of affecting intelligence, thyroid, hormones and reproduction."

60-year safety record

Theresa Anselmo, director of the oral health unit at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, who spoke to water commissioners Jan. 5, dismissed the neurotoxin allegation.

"The study involved rats fed 125 times the amount of fluoride found in drinking water," Anselmo said by telephone Thursday. "The study claimed the rats showed cognitive and behavioral aberrations, but there was no control group (of rats) and a review of the study concluded the research was not sound and that the findings could be explained by other mechanisms."

In her interview with the Herald, Anselmo said:"The appropriate level of fluoride in water has been deemed safe for more than 60 years. Fluoridation is a cornerstone of public health and has been ranked in the top 10 achievements of the 20th century along with the pasteurization of milk, control of infectious diseases, safer food, family planning, the identification of tobacco as a health hazard and motor-vehicle and workplace safety."

Dr. Ryan Mickelson, a dentist in private practice in Durango and a volunteer in a Montezuma County Health Department program for low-income children, also spoke to water commissioners.

Dental health has improved immeasurably since fluoridation of water began, Mickelson said this week by telephone. In some places in the U.S., parents used to take their children to the dentist on their 21st birthday to get what remaining teeth they had pulled and then get fitted with artificial choppers, Mickelson said.

Low-income aid

"Fluoride in the water is for low-income kids because it means one less problem for them," Mickelson said later by telephone. "The rest of us, if we choose, have ways and means to buy water that hasn't been fluoridated."

Mickelson cited his recent response to a letter in the Herald that urged an end to fluoridation of water in Durango. In his letter Mickelson said:"It is an earnest letter written by someone who obviously feels very passionate about removing fluoride from our city water. I will never be able to change his or anyone else's mind with a letter to the editor."

Instead, Mickelson invited anyone who opposes fluoridation to spend time with him "on the front line of public-health dentistry" at the Montezuma County Health Department dental clinic. They will see young children who face numerous health problems, he said.

"Removing fluoride from our water would only cast more problems on an already downtrodden demographic who have no say in their situation."

Anselmo said that in Colorado, 278 water providers offer fluoridated water to 73 percent of the population. The goal is to reach 75 percent of residents, she said.

"Optimal fluoridation levels in the state range from 0.9 to 1.1 parts per million," Anselmo said. "The level depends on the ambient air temperature - the cooler the temperature the higher the level because people drink less water."

The level of fluoride in public water in Durango is 1 part per million. Cortez, Bayfield and Pagosa Springs don't fluoridate their water.


Contents copyright ©, the Durango Herald. All rights reserved.

They've Got NOTHING On This

Let me start by quoting a little something from DuPont -- (Monstanto's partner in crime):

"Industrial products made with Teflon® fluoropolymer resins have exceptional resistance to high temperatures, chemical reaction, corrosion, and stress-cracking. The properties of Teflon® make it the preferred plastic for a host of industrial applications and different processing techniques."

Believe me... it's not only the polymer aspect that makes teflon dangerous (and a harbinger of Alzheimer's Disease), just like it's not only the polymer aspect that makes polycarbonate (petroleum oil-based plastic) cancerous...

The FDA-labeled 'drug,' fluoride (like its myriad derivatives) is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride). It's also in rohypnol, the date rape drug, as well as anaesthesia.

Here it is! A starter link, for anyone interested in going to a Durango public Water Utility Authority meeting (and adding guns to this show) -- they usually have monthly meetings:

Listed Meeting Dates (& main page)

CDC's "Fluoride in my Water" page

Remember: they are bound by law to allow your attendance, your observance, your archiving (audio recording, etc), and your *commentary* in the last minutes of every meeting.

And have a little visit to:

Keepers of the Well


Fluoride Debate (the BOMB argument against the ADA's one gun, "Fluoride 'Facts' Handbook")

...just so you can see some legal facts that plainly cannot be fought against. You WILL win.

Here's why:

annnnnnd... Chris Bryson will give you a quick corpocracy-propaganda history lesson!

(on mp3, too, he interviewed with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now -- here)

Lux et Veritas,

On With The Show

...and fluoride rat killer, and fluoride Teflon, and fluoride Sarin nerve gas, and fluoride anaesthesia, and fluoride Rohypnol (date rape drug), and... oh. Sorry -- I just can't help but to raise some eyebrows on this horrible crap.

Read this page! Sign the petition to Obama about the proposed new USDA head (who is also the head of Monsanto -- watch Future of Food to see how evil HE is)... and read about how fluoride pesticides contribute to honeybee CCD, and also how much fluoride pesticide residue is allowed in American foods!!!

Go organic, baby. And know that, in the very least, for this reason alone, it's not just some yuppie health fad.

Fluoride Action Network Pesticide Project

...and hey, watch this while you can:

But hey. SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, right??

I'll be rebutting that particular group's "pro" argumentation two days from now at the Durango Water Board monthly meeting. Best friends, as they are, with the ADA, I am willing to bet that the only "facts" they'll have at their disposal are the usual. But I've got this. And so much more.

(ie, the NRC review on EPA's standards of fluoride in the USA)

And can we forget about Arvid Carlsson? The Nobel Laureate who has advised against fluoridation?

Light and Truth,