----- Original Message -----
From: "La Leva di Archimede" <ivan@???>
To: <movimento@???>
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 12:53 PM
Subject: [movimento] Fwd: The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation (RFW)
> un'altra violazione dei diritti individuali, scopo: controllo delle masse
>
> un bel articolo riportato di sotto.
>
> hitler era solito "fluorare" le acque dei posti ke "conquistava"....
> il fluoro crea una sorta di apatia reverenziale, di accettazione....
>
> come al solito sono disponibili studi e articoli:
>
> http://www.nofluoride.com/
> http://www.fluoridealert.org/
> http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Dentistry/gibsn24.htm
> http://www.citizens.org/Food_Water_Safety/Fluoridation/fluoride.htm
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
> >>
> >>Subject: The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation (RFW)
> >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 06:17:43 -0000
> >>
> >>
> >>Red Flags Weekly, November 28, 2002
> >>http://www.redflagsweekly.com/connett/2002_nov28.html
> >>
> >>THE ABSURDITIES OF WATER FLUORIDATION
> >>This Practice Is Unethical, Unnecessary, Ineffective, Unsafe, And
> >>Inequitable.
> >>Any So-Called Expert On Fluoridation Who Thinks Otherwise Is Invited To
An
> >>Open Public Debate On This Issue
> >>
> >>by Paul Connett, PhD
> >>
> >>Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a
> >>time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs
filled
> >>our transformers and DDT was deemed so "safe and effective" that
officials
> >>felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic
> >>tables. One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but
fluoridation
> >>remains untouched.
> >>
> >>For over 50 years US government officials have confidently and
> >>enthusiastically claimed that fluoridation is "safe and effective".
> >>However, they are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open public
> >>debate. Actually, there are so many arguments against fluoridation that
it
> >>can get overwhelming. To simplify things it helps to separate the
ethical
> >>from the scientific arguments.
> >>
> >>For those for which ethical concerns are paramount, the issue of
> >>fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is simply not ethical; we
simply
> >>shouldn't be forcing medication on people without their "informed
consent".
> >>The bad news, is that ethical arguments are not very influential in
> >>Washington, DC unless politicians are very conscious of millions of
people
> >>watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments are
buttressed
> >>by solid common sense arguments and scientific studies which
convincingly
> >>show that fluoridation is neither "safe and effective" nor necessary. I
> >>have summarized the arguments in several categories:
> >>
> >>Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:
> >>
> >>1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
> >>2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
> >>3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
> >>4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to
fluoride's
> >>toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may
> >>benefit.
> >>5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.
> >>
> >>As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine
(2000),
> >>Dr. Arvid Carlsson:
> >>
> >>"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant
future,
> >>will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against
> >>leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a
> >>stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much
> >>more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of
drugs.
> >>The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite
of
> >>an individualized therapy."
> >>
> >>As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory
> >>board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh
et
> >>al 2000):
> >>
> >>"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has
never
> >>met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is
intended
> >>to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but
> >>you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer
> >>from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion."
> >>
> >>Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:
> >>
> >>1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to
> >>fluoride.
> >>2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical
not
> >>systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is
a
> >>more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ
(teeth)
> >>while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
> >>3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation,
but
> >>has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth
> >>decay.
> >>4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find
it
> >>in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times
LESS
> >>than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
> >>5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the
> >>so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In
fact,
> >>many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.
> >>
> >>Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:
> >>
> >>1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical
> >>not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback
1999;
> >>Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
> >>2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at
> >>preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay
> >>experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham
1999).
> >>3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as
fast,
> >>if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as
fluoridated
> >>ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization,
> >>Online).
> >>4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute
difference
> >>in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in
> >>fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was
not
> >>clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant
(Brunelle
> >>& Carlos, 1990).
> >>5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor
> >>neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have
been
> >>fluoridated for decades.
> >>6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former
East
> >>Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go
> >>down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al,
> >>2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).
> >>
> >>Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:
> >>
> >>1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to
> >>fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies
and
> >>epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to
> >>fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
> >>(See studies)
> >>2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production
of
> >>melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
> >>3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of
> >>children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at
least
> >>two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and
> >>McDonagh et al, 2000).
> >>4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection
between
> >>fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as
> >>fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and
> >>hypothyroidism.
> >>5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the
> >>uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
> >>6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower
> >>fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
> >>7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US
> >>not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and
> >>Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent
> >>behavior.
> >>8) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of
> >>reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent
or
> >>precariously low.
> >>
> >>Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:
> >>
> >>1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it,
if
> >>they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or
> >>expensive removal equipment.
> >>2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to
make
> >>children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour
> >>1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
> >>3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those
who
> >>are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require
> >>expensive treatment.
> >>
> >>Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:
> >>
> >>1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the
> >>target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the
> >>toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
> >>2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade
sodium
> >>fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent
for
> >>the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap
because,
> >>unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified
hazardous
> >>waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
> >>3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its
major
> >>benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective
approach
> >>would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of
> >>charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be
> >>controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.
> >>
> >>Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:
> >>
> >>1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed
> >>fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
> >>2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than
we
> >>were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has
remained
> >>unchanged.
> >>3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the
> >>fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that
50%
> >>of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
> >>4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the
levels
> >>of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even
> >>though they know that this level indicates whether children are being
> >>overdosed or not.
> >>5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride
> >>accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was
> >>published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper
presented
> >>at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and
2001
> >>(published in Caries Research).
> >>6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six
years
> >>out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.
> >>
> >>Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.
> >>
> >>The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in
open
> >>debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast
majority
> >>of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote
> >>water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based
> >>upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This
second
> >>hand information produces second rate confidence when they are
challenged
> >>to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than
it
> >>does with reason.
> >>
> >>Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the
> >>issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can
> >>continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of
"authorities"
> >>which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian
> >>Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy. The
> >>Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of
> >>fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on
rational
> >>analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public
> >>Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"
> >>
> >>Motivations - especially those which have operated over several
generations
> >>of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether
> >>intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key
> >>issues. It has distracted us from:
> >>
> >>a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide
> >>decent dental care for poor people.
> >>b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on
Medicaid.
> >>c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over
> >>consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point
of
> >>turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines
> >>into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental
> >>decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
> >>d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects
of
> >>fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which
fluoride
> >>pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have
ever
> >>conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'
> >>e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL)
> >>for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
> >>f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being
> >>introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and
> >>pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as
much
> >>a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and
brominated
> >>counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many
> >>accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and
> >>agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these
> >>other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers
posed
> >>by organofluorine compounds.
> >>
> >>So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to
> >>provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to
profit
> >>from the public being misinformed about fluoride.
> >>
> >>Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their
> >>credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very
difficult
> >>for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case
of
> >>mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American
> >>Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities
> >>waiting in the wings if they were to do so.
> >>
> >>However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless essential - in order
to
> >>protect millions of people from unnecessary harm - that the US
Government
> >>begin to move away from its anachronistic, and increasingly absurd,
status
> >>quo on this issue. There are precedents. They were able to do this with
> >>hormone replacement therapy.
> >>
> >>But getting any honest action out of the US Government on this is going
to
> >>be difficult. Effecting change is like driving a nail through wood -
> >>science can sharpen the nail but we need the weight of public opinion to
> >>drive it home. Thus, it is going to require a sustained effort to
educate
> >>the American people and then recruiting their help to put sustained
> >>pressure on our political representatives. At the very least we need a
> >>moratorium on fluoridation (which simply means turning off the tap for a
> >>few months) until there has been a full Congressional hearing on the key
> >>issues with testimony offered by scientists on both sides. With the
issue
> >>of education we are in better shape than ever before. Most of the key
> >>studies are available on the internet
> >>(http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html) and there are videotaped
> >>interviews with many of the scientists and protagonists whose work has
been
> >>so important to a modern re-evaluation of this issue (see Videos at
> >>http://www.fluoridealert.org).
> >>
> >>With this new information, more and more communities are rejecting new
> >>fluoridation proposals at the local level. On the national level, there
> >>have been some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA
Headquarters
> >>Union coming out against fluoridation and the Sierra Club seeking to
have
> >>the issue re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for other
> >>national groups to get involved in order to make this the national issue
it
> >>desperately needs to be.
> >>
> >>I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree with me on this, they
> >>will rebut these arguments. If they can't then I hope they will get off
the
> >>fence and help end one of the silliest policies ever inflicted on the
> >>citizens of the US. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation
> >>without further delay. It is not going to be easy. Fluoridation
represents
> >>a very powerful "belief system" backed up by special interests and by
> >>entrenched governmental power and influence.
> >>
> >>Paul Connett.
> >>
> >>All references cited can be found at
> >>http://www.fluoridealert.org/reference.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---
> >>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >>Version: 6.0.416 / Virus Database: 232 - Release Date: 06/11/02
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Josef Hasslberger
> >+39 06 635884
> >
> >My personal home page on physics,energy technology
> >and economic issues: http://www.hasslberger.com
> >
> >Antprohibitionism and products made from the fibres of cannabis
> >http://www.unsaccodicanapa.com
> >
> >see also La Leva di Archimede
> >Consumers favoring freedom of choice: http://www.laleva.cc
> >and check out news on the health front: http://consumers.laleva.cc
> >
> >Trash Your Television!
> >Not satisfied with news from the tube and other controlled media?
> >Search the net. There are thousands of alternative sources out
> >there. Start with the following two links, but there are many more
> >sites with good, timely information.
> >http://www.whatareweswallowing.com
> >http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
> >http://www.masternewmedia.org
>
>
> --
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
