__x__ domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/ajxeddmy/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6260October 1, 2012
Is Fluoride a Nutrient?
Among the flood of misinformation perpetuated by fluoridation proponents is the concept of fluoride as an important nutrient. Despite the fact that fluoride has never been proven to serve any role in human nutrition whatsoever, for some perplexing reason, proponents believe ingesting a hazardous industrial waste is the answer to reducing tooth decay in children. Considering how the increasing toxic burdens affecting our children’s health have resulted with over 50% of U.S. children suffering at least one chronic illness, and approximately 20% are developmentally disabled, does it really make sense to add more pollutants to our water supplies?
Fluoridation proponents simply ignore toxicological data and refer to fluoride as a mineral. This leads the public to an incorrect assumption that all minerals are nutrients. This isn’t the case with fluoride. Most elements of the periodic table are minerals, including lead and arsenic — very toxic minerals. Obviously not all minerals are safe or play an important role in providing optimal health, and fluoride is one of them.
Advocates for water fluoridation claim: “Numerous scientific studies and reviews have recognized fluoride as an important nutrient for strong healthy teeth.” — fluoridefreekansas.COM spoof site.
Think About This: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies fluoride as a pollutant, yet the EPA’s Office of Water (OW) provides water fluoridation protective status by substantiating the presumed benefit of fluoride for dental health. The OW had even gone as far as to assert that fluoride was a nutrient. This misrepresentation of fluoride was eventually rejected by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Institute of Medicine (IOM), the National Institute for Health (NIH) and National Research Council (NRC). Each organization was eventually forced to acknowledge that fluoride plays no role in human nutrition and is unnecessary for optimal growth and development.
To scientifically prove a substance is an essential nutrient, or important for specific biological functions, requires starving an animal of the substance to observe the symptoms and disease processes that result from the deficiency. It is an almost impossible task to produce a diet entirely free of fluoride for control groups. The most reliable early animal studies conducted with nutritionally adequate diets reduced fluoride levels to a range of 0.005 to 0.007 ppm. Fluoride at these negligible levels demonstrated no impairment of heart, liver and kidney function or increase in dental caries in animals when compared with groups fed water containing fluoride. [1] To this day, there is not one biochemical process known to require fluoride and no milligrams/day requirement has been established in human nutrition.
Aliss Terpstra, CNP nicely summarizes criteria required to qualify fluoride as a nutrient: “[F]luoride would have to contribute to calories for energy, contribute to optimal tissue growth, organ functions, structures of maintenance of life and health; be required as a co-factor for enzymes or vitamins; provide antioxidant protection; or be essential for body metabolism, growth, reproduction, and normal development of the fetus and child… Fluoride does none of these.” [2]
The European Commission in a 2010 report stated, “Plasma fluoride concentrations are not homeostatically regulated, but rise and fall according to the pattern of fluoride intake. In adults, plasma fluoride levels appear to be directly related to the daily exposure of fluoride.” [3] This indicates fluoride is unnecessary for the maintenance and function of biological processes in the body. Fluoride when consumed is either readily excreted or accumulates in the body, mostly within bone and connective tissue, but also within certain organs and endocrine glands. Essentially, your body becomes a storage vessel for this hazardous industrial waste.
In addition to the absence of scientific evidence supporting fluoride as a nutrient, research describes how fluoride targets various organ, endocrine and nervous system tissues to interfere with and damage biological mechanisms — even in low doses. [4]
There is no doubt that technological advancements of modern dentistry and medicine have greatly improved the quality of crisis care and our understanding of disease processes. Yet, endorsements for water fluoridation by these organizations stand among their other ironic and unfortunate examples of preventive health care programs that are absent of common sense and the fundamentals of chemistry and nutrition.
Elapsed from the pre-medicine education memory of these dentists and physicians who promote water fluoridation are the chemical properties of fluoride they should have learned from their basic sciences — fluoride is highly electronegative, a strong oxidizer and hungry for hydrogen bonds. This means fluoride has the ability to induce oxidative stress, alter gene expression and act as an enzyme inhibitor by breaking hydrogen bonds critical for maintaining the functional integrity of cellular components, nucleic acids, and protein structures of enzymes.
Disruptive to numerous biochemical processes, fluoride’s strong negative charge acts overtly antagonistic toward positively charged essential minerals to interfere with their important roles for growth, development, maintenance and function. Among the list of essential minerals whose roles in human nutrition are metabolically impaired or altered by the action of fluoride include essential nutrients such as boron, calcium, iodine, iron, lithium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, potassium, sodium, zinc and other essential macro and trace minerals.
Altered mineral metabolism also includes greatly enhanced absorption of toxic minerals such as aluminum. Aluminum fluoride has been shown to increase beta amyloid plaque formation in the brain — the benchmark of Alzheimer’s disease. [5] The aluminum fluoride-treated water for the Varner (1998) study was only 0.5 ppm. Think about how much aluminum fluoride you will be consuming when simmering fluoridated water in aluminum cookware.
Destructive to bone, cardiovascular and nervous system health, fluoride robs minerals from bones, increases calcification of arteries, increases risk of cardiovascular events, alters neurological function, and depletes vital antioxidants and vitamins C, D and E. [6] [7]
If you are still undecided as to whether fluoride is hazardous substance to human health or an important nutrient, next time we’ll examine fluoride from the perspective of the EPA. The EPA plays a vital role in preserving the water fluoridation program.
Help Keep Water Fluoridation Out of Wichita, Kansas
Protecting Wichita’s water quality, public health, environment and our civil and constitutional liberties is our responsibility. Although some believe water fluoridation is in the best interests of our children, informed citizens of Wichita, KS are spreading the facts and need your support.
The Kansas Health Foundation and other private and corporate special-interests have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for the promotional advertising, media coverage, advertising agency, law firm and hired help to promote water fluoridation in Wichita. If Wichitans knew the truth about water fluoridation they would be outraged by this science that only money can buy.
Don Landis is the spokesperson and action coordinator for the new non-profit community outreach organization, www.WichitansOpposedToFluoridation.com. He also coordinates efforts with www.WichitaPureWater.com and many volunteers who are contributing resources and organizing important events to reach the public with the facts being withheld by the dental and medical communities and media.
If you would like to donate your time, talent and financial support, you may contact Don directly by e-mail at dlandis1@cox.net or call 316.990.1471. It’s important to educate the Wichita community since the many surrounding communities that will be affected cannot vote on this referendum on November 6th.
More information on fluoride and water fluoridation can be obtained at the following links:
1. www.fluoridealert.org (Founded by Paul Connett, Ph.D.)
2. www.fluorideresearch.org (Editor Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D.)
Protect public health and your right to refuse unwanted medication: Say NO to fluoridation on November 6th!
[1] George L. Waldbott, M.D., Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D. & H. Lewis McKinney, Ph.D. (1978): Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma, Coronado Press, Inc.
[2] Aliss Terpstra, CNP (2012): Does Water Fluoridation Cause Heart Disease? The Institute of Holistic Nutrition: Nutrition Research. http://www.instituteofholisticnutrition.com/nutrition-research/
[3] Critical Review of Any New Evidence on the Hazard Profile, Health Effects, and Human Exposure to Fluoride and the Fluoridating Agents of Drinking Water. European Commission: Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), May, 2010.
[4] Barbier O. et al: Molecular Mechanisms of Fluoride Toxicity. Chemico-Biological Interactions 188 (2010) 320-328.
[5] Varner J.A. et al: Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride and Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebral Vascular Integrity. Brain Research 1998 Feb 16;784(1-2):284-98.
[6] Yuxin L. et al: Association of Vascular Fluoride Uptake with Vascular Calcification and Coronary Artery Disease. Nuclear Medicine Communications 33:14-20 (2011).
[7] Susheela A.K. (2007): A Treatise on Fluorosis, Revised 3rd Edition. Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation, Delhi, India.
© Dr. Stephen C. L’Hommedieu
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica’s publishing standards.)
Originally published on https://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lhommedieu/121001
October 1, 2012
]]>Advocates for water fluoridation claim: “Fluoride occurs naturally in water, though rarely at optimal levels to protect teeth. That’s our goal: getting just enough to help all of us keep our teeth longer… Fluoride is a safe and natural way to prevent tooth decay.” —fluoridefreekansas.COM spoof site.
Think About This: Fluoride does occur naturally in the water in simple ionic form as calcium fluoride. Due to its low solubility, calcium fluoride is normally present at very low concentrations. It’s considered relatively harmless in the low concentrations present in Wichita’s water at 0.3 parts per million (ppm). Even naturally occurring calcium fluoride, however, is capable of exhibiting toxic effects of fluorosis in human populations with fluoride concentrations of 1 ppm and even less.
Sodium fluoride is another simple ionic form, although it’s far more water soluble and, therefore, far more toxic than calcium fluoride. Naturally occurring sodium fluoride is fairly rare in nature. All sodium fluoride used for water fluoridation purposes is an industrial grade hazardous waste. However, relatively few cities still use this compound for water fluoridation purposes today.
Sodium fluoride is also manufactured in tablet form under strict Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The resulting compound is 99.97% pure sodium fluoride. This is the pharmaceutical grade version of the hazardous waste that fluoride advocates give their children. The FDA classifies sodium fluoride for ingestion as an unapproved new drug. There are no double blind studies that have demonstrated either the safety or effectiveness of ingesting sodium fluoride to prevent tooth decay.
In sharp contrast to these simple ionic forms, the synthetic fluoride chemicals used for water fluoridation are sodium hexafluorosilicate and hydrofluorosilicic acid, collectively called hexafluorosilicates or, the more general term, fluorosilicates (and sometimes silicofluorides). Although fluoridation advocates will tell you it’s the “safe and natural way to prevent tooth decay,” there’s nothing safe and natural about them. These hexafluorosilicates used in water fluoridation are highly toxic and are listed as hazardous wastes by many environmental protection administrations. Hexafluorosilicates are not identical to or chemically interchangeable with the form of fluoride naturally occurring in our water. In fact, there’s no known chemical compound present in nature similar in structure to hexafluorosilicates.
The main source of this “fluoride” is derived as an industrial waste by-product through the phosphate fertilizer industry called fluorosilicic acid. This highly corrosive industrial waste is produced by treating phosphate rock with sulfuric acid. Sodium hexafluorosilicate is produced by treating fluorosilicic acid with a highly caustic metallic base sodium hydroxide (lye), sodium carbonate or sodium chloride. Both hydrofluorosilicic acid (25% solution) and sodium hexafluorosilicate are the major chemicals utilized for water fluoridation programs.
There are other chemical by-products present in these industrial grade fluorosilicates. The list includes unevaluated levels of chlorides, amines (derivatives of ammonia), diesel fuel, kerosene, sulfides (aggressive corrosives), reagent compounds such as lye (used for inducing chemical reactions), phosphorus, oil-based defoamers with possible dioxin containing contaminants, polymers, petroleum products, naphthalene, and Synspar, the multi-function synthetic coolant used in phosphate rock processing operations.[6]
Fluorosilicic acid is evaluated to contain a minimum of 18.22% fluorine and 0.02% heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury, along with trace amounts of uranium 238 and the highly radioactive radium, which are all known carcinogens (cancer causing).[7]
In addition, there are two uranium decay by-products, radon-222 and polonium-210, which are even more carcinogenic. Polonium-210 emits 5000 times more alpha radiation than radium. As little as 6.8 trillionths of a gram can be carcinogenic when consumed internally. Radionuclides can lay dormant in your body to eventually decay into one of these highly carcinogenic forms.[8]
Fluorosilicate compounds used for water fluoridation are misleadingly promoted as simply providing more “fluoride” to what is already naturally present in the water. Interestingly, the use of fluorosilicate compounds has still not been acknowledged by our city officials for the proposed fluoridation program. The public doesn’t understand that the toxicity of fluoride will vary significantly with different compounds. The simple calcium fluoride present naturally in our water is far removed from the chemical properties of hexafluorosilicate compounds.
Since the vast majority of fluoride research pertains to sodium fluoride within controlled laboratory environments using pure distilled water, concerns regarding the toxicity of fluorosilicate compounds should be an important issue. But according to environmental expert Declan Waugh, BSc, C.Env, MCIWEM, MIEMA, MCIWM, “No toxicological studies have been done to determine the toxicity of fluorosilicates on human health.”[9]
The concern of many scientists is the potential for harm associated with the special chemical properties of fluorosilicates: Dissociation, bioavailability and possible toxicities of fluorosilicates vary with the pH of its environment. All test results on fluorosilicates have been at city water pH levels. No consideration has been given to the extremes in pH environments the water will be exposed to through cooking processes and ingestion. Consider that 50% of the fluoride in your stomach at pH 3 (the pH range of stomach acid is 2 to 3) is in the form hydrofluoric acid. Hydrofluoric acid is highly corrosive and can penetrate tissues more rapidly than other mineral acids.[10]
Hexafluorosilicate is stabilized at a pH of 2.6. It’s now believed that incomplete dissociated fluorosilicate residues can reassociate in the stomach and during food preparation to produce exposures to a variety of toxic forms including silicon tetrafluoride—a known hazardous substance.[11]
Differentiating fluorosilicate compounds from sodium fluoride, and certainly from calcium fluoride, is absorption and processing within the body. This was known even before the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed sodium hexafluorosilicate in 1950 as a cheaper alternative to sodium fluoride with a biological equivalence in absorption. However, in strong contrast to this endorsement were the results of earlier animal studies. When equivalent amounts of these fluorides were ingested, more of the fluoride from sodium fluoride was eliminated through the feces, whereas there was a three-fold increase of the amount of fluoride from hexafluorosilicate eliminated through the kidneys. The higher blood levels of fluoride suggest hexafluorosilicate is processed differently by the body and/or absorption is greater.[12]
Help Keep Water Fluoridation Out of Wichita, Kansas
Protecting our water quality, public health, environment and the personal freedom of all citizens should be the priority of our city leaders. Although some believe water fluoridation is in the best interests of our children, informed citizens of Wichita, KS need your support to prevent this polluting of our city water that will endanger public health and the environment.
The Kansas Health Foundation and other private and corporate special-interests have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for the promotional advertising, media coverage, advertising agency, law firm and hired help to promote water fluoridation in Wichita. If Wichitans knew the truth about water fluoridation they would be outraged by this science that only money can buy.
The Fluoride Free Kansas (FFK) website is developed and operated by co-founder Travis Crank. You can visit FluorideFreeKansas.org for the latest fluoride information and details about future meetings and support activities.[13]
Donations are needed to support the costs of important electronic efforts to reach the masses, website upgrades and other campaign expenses. If you believe it’s important to prevent the polluting of our drinking water with a hazardous industrial waste, please show your support by donating to Fluoride Free Kansas.[14] Achieving success in Wichita will send a clear message across Kansas and to other cities in the country: A corporate-driven science that promotes the dumping of hazardous waste into our drinking water is not welcome!
Don Landis (not directly affiliated with FFK) is the spokesperson and action coordinator between FFK and a number of private and group efforts being organized to reach the public with the facts being withheld by the dental and medical communities and media. If you have a talent, Don can use your help! Donations of your time and talent to support this community effort would be greatly appreciated.
You may contact Don directly by e-mail at dlandis1@cox.net or call 316.990.1471. It’s important to educate the Wichita community since the surrounding communities that will be affected won’t be able to vote on this referendum on November 6th.
If you would like a speaker to attend a group meeting or an event in this area, please contact Don Landis or Fluoride Free Kansas to inquire about possible arrangements.
For those who live in Kansas, take a quick moment to sign the petition.[15] When you do, please include ALL information so signatures are verifiable, otherwise they will not be counted.
Spread the word: Say no to fluoridation on November 6th!
Click here for part —–> 1,
� 2012 Dr. Stephen L’Hommedieu – All Rights Reserved
Footnotes:
1. “Why EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Oppose Fluoridation;” NTEU Chapter 280, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Headquarters.
2. Dental Professionals Profit from Fluorosis Treatment.
3. Fluoride in Milwaukee’s Water Unsafe, Unnecessary, and Unhealthy: Alderman Jim Bohl Proposes Legislation to stop Milwaukee’s Fluoridation Program. Statement from Alderman Jim Bohl May 22, 2012.
4. Civil Rights Leaders Call for Halt to Water Fluoridation.
5. Communities Which Have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990. Fluoride Action Network
6. Over-Exposed to Fluoride. Presented by Emily Kalweit, Director of Washington Action For Safe Water.
7. Sodium Hexafluorosilicate and Fluorosilicic Acid: A Review of Toxicological Literature (Oct. 2001).
8. Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection, by George Glasser; The Pure Water Gazette.
9. Declan Waugh, B.Sc. C.Env. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM. Misrepresentation of Scientific Facts and Current Scientific Knowledge on Silicofluorides and Fluoride by the Irish Expert Body on Fluoride and Health (June 2012).
10. Ciavatta L, et al. Fluorosilicate Equilibria in Acid Solution: Polyhedron Vol 7 (18);1773-79; 1988
11. Ricks GM et al. The Possible Formation of Hydrogen Fluoride from the Reaction of Silicon Tetrafluoride with Humid Air: Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. (54); 272-276; 1993
12. Kick CH et al. Fluorine in Animal Nutrition: Bulletin 558, Ohio State Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster OH (Nov. 1935).
13. Fluoride Free Kansas Home page.
14. Fluoride Free Kansas Donations.
15. Fluoride Free Kansas Petition.
Stephen C. L’Hommedieu, DC currently resides in Wichita, Kansas with his wife Nikki. For sixteen years Dr. L’Hommedieu has practiced natural medicine, chiropractic, acupuncture, and specializes in Advanced Kinesiology and nutritional therapies.
In 1992 he graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park with a Bachelor of Science in Biology with an emphasis in physiology. He completed a second Bachelor of Science in Human Anatomy and received a Doctor of Chiropractic from Parker College of Chiropractic in Dallas, Texas in 1996.
His unique and intelligent approach to health care has served to restore the health of many individuals with unusual and difficult to treat health disorders. His clinical specialty is the development of safe protocols for effective detoxification and management of heavy metals and toxic chemicals.
He believes God’s hand in our healing works through both His physical and Spiritual laws. He promotes the principles of natural health care based on authentic science and supports our freedom of choice in health care. He presents lectures and articles on various nutritional and health topics.
For comments or questions you may contact Dr. L’Hommedieu at his website: www.AdvancedAlternativesForHealth.com.
Published on https://www.newswithviews.com/L’Hommedieu/stephen106.htm
By Dr. Stephen C. L’Hommedieu
September 5, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Once again, Wichita’s municipal water system is the targeted kingpin to topple as it continues to stand among the largest cities in the U.S. remaining fluoridation-free. This time formidable allies of water fluoridation mounted pressure to ram their fluoridation measure through the Wichita City Council meeting on August 22. Despite the $250,000 pledge by the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund and a commitment for $800,000 more from other donors to assist with start-up costs, the measure still failed to gain a majority of Council votes. Strong public opposition to the water fluoridation measure was clear—this is for the public to decide. The measure will appear on the November 6th ballot.
Political momentum behind the strong media push to fluoridate Wichita’s water supply was largely initiated by the not-for-profit Kansas Health Foundation (KHF) and the American Dental Association (ADA). There’s also a long list of medical endorsements including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Medical Association (AMA), Kansas Academy of Family Physicians (KAFP), Kansas Health Institute (KHI), state and federal health agencies, and many spin-off dental and medical associations, foundations, clinics and care units, and the United Methodist Church and its health ministries (strong promoters of water fluoridation).
In addition to the full and half page ads and news articles featured in The Wichita Eagle during the initial surge, KHF financial resources helped to aggressively promote the pro-fluoridation message through television, radio, billboard ads, social media and websites. Two of these websites are designed to spoof the opposition, creating pro-fluoridation websites FluorideFreeKansas.COM and WichitansForPureWater.com to counter the opposing independent scientific research and information presented on FluorideFreeKansas.ORG and WichitaPureWater.com.
The pro-fluoridation initiative also included door-to-door solicitations. The 11,000 plus signatures exceeded the requirement for introducing the fluoridation referendum to the Wichita City Council to force immediate compliance or a public vote.
Everyday Wichitans are exposed to the pro-fluoridation message: Fighting tooth decay through water fluoridation is “beyond dispute” as an effective way to help protect our children’s teeth. Adding to the incentive is the theoretical $4.5 million savings in dental care every year. Let’s face it, how could anyone disagree when every major dental and medical association and public health agency glorifies water fluoridation as one of the great health achievements of our time?
Despite the fanfare, the history and science behind water fluoridation is extremely controversial and far from being beyond dispute. There are numerous leading health and independent research experts throughout the world who are alarmed by the influence of this corporate brand of science dominating the water fluoridation paradigm. Immersed in conflicts of interest, fluoridation science has been heavily criticized for its poorly conducted research studies. Independent experts, including the EPA’s own scientists,[1] stand strongly opposed to water fluoridation and warn that the advertised health and financial benefits being sold to Wichitans don’t add up.
During the initial pro-fluoridation rally at GraceMed Clinic on July 12th, pediatrician and water fluoridation advocate Dr. Larry Hund stated, “We have the science on our side…It’s a no-brainer.” The science behind water fluoridation may be a “no-brainer” for some like Dr. Hund, but the science on their side is a corporate-driven science that strives to defy, ignore, redefine and reinterpret objective findings and conclusions of legitimate independent scientific research. Thus, the scientific reliability of studies that “prove” the benefits and safety of water fluoridation have been called into question since the beginning.
Those benefiting most from the science supporting water fluoridation just may be the extractive industries that manufacture super phosphate fertilizer and aluminum. For these industries, the water fluoridation program is certainly “beyond dispute” as the greatest achievement for disposing of the tens of thousands of metric tons produced every year of the highly toxic industrial waste—fluorosilicic acid.
Similar to other highly questionable practices that plague the medical establishment, the science behind water fluoridation is far more political than scientific. Although many fluoride advocates have sincere intentions of helping children’s teeth, they’re completely unaware of the strong political influences underpinning fluoridation science. The real threat to our community’s health isn’t fluoridation opponents and their “junk science,” it’s the water fluoridation paradigm reducing legitimate science to junk.
The studies and references presented throughout this review are by no means all-inclusive. Those selected are among the volumes of studies, research and information available to provide insight and, for the most part, understandable points of interest. This series of articles considers a number of critical arguments and statements used by fluoridation advocates to support their views.
Have Wichitans Been Longing for Water Fluoridation?
Advocates for water fluoridation claim: “The citizens of Wichita have been waiting a long, long time for their city government and their community leaders to provide them with a proven form of health prevention.” —Sara Meng, DDS, The Wichita Eagle, July 12, 2012.
Think About This: Dr. Meng shares a common belief held by many of those within her profession, but there are many more who don’t share her fluoridation belief system. Having practiced chiropractic and natural medicine in Wichita, KS for sixteen years, I have never heard anyone complain about the lack of fluoridation in our city water. In fact, the water fluoridation issue has been soundly rejected in the 1950s, 1964, 1978 and 2000. Apparently, no one explained to Dr. Meng or her patients that there was no need to wait—they could use sodium fluoride tablets.
The idea that Wichitans have been waiting for this “great health achievement” to come pouring out of our faucets just isn’t reality. Allies of fluoridation, however, are working hard to create this public perception. Dr. Meng, who chairs Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, posted the KWCH Channel 12 “scientific” survey on their website to display the results: 53% of the surveyed audience was in favor for fluoridation, 33% opposed fluoridation and 13% were not sure. How scientific was the survey? It doesn’t matter; the impact on public perception was the goal. The intent is to build the perception of how water fluoridation must be a really good thing because everyone who knows the science wants it, except for, you know, those crazy people with their “junk science” claiming it’s poison.
Knowing the importance of public perception, Dr. Meng quickly “updated” her website to remove the word “fluorosis” from her services page. Fluorosis is a discoloring of the teeth caused by fluoride toxicity that can occur even at levels less than 1 part per million (ppm) in our water. The retraction was to avoid an obvious question: If you are promoting water fluoridation, and fluoride causes fluorosis, are you promoting water fluoridation to increase your business? This notable change was brought to public attention in an open letter that included before and after images of the website page.[2] Attempts to deliberately mislead the public and obscure the facts are the mainstay for the success of the water fluoridation movement.
Dr. Meng and others believe that Wichita is far overdue for fluoridating its water. According to Vice Mayor Janet Miller, Wichita needs to “join the 21st century.” But even if the City Council did vote to immediately climb on board the “F” Train, ironically, they would have found themselves still out of step with the times—more and more cities have abandon or are fighting to end this out-dated mode of health care. Hundreds of cities have continued to reject, have ended, or are presently pushing for legislation to end fluoridation programs because of numerous health concerns, freedom and informed consent issues, and simply because it doesn’t work. Here are some recent developments over the past year:
1. Fairbanks, Alaska voted 5 to 1 to stop their fluoridation program on June 6, 2011 (population 80,000). Fairbanks required fluoridation since 1959.
2. Albuquerque, NM stopped fluoridating their water last year (population 500,000). This year Santa Fe, NM was fighting to end their fluoridation program, but eventually lost with a reversal of the initial vote to end fluoridation.
3. College Station, Texas voted 6 to 1 to stop fluoridating their water in September of 2011 (population 100,000). College Station had been fluoridating their water since 1989.
4. Pinellas County, FL stopped fluoridating their water supply last year that serves nearly a million residents.
5. Alderman Jim Bohl of the City of Milwaukee, WI proposed legislation calling for the immediate cessation of any fluoride products introduced into the water.[3] This is another clear sign of how water fluoridation is losing credibility among decision-makers in public office.
6. Phoenix, AZ is one of the largest cities in the nation and the latest Valley city to reassess its controversial water fluoridation policy that affects 1.4 million people. This follows the cities of Page in 2006 and Flagstaff in 2001, both of which rejected fluoridation three times.
7. New York City Councilman Peter Vallone has been pushing legislation since 2010 to remove water fluoridation that supplies 8.2 million residents.
8. The cities of Lawrence and Salina, KS are fighting to end their water fluoridation programs.
9. Georgia fluoridates 96% of their water supplies and ranks 25th in the nation in dental health. Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and former Atlanta mayor, along with Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, Pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, have been urging Georgia legislators to end the mandatory water fluoridation program. Statistics show “61% of low-income Georgia third graders have tooth decay compared to 51% from higher-income families—and 33% and 20%, respectively, have untreated cavities…” Ambassador Young wrote, “We also have a cavity epidemic today in our inner cities that have been fluoridated for decades.”[4]
The state of Tennessee also fluoridates 96% of their water supplies, yet ranks far behind Georgia placing 47th in dental health.
10. According to Fluoride Action Network, more than 300 hundred communities in the U.S. and Canada have stopped or rejected the practice of water fluoridation since 1990.[5]
If fluoridation is a “proven form of health prevention” that Dr. Meng claims, why are rates of tooth decay at epidemic levels in cities fluoridated for decades? And why are more and more communities fighting to stop the “benefits?” The examples of Georgia and Tennessee are among many others that demonstrate the dichotomy between fluoridation presented as a “proven form of health prevention” and the statistical realities. The public is quickly learning that there are far more effective and safer options for preventing tooth decay. They emphasize the importance of a nutritious diet absent of junk food and excessive carbohydrates, nutritional supplements and better dental oral care and education.
Rather than being pro-fluoridation activists, dentists and medical physicians may want to consider becoming teeth brushing activists and promote Teeth Brushing Awareness campaigns. Educate children and parents to the importance of brushing and flossing their teeth after meals. Better yet, become nutritious food activists and teach children how sugar, soda and processed foods contribute to tooth decay. Practicing real health care may not be as profitable or politically correct, but it would serve to produce overall healthier children with decay resistant teeth. For part two click below.
Click here for part —–> 2,
� 2012 Dr. Stephen L’Hommedieu – All Rights Reserved
Footnotes:
1. “Why EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Oppose Fluoridation;” NTEU Chapter 280, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Headquarters.
2. Dental Professionals Profit from Fluorosis Treatment.
3. Fluoride in Milwaukee’s Water Unsafe, Unnecessary, and Unhealthy: Alderman Jim Bohl Proposes Legislation to stop Milwaukee’s Fluoridation Program. Statement from Alderman Jim Bohl May 22, 2012.
4. Civil Rights Leaders Call for Halt to Water Fluoridation.
5. Communities Which Have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990. Fluoride Action Network
6. Over-Exposed to Fluoride. Presented by Emily Kalweit, Director of Washington Action For Safe Water.
7. Sodium Hexafluorosilicate and Fluorosilicic Acid: A Review of Toxicological Literature (Oct. 2001).
8. Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection, by George Glasser; The Pure Water Gazette.
9. Declan Waugh, B.Sc. C.Env. MCIWEM. MIEMA. MCIWM. Misrepresentation of Scientific Facts and Current Scientific Knowledge on Silicofluorides and Fluoride by the Irish Expert Body on Fluoride and Health (June 2012).
10. Ciavatta L, et al. Fluorosilicate Equilibria in Acid Solution: Polyhedron Vol 7 (18);1773-79; 1988
11. Ricks GM et al. The Possible Formation of Hydrogen Fluoride from the Reaction of Silicon Tetrafluoride with Humid Air: Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. (54); 272-276; 1993
12. Kick CH et al. Fluorine in Animal Nutrition: Bulletin 558, Ohio State Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster OH (Nov. 1935).
13. Fluoride Free Kansas Home page.
14. Fluoride Free Kansas Donations.
15. Fluoride Free Kansas Petition.
Stephen C. L’Hommedieu, DC currently resides in Wichita, Kansas with his wife Nikki. For sixteen years Dr. L’Hommedieu has practiced natural medicine, chiropractic, acupuncture, and specializes in Advanced Kinesiology and nutritional therapies.
In 1992 he graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park with a Bachelor of Science in Biology with an emphasis in physiology. He completed a second Bachelor of Science in Human Anatomy and received a Doctor of Chiropractic from Parker College of Chiropractic in Dallas, Texas in 1996.
His unique and intelligent approach to health care has served to restore the health of many individuals with unusual and difficult to treat health disorders. His clinical specialty is the development of safe protocols for effective detoxification and management of heavy metals and toxic chemicals.
He believes God’s hand in our healing works through both His physical and Spiritual laws. He promotes the principles of natural health care based on authentic science and supports our freedom of choice in health care. He presents lectures and articles on various nutritional and health topics.
For comments or questions you may contact Dr. L’Hommedieu at his website: www.AdvancedAlternativesForHealth.com.
Originally published on: https://www.newswithviews.com/L’Hommedieu/stephen105.htm
By Dr. Stephen C. L’Hommedieu
September 5, 2012
NewsWithViews.com