By Regina Imburgia, Guest Contributor
The Fluoridation Program needs to end. It is that simple. A vote from the Dallas City Council can get this done!
There is nothing redeemable about adding neurotoxins to drinking water. It would be criminal for a citizen to add arsenic and lead to municipal drinking water but the DWU (Dallas Water Utilities) adds these toxins to drinking water every day. The hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS) added to our municipal water to raise the fluoride level is invariably contaminated with arsenic, aluminum, lead and other poisons are known to cause neurological and other medical harm in consumers, despite its rubber stamp of approval.
Since December 2013, the Dallas City Council has turned a deaf ear to the pleas of several hundred citizens demanding an end to the unsafe and ineffective Fluoridation Program. We have asked the Dallas City Council repeatedly for an open public forum where stakeholders and experts could have input. They ignore our requests.
The Dallas City Council cites the ADA and CDC endorsements of fluoridation as justification for their dismissal. But the CDC acknowledged in 1999, fluoride’s benefit comes from the topical application of fluoride to the teeth in high concentrations such as toothpaste. In that fashion, it poisons bacteria.
It is also important to note the ADA (American Dental Association) is a trade group rather than a scientific association. The ADA mission is to benefit dentists, not public health. The ADA marketing implies that dentists are unanimous in their support of fluoridation policy, but only about half of dentist practicing in the United States belong to the ADA and not all ADA dentists agree with the ADA pro-fluoridation policy. Moreover, several other dental and medical groups who do have a scientific mission oppose fluoridation, such as the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) who issued a position paper against fluoride use in September 2017.
“There is no need to fluoridate the water supplies. Fluoride in the water is essentially a drug, it’s an uncontrolled use of a drug…. The primary benefit of fluoride is topically, used as a topical addition, not internally.” – Dr. Michael D. Fleming, DDS, member of ADA, NCDA, IAOMT and FDA advisor on medical devices including dental products (2007)
Given the longevity of the fluoridation program, one would think that convincing statistical evidence must prove the program worked as promised. It doesn’t. Fluoridation for dental health is a 20th Century belief system – one that ignores 21st Century evidence of medical harm.
Could this be why our politicians fund the fluoridation program? Because they don’t want to admit that they have been on the wrong side of the issue for decades.
The Fluoridation Program needs to end. We must motivate the Dallas City Council to do their job as elected gatekeepers – to open their ears and minds to the testimony of citizens and modern science.
Please join us, the most vulnerable need us to speak for them. Tell the Dallas City Council to turn off the spigot.
Regina Imburgia is a local resident, for more information please visit DallasforSafeWater.com. NDG’s recent story has resulted in a lively discussion via our comment section. Recently Ms. Imburgia, who spoke before the Dallas City Council last fall on this issue, was invited to submit a guest editorial.
Some still mistakenly cling to the disproved belief that fluoride helps CHILDREN’S teeth as they form. That hypothesis was thoroughly disproved a quarter century ago.
It is important to ask — exactly why should an ADULT be sentenced to take this toxic chemical, fluoride, in every glass of water every day of life?
Fluoridation results in slow poisoning over a lifetime which causes premature ageing, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones (broken hips & arthritis), kidney damage, cancer and other health dangers.
Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.
The whole world is aware of the dangerous fluoridation scheme. While 74% of the U.S. is forced to drink fluoridate water, only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their water. China and Japan have rejected it many years ago.
Harvard study proved Fluoridation lowers IQ in children. In that the US children most at risk are from low social-economic ethnic groups who cannot afford purified bottled water, there may be political-racism factor in the refusal to look at the evidence.
Daniel Strader, DDS
Member IAOMT and IABDM Holistic Dental Societies.
Ok, so, Regina Imburgia, an antifluoridationist who has had all of her copy/paste arguments repeatedly refuted with facts and evidence, continues, nonetheless, to dishonestly push them as if they are somehow fact.
In this latest round of nonsense, Regina now ridiculously attempts to discredit the American Dental Association, one of the most highly respected dental healthcare organizations in the world, and the recognized dental healthcare authority in the United States. As if that isn’t absurd enough, the group she deems to be credible is the IAOMT, a little Canadian fringe organization composed of outliers whose opinions on fluoridation, and other issues, are in direct contradiction to the peer-reviewed science, and the overwhelming consensus opinion of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare. It’s “position paper” is nothing but the same, unsubstantiated nonsense and false claims that are regurgitated by antifluoridationists constantly.
Could this woman even be any more laughable?
In regard to this group Regina deems to have “a scientific mission”:
“The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo. They were responsible for the “smoking tooth” video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson’s and autism. They sell filling removal kits for “dentists” along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed “research,” and supports “health freedom.”
Any more need be said about Regina and her claims? She typifies the level of ignorance about fluoridation existing amongst the majority of antifluoridationists, and presents an excellent example of the dubious sources upon which they rely.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
In his comment on this page, Daniel Strader, DDS, who cites himself to be a member of the dubious IAOMT, perfectly demonstrates the lack of understanding of fluoridation by himself and his IAOMT, his willingness to post patently false information, and the reprehensible attempted exploitation of race, so frequently employed by antifluoidationists in lieu of facts and evidence.
1. The “Harvard study” Strader references was neither a study by Harvard, nor has it “proved” anything. This study was a 2011 review of 27 Chinese studies dug out of obscure Chinese journals by researchers Phillippe Grandjean and Anna Choi. These studies were of the effects of high levels of fluoride (as high as 11.5 ppm) in the well-water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages.
By the admission of Grandjean and Choi, themselves, these studies had key information missing, inadequate control for confounders, and questionable methodologies. These 27 studies were so seriously flawed that Grandjean and Choi were led to issue a public statement in March, 2012 that the studies should not be used to judge water fluoridation in the US. This obviously has not stopped antifluoridationists from doing so anyway.
“These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”
–Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author.
Given that this “Harvard study” is typical of the “evidence” antifluoridationists proclaim to “prove” their position, it should be painfully obvious to any intelligent person that the problem Strader has is not that there is a “refusal to look at the evidence” but that the “evidence” he, his IAOMT, and other antifluoridationists present has no merit, whatsoever.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Sorry Steve, but it is hard to have much faith in the opinion of a retired dentist who drinks 64 oz of Gatorade and 40 oz of diet Sprite during a typical day. Congratulations on getting out alive. Maybe a nice long vacation would settle your nerves.
Let families decide for themselves if they want to lower their IQ voluntarily.
As for our household, we don’t appreciate the added expense of having to have it removed.
STOP the forced medication now!
Regina and fellow activists have spent years of research and efforts bringing this public health issue into the mainstream. Please visit her website and review the information for yourselves and ask if ingesting hydroflurosilicic through your gastrointestinal is a suitable deterrent against tooth decay?
Now is the time to inform your city council members to reverse the addition of these toxins in our drinking water.
Just FYI: A quick google search shows “Steven Slott” to be the Dr. Strangelove of the public fluoridation movement in the US, having sold his dental practice and hired on as the communications director of something called the “American Fluoridation Society” (yes, its really a thing) that was founded in 2014. Nothing about where the “Society” gets its money…but I’ll bet it doesn’t come from selling fluoridated Girl Scout Cookies. Bottom line, Slott and the other flouridators are carpetbaggers with their snouts in the trough of Big Fluoride. They have no stake in Dallas except that if Dallas does stop putting this lead-leaching neurotoxin into the public water supply, other cities might too. This would be a huge problem for BIG FLUORIDE. Right on Regina, right on lady!
Dallas should take the money they are spending on fluoridating and use it to remove the .35 to .5 ppm that is in there from the source. In the meantime, they should be warning new mothers not to mix infant formula with their tap water.
There is no dispute between those for and against fluoridation that too much fluoride is a bad thing.
Studies show all infant formula, whether concentrated or not, organic or not, has some fluoride in it. Adding more fluoridated water puts babies at risk for dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) – espectially infants under six months who risk moderate dental fluorosis without any benefit The adequate intake of fluoride for six month old babies and younger is .01 mg fluoride a day. All infant formula has .01 mg fluoride per liter and higher.
Studies show that drinking opious amounts of tea, which contains fluoride naturally, can cause fluoride damaged bones. Even avid fluoridationist Whitford reported that some teas have up to 9 mg/L fluoride – almost double that which the EPA claims is safe. But even the NRC says 4 mg/L doesn’t protect health.
There is fluoride in infant foods – which can put some babies at risk of fluorosis
There is fluoride in infant juices
There is fluoride in virtually all foods and beverages according to the USDA fluoride in foods database
Dental professionals and pediatricians are now applying fluoride varnish to babies first tooth which studie sshow spike blood fluoride levels
They are advising a rice sized or pea-sized amount of fluoridated toothpaste as soon as tooth appears
Even McDonald’s fries has fluoride in it
Beer, other alcoholic beverages and wine all contain fluoride
With the focus oddly focused on just fluoride, little advertised is the ADA’s own advice: ““What you eat during pregnancy affects the growth of your unborn child – Including his or her teeth. Your baby’s teeh begin to develop between the third and sixth month of pregnancy, so it is important that you receive enough nutrients, especially calcium, protein, phosphorous, and vitamins A, C, and D.”
How much fluoride did you eat today? Why isn’t fluoride on food labels. And why don’t fluoridation protectionists advise people to regulate their daily fluoride intake and inform them of the hidden fluoride sources.
I absolutely totally agree with Regina’s article, Fluoride is a toxic poison and does not belong in our water at all. The Dallas tap water is virtually or should be undrinkable if you care about your health. It is a proven toxic poison, and this comment is coming from a practicing dentist. It has proven to be toxic especially to the thyroid gland, one of the most important glands in humans. It does not belong in our water supply at all.
Dr. Charles Sizemore
I agree with Regina!
Also, the mindset of a coercer is lost on more people every day. Stop meddling with our water when you cannot prove benefits!
Have you noticed that the areas with the most fluoridation have the most cavities?
Have you noticed that The EPA scientists have posted their objections to mass fluoridation?
Have you noticed that the FDA refused to approve water fluoridation?
It appears that the antifluoridationists are out in full force on this page. Given the amount of unsubstantiated nonsense they are posting, hopefully Dallas decision-makers are reading their comments. It is important that they see the level of intelligence with which they are dealing when according credence to antifluoridationists.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
“Nyscof”, the “Media Relations Director” for the New York antifluoridationist faction, “FAN”, posts her usual copy/paste nonsense on this page. So, let’s look at her claims:
1. Yes, there is no dispute amongst intelligent people that too much fluoride “is a bad thing”. Intelligent people also understand that this is true of all substances known to man, including plain water. So what? Does “nyscof” deem that we should cease consuming all substances because of this elementary fact? If so, we’ll all be dead within a week.
Fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated is no more “a bad thing” than is plain water at its proper use level.
2. Sure, powdered infant formula contains fluoride. Thus the use of optimally fluoridated water to reconstitute it chances mild dental fluorosis in the developing teeth of infants who are fed this formula primarily. Mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.
For any parents who may be concerned with the fluoride level in powdered infant formula, in spite of the increased decay resistance of mildly fluorosed teeth, nonfluoridated water can be used to reconstitute this powder, or premixed formula may simply be used, most, if not all of which utilizes low-fluoride content water in its production.
3. People who drink “copious amounts of tea”, or anything else, without being aware of the contents of those substances, and the consequences of ingesting “copious amounts” of them must accept full responsibility for their own actions. Irresponsible behavior by a few is not a reason to deprive entire populations the disease preventive benefit of a very valuable public health initiative such as water fluoridation.
4. The NRC has not “says 4 mg/L doesn’t protect health.” The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water recommended a lowering of the EPA primary MCL for fluoride from 4.0 ppm. This recommendation was based on but 3 concerns with chronic consumption of water with a fluoride level of 4.0 ppm or greater: Chance of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, or skeletal fluorosis. Given that this same NRC Committee clearly stated that severe dental fluorosis does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content below 2.0 ppm…..that chance of bone fracture occurs with too much, or too little fluoride ingestion, with the optimal level being at the lowest point of this risk…..and that skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the 74.5% fluoridated US as to be nearly non-existent, obviously there is no concern for safety of the public with the EPA MCL of 4.0 ppm for fluoride. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, less than one fifth this level.
5. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects, in anyone of any age, resultant of ingesting optimally fluoridated water in addition to fluoride intake from all other normal sources of fluoride……which is why neither “nyscof” nor anyone else can ever provide any such evidence to support their irresponsible fear-mongering about optimally fluoridated water.
6. When the maximum amount of a substance which can be ingested falls below the threshold of adverse effects from that substance, then total intake of that substance is of no concern in regard to adverse effects. Prior to even nearing the threshold of adverse effects of fluoride from ingestion of optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with that from all other normal fluoride sources, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride. This is true not only of fluoride, but of chlorine, ammonia, and the myriad other substances routinely added to public water supplies.
In the absence of chronic exposure to abnormally high environmental, or well-water, fluoride levels, there is no need for any more advice on regulation of fluoride intake or purported “hidden fluoride sources” than is already being provided.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
So you (the moderator) pulled my comments previously. I happened to witness the Mayor bring in his dentist from his church who made a less-than-rational argument pro fluoridation to “refute” real experts with real scientific studies against additional fluoridation. I commented along the line the Dallas City Council might have already experienced an I.Q. drop. You didn’t “moderate” my comment. You censored it. I didn’t curse. I didn’t malign any worse that we see Trump maligned 24/7 on virtually all the media. Rather I expressed an opinion based upon experience and research. I made my point too well. Is that it? If you want true vituperative rhetoric you should endure what those sounding the alarm against fluoride poisoning have endured these last many decades. It is not a moderator’s job to gate keep and only allow what is arbitrarily considered acceptable perspective. To do so is to violate free speech. And this is not an abstract matter of mere preference. This concerns decisions made about many people’s health. Let’s say you dispute part of the evidence I spoke of. Is that reason to exclude the entire comment? Are you banned from at least letting part of the message get through? If our City Council is allowing themselves to be swayed by emotionalism to exclude facts, reason and logic; I don’t know about you. But personally that worries me. Adding more fluoride to the naturally-occurring fluoride in our Dallas water should be banned on the issue of dosage alone. You know it is a poison, don’t you? The stuff they add eats holes in concrete if it’s spilled. If you do not know this, why do you not know this? What is the most important factor in dealing with a poison? Dosage. What is completely uncontrolled when you put fluoride into the purportedly potable drinking water supply? Dosage. “But everybody’s fluoridating.” Not so. Most of the countries of Europe have banned it. When you step back and reexamine the issue, it is entirely overreach for any municipality or government entity to medicate the citizenry. That is legally very clearly an issue between doctor and patient. Fluoride does nothing to purify the water; nothing to reduce mold, fungus, bacteria or viral material. Adding it to a city’s water is as arcane and outdated as blood-letting and leaches.
Anyone who thinks that delivering any medication by dumping it into public water supplies is scientific is scientifically illiterate. As for fluoride, it is highly toxic and a cumulative poison, like lead, arsenic, and mercury. I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question. It is unlikely to just be a coincidence that the US, Australia, and Ireland, which have had high rates of forced-fluoridation for decades, also have high rates of joint problems, and poor health outcomes in general.
Regina, you claim “The hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS) added to our municipal water to raise the fluoride level is invariably contaminated with arsenic, aluminum, lead and other poisons are known to cause neurological and other medical harm in consumers, despite its rubber stamp of approval.”
But what are the actual quantitative facts?
Fluorosilicic acid produced during phosphate rock acidulation is amazingly pure – probably because of the differential distillation of heavy metal fluorides. However, like all chemicals it does contain traces of heavy metals.
But the source water for your water supply also contains traces of the same heavy metals.
Simple calculations show that the contribution of the fluoridating chemicals to heavy metals in you tap water is generally less than 1% of the level of these contaminants originating in the source water.
So all this talk of fluoridation introducing heavy metals into your tap water is really just bunkum
For further details, a real example and the calculations read my articie “Chemophobic scaremongering: Much ado about absolutely nothing” at https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/chemophobic-scaremongering-much-ado-about-absolutely-nothing/
We should take heed of Regina’s “call to action” by contacting the Dallas City Council Members to express our concerns. Words without action won’t make things happen.
The “Precautionary Principle” applies.
The Dallas City Council should withdraw the water fluoridation program until such time that they can show indisputable scientific evidence that not one person’s health will be adversely affected by drinking fluoridated water.
Mountains of scientific studies show that fluoride could adversely affect a person’s health.
It would be very silly to think that every one of those studies is invalid.
I am a certified water treatment operator and have been for 17years. I have personally seen how harmful this stuff is on those who have to handle it every day and how it will eat holes in concrete. It can’t be good for anyone’s health when it can desolve supply pipes and etch glass in the supply rooms. Go visit your utility dept and ask to visit the fluoride room. I think you will have a whole different opinion.
These special interest dentist need to do a visit to see what their promoting. It may give them a whole different perspective.
Good job Regina.
Thanks for standing up for those who can’t.
Erin – If families accept the unsubstantiated anti-F paranoia, they are free to “decide for themselves” if they wish to drink the fluoride ions they are perfectly free to avoid the ions – just as they are free to remove the residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (or find other sources). False, unsupported personal opinions should not dictate public health measures.
David Norsworthy – Regina and fellow activists have spent years of research and efforts focusing exclusively on anti-fluoridation propaganda. The information on her website has not been sufficient to change the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – Anyone who is tempted to accept the anti-F propaganda unchallenged should wonder why none of the principal science and health organizations in the world have accepted it as valid.
Steve Madison – Just FYI: Interesting you should reference the movie Dr. Strangelove. The role of Jack D. Ripper was modeled after fluoridation opponents who believed the Soviets had been using fluoridation of United States water supplies to pollute the “precious bodily fluids”. Readers should notice the conspiracy theory tone of your comment and the complete lack of supporting evidence – typical.
David Green – It is interesting that you recommend removing the trace amounts of fluoride from Dallas water and yet you sell bottled water that contains fluoride ions.
Nyscof – There is no dispute between any rational person that too much of any substance is a “bad thing”. What is your point? Irrational individuals take a true statement and add irrelevant nonsense to fabricate an argument. The 0.7 ppm optimal level for fluoride ions was established because of additional trace levels of fluoride. What you have not provided is any conclusive evidence that drinking optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) is a “bad thing” even with the other sources of fluoride ions. Hundreds of millions of people of all ages and ethnicities worldwide drink optimally fluoridated water daily and have done so for decades. If this practice caused the type of harm claimed by fluoridation opponents one would think someone beside a small group of outlier activists would have noticed.
Dr. Charles Sizemore – It is rather scary when a “practicing dentist” makes a generic statement that “Fluoride is a toxic poison” with no mention of exposure levels and no proof. Since any substance, even H2O, is a toxic substance at high enough exposure levels, your argument is nothing more than fear mongering. Cite the best study (and quote the author’s conclusions) you believe proves your claim that drinking optimally fluoridated water is a “toxic poison”. That study will have been evaluated by relevant experts and will not have changed the scientific consensus, so also include reasons that study should have been accepted as proof of toxicity.
Drew – Do you really believe that over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their members) continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation for reducing dental decay without any supporting evidence? It is not that the evidence does not exist, the fact is that there is a certain segment of the population which is unwilling to consider it.
EVERY comment has been approved except for exact duplicate comments. While as a privately owned organization, NDG reserves the right to moderate or edit comments, unless there is blatantly offensive material we welcome and encourage free discussion – even if we disagree. Furthermore, as NDG has taken no position on this matter but allowed the readers to debate it, you have no idea what my personal feelings are on this matter.
Honkyhanky – Have you noticed the legitimate scientific evidence actually proves the areas with optimal fluoridation have fewer cavities that areas with lower levels of fluoride ions after adjusting for relevant confounding factors?
Have you noticed that the EPA website has absolutely no mention of “objections to mass fluoridation”? Have you noticed the EPA statement that fluoridation at 0.7 ppm will “ensure that standards and guidelines on fluoride in drinking water continue to provide the maximum protection to the American people to support good dental health, especially in children.”
Have you noticed that the FDA regulates bottled water which can contain the same levels of fluoride ions found in optimally fluoridated water as a “Food For Human Consumption”?
Apparently you have not noticed any of those facts.
J.S. Gentry – Your lack of evidence to prove any of your claims is remarkable but expected since there is none. The amount of water which can be safely consumed easily controls the dose of fluoride ions which individuals consume.
Dan Germouse – The link to your faulty interpretation of the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water is typical of how fluoridation opponents manipulate evidence to support their fear-laced propaganda. If you had actually read and/or understood the review you would have discovered that there were no recommendations to lower the SMCL below 2.0 ppm (nearly three times higher than the recommended level) for any reason. If there were any concerns from drinking water with a fluoride content of 2.0 ppm those concerns would have been mentioned. Obviously, you have no ability to evaluate scientific research.
TomT – Applying the “Precautionary Principle” requires understanding the risks, costs and benefits and not simply trying to ban a public health measure because of an irrational, unsupportable fear of something. Provide the best example of your alleged “Mountains of scientific studies show that fluoride could adversely affect a person’s health” and describe exactly why the scientific community should have accepted it as proof of anything. There is, in fact, a mountain of evidence which overwhelmingly demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation – that is why all the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation.
Clark – It is unfortunate that “a certified water treatment operator” of 17 years is not able to recognize the difference between concentrated and diluted substances. It is the responsibility of water treatment professionals to handle the concentrated water treatment substances and dilute them to the safe levels found in the tap water. How about the various disinfectants and pH adjustment chemicals – are those compounds harmless to handle every day and free of risk?
I’d like to express a heartfelt thanks to the NDG, especially Mr. Joe Farkus for tackling this issue in a public forum. It takes a degree of courage not only in the press but to the activists involved who aren’t afraid of presenting their information to the public.
If you’re new to learning about the fluoride issue, I hope you take the time to review the links provided by Regina Imburgia that demonstrate the hazards of using hydrofluorosilicic acid in our municipal water supply to deter tooth decay.
I’m glad the gentleman who knows about “The Fluoride Room” came forward and offered his testimony. I’ve seen videos to the same effect.
There is a growing base of grass roots supporters for the removal of hydrofluorosilicic acid in our municipal water supply. The information is getting out there and is gaining momentum. Just to inform new readers, this subject has also attracted professional “Trolls”, usually the same people who insert distractions. If you’re a new reader on the subject, do not be discouraged.
I can only imagine the pressure the Mayor and the Dallas City Council must be under to remain silent and maintain the status quo. Maybe this should be discussed. Is there an NGO involved? Who or what can yield enough pressure on an elected body as to remain silent on an issue this important?
All I can say at this point is that you know you’re over the target when you’re taking the flak.
Thanks again to the NDG for having the courage to allow this forum.
Mr Slott, you are getting paid to post your support for fluoridation.
Would you tell us if the Dallas Mayor or Dallas City Council called
you in to do what you do?
The whole world is becoming aware of the fluoride scam.
Communications Officer: Steven D. Slott, DDS
Kurt Ferre: “In other words, “Fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. There is no difference”.
And that “flouride” is being added to Dallas’s water to “treat” people. That is illegal. Anything added to water to treat people makes it a medicine. Prescribing a medicine without a license is illegal. WORSE is medicating people without a license which is a FELONY crime.
The hydrofluorosalisic acid that Dallas adds to it’s water to treat people comes with a bonus…ARSENIC and LEAD!!
Even Dentist Jim Williams admits before the Dallas City Council that fluoride has no benefit for people over the age 18. Why are they medicating the rest of the population?
Interesting. The none of the fluoridation apologists commenting here are from Dallas and they can all be tracked back to the “American Fluoridation Society”…here is the link: http://www.crescentcitytimes.com/beware-of-newly-formed-the-american-fluoridation-society You should be honored Regina, the AFS has deployed their big guns! You, dear lady, are over the target!
Dr. Charles Sizemore says, ” It has proven to be toxic especially to the thyroid gland, one of the most important glands in humans.”
Who, Dr. Sizemore? Whose thyroid gland has been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water? Please cite one documented case of any human being whose thyroid gland has been harmed because someone drank water with 0.7 – 1.2 ppm of fluoride in it.
And please provide a link to the lawsuit that would have naturally followed because someone was harmed from someone else putting something “dangerous” in their drinking water.
What? No lawsuits? In the United States, where even McDonald’s was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot?? And you’re telling me that hundreds of millions of people drink this stuff on a daily basis and there have been no successful lawsuits because of harm? Give me a break.
Congratulations to Regina and Imburgia and North Dallas Gazette for provinding this forum.
I had the pleasure of visiting Dallas many years ago for a conference.
On the harms caused by the universal toxin Fluoride (the negatively charged ion of the element Fluorine), at least 500 peer reviewed scientific papers appear each year.
I summarize some key aspects in reviews that you can find here:
If you want to download any of my pdfs, ignore any pop-up and click the blue download button.
Topics to date include Cataract, Diabetes, Neurotoxicity, Cardiovascular Disease, Kidney Disease.
Regina is right here. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is an untested arsenic laced drug. The pro fluoride gang commenting here are members of the American Fluoradation Society. They are fluoride salesman who’s job depends on selling industrial waste products to water companies. I urge council members to make a conservative, safe descision to stop medicating their citizens obviously against there will… This is ridiculous we are even arguing over this. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out adding such a drug is dangerous and unethical.
Heath Marter, in the comment above says, “The pro fluoride gang commenting here are members of the American Fluoradation Society. They are fluoride salesman who’s job depends on selling industrial waste products to water companies.”
He is not telling the truth. I am not.
However, the anti-fluoride website responsible for almost all of the misinformation seen here, fluoridealert, or the Fluoride Action Network (same thing) openly takes money from people who sell very expensive water filters, very expensive fluoride free toothpaste, bottled water, fluoride detox . . . in other words, products whose sales are improved by the generation of paranoia about safe tap water. http://fluoridealert.org/news/mercola-com-to-donate-25000-for-fluoride-awareness-week/
According to Dr. Stephen Barrett:
“In 2011, Mercola announced the formation of Health Liberty, a nonprofit coalition whose goals include promoting organic foods and targeting fluoridation, vaccination, genetically modified foods, and the use of amalgam fillings . In a video accompanying the announcement, Mercola stated that he planned to donate $1 million to catalyze the project. In addition to Mercola.com, the coalition members are:
. . . . Fluoride Action Network (FAN), the leading promoter of misinformation about fluoridation. Its donations are funneled through the nonprofit American Environmental Health Studies Project.”
“The money for the donations was funneled from Mercola.com Health Resources LLC through Mercola’s nonprofit Natural Health Resources Foundation, which showed the following grants on its tax returns:
American Environmental Health Studies Project
(2011) $10,000, (2012) $10,000, (2013) $25,000, (2014) $20,000, (Total) $65,000”
All money funneled from Mercola, an unethical company which has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for deceptive sales practices, funneled into the tax shelter “American Environmental Health Studies Project” and from there to the Fluoride Action Network.
So not only does Mercola funnel money into this tax shelter, by doing so it funds the generation of unfounded paranoia which helps it sell its own expensive and needless products.
Heath Marter is correct. The council members should make an informed and conservative decision if and when approached with this issue.
As a frequent visitor to Dallas for social events, after learning that HFS was being added to the water, I decline every offer of water at restaurants. I am not in the habit of knowingly poisoning myself. There are probably few experts on HFS or water, for that matter, in Dallas. If there were, you would see more than the handful of people who have been regularly speaking to the City Council for the last several years, asking for the Council to review this practice, not only for themselves, but asking for the health and safety of all citizens and visitors to Dallas. If a water or flouridation/HFS expert is sitting on the Council, they are being silent in this matter…shame on them. However, it does not take an expert or a professional to read and do research or to understand the serious consequences of this toxic product. It comes in bags, much like fertilizer, with a skull and crossbones and a hazard rating of 6 on it. Unfortunately, the majority of people who understand what is going on remain silent. Many who are aware of the ramifications of this toxic fertilizer by-product are acting alone to safe-guard themselves and their families, possibly buying the old adage, “you can’t fight city hall.” The adage appears to be true, so far, in this case. It also appears that these Councilmembers, as a whole, are content with the status quo and have not even a shred of compassion, let alone curiosity or at the very least, the desire to do the right thing for the citizens and patrons of the once great city of Dallas, Tx.
Thank you for writing this piece and being a voice for those of us who feel the same way. We have the most trusted and kind dentist but he practically insists that our water is safe. The same goes for the folks going through dental school who say that all the talk about fluoride in our water being unsafe is a myth.
Water Fld. is also being used as PR for Salt Fld. (touted as substitutes for one another, but VERY different consumption patterns)
One child sized KFC popcorn chicken in Costa Rica contains over 8.5X amount of Sodium Fluoride as a pea sized quantity of toothpaste?
A pea-sized quantity is often the recommended amount of toothpaste- people warned to call poison control if their child consumes more than this amount used in brushing.
250 mg F- / Kg Salt in Costa Rica
5.34 g (-25 mg sodium to acct for natural sodium in chicken breast – treated as negligible) “Salt” in Child’s Popcorn Chicken KFC Costa Rica (85g serving)
45.247% F- molar mass in NaF
54.753 % Na+ molar mass in NaF
39.33% Na+ molar mass in NaCl
Okay, all relevant links attached below. These are the questions that drive me crazy:
I couldn’t figure the modification to make for mass % Na+ in the combo NaF and NaCl in costa rica, so I erred on the safe end and used the same conversion as if the percentage mass Na+ was unaffected by the addition of the 250mg F- containing Fluoride compound/kg table salt (treated as pure NaCl- thus over estimating percentage Na+, and under representing actual quantity of salt and therefore NaF consumed).
To get our 250 mg F- per Kg of table salt in CR we will need .552525 g NaF. The conversion we are looking to get is what % NaF is present in the mixture of NaCl and NaF. To save room, I will skip the conversions- suffice to say it isn’t much (seemingly): only .0005522% NaF present in this “salt”.
Next, is to figure just how much “salt” is present in the chicken in question. Though the survey and article shared mention the 5.34g as being the “salt” content of the chicken- as the claims are “based on the kfc website” which lists nutrition facts as “sodium”, I am assuming that the translation of “sodium” to salt in misleading. I am treating the 5.34g “salt” content as actually 5.34g sodium content. It makes more consistent sense.
Based on the Na+ sodium percent assumption given above (treated as pure NaCl) – 39.33% Na in NaCl; this 5.34g can be considered to be about 13.577g of “salt”. How much of this “salt” is NaF?
Only 5.522e-4 % of it is NaF. That breaks out to 7.497 mg of NaF.
Based on the “fluoride conversion” chart given, a pea sized amount of tooth paste at 1000ppm F- (most common in USA)- contains .88mg NaF (2.2mg NaF per 1g of toothpaste).
That would mean that the amount of RAW SODIUM FLUORIDE consumed in a child’s sized amount of popcorn chicken at a KFC in Costa Rica is over 8.5x the amount present in the pea sized amount of toothpaste in the USA (the amount we are warned to call poison control if consumed by a child)! Even if the 5.34g of salt listed is actual “salt” content (not sodium content), we are still looking at over 3.3x the amount of NaF in the toothpaste.
And really, what kid stops at a single serving of popcorn chicken?
Salt fluoridation is the issue that really got me interested in researching the whole practice. Before I had visited Costa Rica and witnessed firsthand the impossibility of finding salt which had not had raw Sodium/Potassium Fluoride [though advertised as addition of F- ions] added DIRECTLY to the sea salt, I didn’t think twice about fluoridation. Come to find out- Costa Rica practices salt fluoridation, UNIVERSAL salt fluoridation to be particular. (illegal to import non-Fld. salt) SF was originally purported as a rural alternative to WF- but has come to be practiced at the national level across the globe. However controversial water fluoridation is, no current commentaries have effectively detailed Salt Fluoridation, the practices (dosage assumptions, actual social outcome [amount of sodium fluoride consumed]) and groups which purport the practice.
“Promoting Oral Health- The Use of Salt Fluoridation to Prevent Dental Caries”
[…] recent stories shared on this public health topic. The opinions expressed in this op-ed or the one published last week do not reflect the views of […]