 |
NUCLEAR
NEWS FOR LIFE
ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM FLUORIDATION |
|
TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES
by Shelley Nelkens
Important Questions for Moms and Dads. Would
you expose your pre-born
baby to toxic substances that can permanently alter their activity
and
attention levels? Would you intentionally give your child food
and/or water
that could adversely impact your child's health?
Of course, you¹d never do either of these
things intentionally. But
does your family use yummy-tasting fluoridated toothpaste or
drink
fluoridated water or grape juice? Has your doctor prescribed
neonatal
fluoride tablets or your pediatrician or dentist prescribed fluoride
supplements for your child? If the answer to any of these
questions is
yes, then you need to READ this article because you may be surprised
at what
you are already giving your child.
For instance, do you know that the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA)
requires that all fluoridated toothpaste carry a mandatory warning
label?
The label urges that the toothpaste be kept ³out of reach of children
under
6² and that you ³contact a Poison Control Center if you swallow
more than a
pea-sized amount². Sound unreal? Grab a tube and check it
out. Then hold on
to your hat and read on.
³Fluoride Is Not For Infants². In
March 2000, Gerber Baby Foods issued a
press release stating ³Fluoride is not for infants.² Gerber¹s
warning was
based on new American Dental Association (ADA) and American Academy
of
Pediatrics (AAP) recommendations for controlled dose fluoride in
non-fluoridated communities. The new guidelines caution: Infants
should
avoid fluoridated water and fluoride supplements. Why then, one
wonders,
are the ADA and AAP still officially listed as endorsing water fluoridation?
And why do Gerber¹s grape juice and other beverages and foods
for infants
still contain high concentrations of fluoride?
National Moratorium On Fluoridation Called For During Senate Hearing.
On June 29th, 2000, a U.S. Senate Hearing
on Safe Drinking Water Standards for arsenic, radon, and fluoride was held
by an Environment and Public Works
(EPW) subcommittee. EPW Chair, New Hampshire Senator Robert
Smith, called
as his witness on fluoride Dr. J. William Hirzy. Dr. Hirzy called
for a
national moratorium on fluoridation. citing the politically motivated
illegal downgrading of National Toxicology Program cancer bioassays,
³the
initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation².
Dr. Hirzy spoke as the duly elected representative
of all Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters¹ professional employees --
including
the toxicologists, chemists, biologists, epidemiologists, engineers,
and
attorneys, responsible for assessing the scientific data for Safe Drinking
Water Standards. They, via their professional union, have gone
on record
against fluoridation. Amongst the myriad health problems cited:
increased
bone fractures, neurotoxic effects (e.g. reduced IQ¹s, hyperactivity
-- from
pre-natal exposure), increases in rare cancers (e.g. osteo-sarcomas),
diminished pineal gland function (contributing to reduced fertility
in males
and early menses in females), kidney damage, increased blood lead levels.
³Poisoning The Children Was The Furthest Thing From My Mind².
Recently, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Canada¹s foremost promoter of fluoridation,
Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, and President of the
Canadian
Association of Dental Research, told his colleagues and students that
he had
unintentionally misled them. ³For the past 15 years, I had
refused to study
the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone.
Poisoning
our children was the furthest thing from my mind ... The crowning blow
was
the realization that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into
water
reservoirs for half a century. The vast majority of all fluoride
comes from
Tampa Bay, Florida smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a
toxic
by-product of the super-phosphate industry.²
Fluoridation Serves Industry Well. Industry
uses fluoride to (among
other things): Separate uranium isotopes (for atomic bombs);
produce steel,
aluminum, ceramics, plastics, computer chips, and gasoline. And
then it
becomes part of the toxic waste stream. Despite the fact that
the Clean Air
Act was originally predicated on an airborne hydrogen fluoride (HF)
disaster, fluoride¹s ³protected pollutant² status allows
it to be legally
released into our air from electric generators (coal, oil, gas,
nuclear}
and other industries.
By law, scrubber liquors from the super-phosphate
industry may not be
dumped into seas, lakes, rivers, or streams, without expensive treatment,
no
matter how diluted. Yet, these toxic waste by-products (silicofluorides)
may be sold, and then dumped without treatment into our drinking water.
This bizarre practice, which saves big business
massive
disposal/treatment costs, prompted the U.S. House Committee on Science
to
inquire, in all seriousness, whether the EPA believes ³the solution
to
pollution is dilution.²
In response to the EPA¹s admission that
³no chronic toxicity data is
available on silicofluorides², the Committee on Science has expanded
its
investigation into fluoridation, which former EPA Senior Scientist
Dr.
Robert Carton¹s testimony identified as ³probably the greatest
scientific
fraud of the century.²
³Unapproved New Drug². More
toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than
arsenic, fluoride is added to our drinking water in amounts around
1,000
parts per billion (ppb). In some school water systems, fluoride
is added at
concentrations of 4500 ppb. By comparison, lead above 15 ppb
or arsenic
above 50 ppb (a limit of 5 ppb was considered during Smith¹s hearing),
must
be removed from the water.
Doctors and dentists prescribe fluoride supplements
in the form of
sodium fluoride in dosages ranging from 250 ppb (.25 ppm) to 1000 ppb
(1
ppm), often ignoring the new guidelines. The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has confirmed that there are no studies to demonstrate either
the
safety or effectiveness of these drugs. Yet, the FDA has classified
them
for more than 30 years as ³unapproved new drugs.²
Crystal Clear. In New Hampshire, fluoride
found in its natural state,
combined with calcium, forms fluorite (CaF2), a beautiful green crystal.
Artificial fluoride, however, does not provide calcium, which, along
with
magnesium and vitamin C, acts as the antidote for fluoride poisoning.
Almost everyone is deficient in magnesium.
In addition, individuals
with lactose intolerance that routinely avoid dairy products(e.g. many
African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, and Hispanics), are
particularly vulnerable to fluoride; as are those who have poor nutrition
(especially children), kidney disease (diabetes), or heart conditions,
as
well as the fetus, infants, and pregnant women,
Smile! It¹s Only ³Cosmetic²
Have you noticed the visual display of
early systemic fluoride poison-ing, called dental fluorosis, on people¹s
teeth? In its mildest form, it shows up as white spots or streaks.
As the
severity increases, the spots are seen as yellow, orange, or brown
stains.
In its more severe form, dental fluorosis results in loss of enamel
and
extreme brittleness, making the teeth fracture prone.
Up until 1983, moderate to severe dental fluorosis
was officially
defined as an adverse health effect due to over-exposure to fluoride,
and
was considered an indication of likely problems in other calcium rich
organs
(e.g. bones and connective tissue, heart, brain). But in 1983, in
order to
accomodate EPA¹s increased fluoride limits, fluorosis was redefined
as a
³cosmetic effect².
By 1986/7, in the largest dental survey of
children in the U.S., two
out of three children drinking water fluoridated at the ³optimal²
level of
0.7 - 1.2 ppm (700 - 1200 ppb) had fluorosis on at least one tooth,
while
40.1% drinking unfluoridated water also exhibited mottling.
Why, you may wonder, are two out of five children
who drink
unfluoridated water showing systemic fluoride poisoning? Because,
more and
more, fluoride comes to us in many different forms: in our food and
beverages (soda, juice, cereal, etc.) which are processed with fluoridated
water, in fluorinated dental products (toothpastes,rinses, orthodontic
cement, time-released restorations, etc.), in fluorinated pharmaceuticals
(Prozac, anesthetics, Phen-Fen, etc.), in residues of fluorinated pesticides
(found in high levels on lettuce, tomatoes, cabbage, grapes, raisins,
potatoes, etc.), in plants that absorb fluoride through their rootsystems
(e.g. black and green teas), and in the air we breathe.
A Reasonable Course of Action.
We are left with the mindboggling
question: Why is our govern-ment advocating for the fluoridation of
every
hamlet and city in the country? Clearly, the future of our children,
both
born and yet to come, depends on how much more we are willing to swallow.
If you¹ve had enough of truth decay,
call or write U.S. Senator Robert
Smith and Congressman Ken Calvert (House Committee on Science).
Tell them you support Dr. Hirzy¹s call for :
1. A national moratorium on fluoridation;2. A full congressional investigation to consider the most up-to-date science;
3. Testing of the actual substances used in fluoridation rather than surrogate chemicals;
4. An independent review of all studies used to determine the safety,
effectiveness, and necessity of fluoridation.
Senator Robert C. Smith, Chair Senate EPW ,
307 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
202-224-2841, 603-634-5000)
Congressman Ken Calvert,
Chair House Subcommittee on Energy & Environment,
2201 Rayburn House Office Bldg,
Washington DC, 20515;
202-225-6371
For further information contact
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water:
1-800-728-3833, e-mail
or
on the web: www.citizens.org
Advance Permission is granted for reprinting this article, in
whole or in
part.
Shelley Nelkens earned a B.S. degree at CCNY (
Major in Biology, Minor in
Chemistry), as well as an M.A. Ed. at NYU.
She studied Medical Physiology
at Columbia Presbyterian College of Physicians
and Surgeons.