Fluoride Water Crisis

Although with all this information on the benefits of treating public water there is still information that is overlooked by governments. Fluoride is a pollutant, insecticide, poison, and a byproduct of fertilizer, nuclear power plants, and metal processing. Fluoride is also found in many processed goods, dental hygiene products, and pharmaceuticals meaning the average person’s intake is most likely far greater than the recommended levels. In the 1930s they were looking for an easy way to dispose of the toxic byproduct. During this time period one of the largest aluminum companies funded a test to determine how bad or good fluoride actually was to the people, this is when it was first deemed as a beneficial treatment. To me it seems kind of fishy that a company more worried about public relations and how to dispose of the toxic byproduct was trusted to carry out the testing themselves. This thinking came from the era where it was thought that smoking cigarettes would

Fluoridation of group drinking water is a main consideration in charge of the decrease in dental caries (tooth rot) . The historical backdrop of water fluoridation is a great case of clinical perception prompting epidemiologic examination and group based general wellbeing intercession. Albeit other fluoride-containing items are accessible, water fluoridation remains the most fair and practical strategy for conveying fluoride to all individuals from most groups, paying little respect to age, instructive achievement, or wage level.

According to World Health Organization data obtained from a study on 12 year old’s levels of tooth decay, fluoride has had very little effect, if any at all, on tooth decay. Countries such as Japan, Italy, and Iceland, who are non-fluoridated countries, actually have about the same level of tooth decay decrease as countries that have fluoridated water. Fluoride is considered a drug, according to the FDA, which means that it is a medical treatment. Medical treatments are not to be given unless the patient agrees to the treatment, therefore, placing fluoride into the public water supply violates informed consent seeing as how citizens are not given the opportunity to vote on the matter. Even if people could vote on the situation, not all people are going to agree with and since it is considered a drug, it

I have been assigned the role of the leader of Fluoride Action Network. The Fluoride Action Network is a non-profit organization and an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures. The organization’s mission is to “provide comprehensive and up-to-date information regarding all aspects of fluoride” and to “remain vigilant monitoring government agency actions that may impact public’s exposure to fluoride.”1

Your drinking water is also a concern since fluoride is now classified as a neurotoxin. One thing that is easy enough to do is to use a fluoride filter. These can be

For over 60 years, Americans have been inundated with propaganda proclaiming the benefits of artificially fluoridating the public’s drinking water to prevent tooth decay. I do not use the term “propaganda” lightly. In fact the “father” of modern propaganda, nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays was brought in to sell spiking America’s public water supply with fluoride (Pilger). This was critical to protect the American Aluminum Company (ALCOA), the world’s largest aluminum producer, from litigation from their workers who were exposed to toxic levels of sodium fluoride. Fluoride in the public water supply is a detriment to the health of Americans and provides no positive benefits while presenting great risk. Fluoridated water is poison, it is proven to decrease IQ, and it is medicating the public with an FDA classified tranquilizer without the informed consent of the citizens.

Fluoridation of drinking water serving communities of more than 5000 people is now the law. The anti-fluoridation advocates, continue to as they have done in the past, fight fluoridation tooth and nail. This is an ongoing conflict.

In 2014, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that Americans using community water systems had a 74% chance of receiving fluoridated water. However, many Americans do not know that there is fluoride in their water, what the fluoride is meant to do, or how fluoridating water has become a common practice. The lack of common knowledge on this subject helps to explain why there is also little attention paid to the possible risks of using this process.

For the past seventy years, fluoridated drinking water has provided people across the country daily dental care, straight from the tap. Named one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century by the CDC, fluoridated water substantially reduces tooth decay, making fewer emergency dentist visits as easy as sipping a cup of good old fashioned H2O. Yet dangerous misinformation about fluoridated water persists. As Thomasville, High Point, Lexington and Denton’s most trusted source for dental care, you know Smith Bundy Fisher DDS PA always offers reliable oral health information you can count on. Here, they debunk harmful myths about fluoridated water.

Fluoride is a highly toxic substance, in terms of acute toxicity fluoride is just slightly less toxic than arsenic. Fluoride has long been used in pesticides and rat poison. Studies have shown that fluoride causes bone defects such as arthritis and skeletal fluorosis, thyroid disease, and even cancer. This raises the question, why would anyone think that water fluoridation is a good idea? (Fluoride Alert, 2017).

The fluoride within our drinking water has always been a hot topic for debate. It’s known to cause a number of health problems ranging from lowered thyroid function to cancer. Today we’re going to look at fluoride and the brain specifically. Fluoride damage to the brain happens to be one of the most active areas of research today. In the past thirty years, over one hundred studies that have taken place have found evidence to prove that fluoride exposure can actually damage the brain. This particular research has included:

One commonly referenced paper describes a meta-analysis of studies done on fluoride’s effect on neurobehavioral development. This meta-analysis showed a decrease in IQ of children who lived in areas with high fluoride exposure and is often cited in arguments against the institution of water fluoridation . Many other experiments into fluoride toxicity has shown similar results and are often used by anti-fluoridation organizations to support their claims. These more scientific founded bases form the crux of the majority of theorists’ beliefs in water fluoridation. Namely, they adamantly believe that fluoride is either unsafe or at least ineffective according to the studies and experiments they have read. With only this information to go on they believe that the possible cons outweigh the possible pros, in this way they maintain a rationality behind their beliefs that adheres to the anti-fluoridation

In 2007, a study of human health in relation to water fluoridation was reviewed again only to confirm that when fluoridation is maintained at optimal levels, it is safe and beneficial. There was no clear evidence of the association of water fluoridation and

i. Although defenders of fluoride continue to claim that there are no dangers in using fluoride for dental care, the facts speak for themselves. Dr. Edward Group, who in his 2015 article “The Dangers of Fluoride” stated that “Every year Poison Control centers receive thousands of calls from people

The above research presents common dangers associated with fluoride; however, the research methods are not reflective of actual fluoride use in the general population. For instance, Xiong’s research used excessive amounts of fluoride on test subjects, ranging from 2.15-2.96mg/L and 3.15-5.69mg/L (Xiong et al. 4). In comparison, the past fluoride level in Calgary’s water system was limited to an optimal level of 0.7mg/L (City of Calgary, par. 5). Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Oral Health stated, “to date, there no scientific evidence that exposure to fluoride at the levels found in optimally fluoridated water present any risk for the development of any disease processes” (University of Toronto 56). Therefore, Xiong’s research is at fault because the fluoride levels tested were not reflective of actual fluoride concentrations used in cities.