Oh noes

Need A Cooker? Use Your Cell Phone

2006-10-17T06:13:00.000-07:00

Need A Cooker? Use Your Cell Phone

By Sue Mueller
6-28-6

Many organizations including the cell phone industry often downplay the risk of cell phone radiation to the brain. Results from short-term studies were used to convince consumers that use of a cell phone is not associated with brain tumors or cancer, which only develop decades after exposure.

To be fair, no one knows exactly how much harm a cell phone can do to a person. Howe

Recently, new media has reported a study showing the radiation from cell phones is so full of energy they can be used to cook eggs.

In the experiment, researchers placed one egg in a porcelain cup (because it is easy to conduct heat), and put one cell phone on one side and another cell phone on the other. The researchers then called from one cell phone to another and kept the cell phones on after connecting.

During the first 15 minutes, nothing changed. After 25 minutes, however, the egg shell started to become hot and at 40 minutes, the surface of the egg became hard and bristled. Researchers found the protein in the egg had become solid although the egg yolk was still in liquid form. After 65 minutes, the whole egg was well cooked.

The study shows how scary cell phone radiation is. People should try to avoid use of cell phones. Although so far no one has proved the radiation from cell phones can cause something clinically significant. By the same token, there has been no one who can disprove the existence of such a risk.

Children should be forbidden from cell phone use because they still grow their brains and are particularly vulnerable to radiation.

_____

How Two Russian Journalists Cooked An Egg With Their Mobile Phones

RawFamily.com

Vladimir Lagovski and Andrei Moiseynko from Komsomolskaya Pravda Newspaper in Moscow decided to learn first-hand how harmful cell phones are. There is no magic in cooking with your cell phone. The secret is in the radio waves that the cell phone radiates.

The journalists created a simple microwave structure as shown in the picture. They called from one cell phone to the other and left both phones on talking mode. They placed a tape recorder next to phones to imitate sounds of speaking so the phones would stay on.

After 15 minutes: The egg became slightly warm.

25 minutes: The egg became very warm.

40 minutes: The egg became very hot.

65 minutes: The egg was cooked. (As you can see.)

Video: BBC hidden cam shows China selling prisoners' organs

2006-10-17T06:12:00.000-07:00

Video: BBC hidden cam shows China selling prisoners' organs

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday September 27, 2006

An undercover investigation by BBC News finds that China has a flourishing trade of organs from executed prisoners. China is becoming the destination of choice for rich foreigners in need of organ transplants. One hospital said it could provide a liver for about $100,000.

China has more executions than any other country in the world. Officials told undercover reporters that executions increase prior to national holidays, so many organs are available around those times.

The following video report features hidden camera footage of organs being sold in China.

Al Qaeda Tapes: Direct Link To Military Psyops And Donald Rumsfeld

2006-10-17T06:10:00.000-07:00

Al Qaeda Tapes: Direct Link To Military Psyops And Donald Rumsfeld

Al Qaeda Tapes: Direct Link To Military Psyops And Donald Rumsfeld
Following the trail for five minutes leads to Pentagon

Steve Watson | October 5 2006

U.S. Government Caught Red-Handed Releasing Staged Al-Qaeda Videos

Following on from our three features on the latest dubious Al Qaeda video, We can reveal that further investigation into the origin of Al Qaeda video and tape release leads straight back to US military intelligence and Donald Rumsfeld.

The origin of the latest video, starring Mohammed Atta and flight 93 hijacker Ziad Jarrah, has been swept under the carpet by the mainstream media who bizarrely admit that the government has had the tape since late 2001 but still suggest it is a new release by Al Qaeda.

Interesting also is the fact that in an NBC article, they admit that before receiving the "exclusive US analysis" of the London Sunday Times' tape, they had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same tape of Atta earlier this year:

"The Sunday Times said it had obtained the video "through a previously tested channel" but gave no further details. NBC News filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the videotapes early this year, but the Pentagon has not yet turned them over. "

This is an open admission that it is the Pentagon that has released this tape and not Al Qaeda. this dovetails with our previous analysis that revealed that the footage has been seen before in a docudrama, the Road to Guantanamo, where it is shown to detainees at camp Delta as an intelligence surveillance tape.

Along with experts on Islamic terrorist groups who are baffled by the video and have declared that it has come from a security agency, the very journalist who received the tape also says the source was not Al Qaeda.

It is also interesting that this journalist, Yousri Fouda is not only a Sunday Times journalist but also the London Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera. He is the guy who normally breaks all the Al Qaeda tapes anyway, so really the London Times connection is just a smokescreen.

All evidence indicates that the tapes are provided to Fouda and Al Jazeera by As Sahab, the "production company" of Al Qaeda, via a group known as Intelcenter, who also SELL the videos online.

Intelcenter normally have the tapes available for sale as soon as they are released, indeed in the past they have even predicted when they are going to get a tape before it is released, as they did with the second London bomber tape on the anniversary of 7/7.

Intel center is run by Ben Venzke, who is an interesting character. A google search results in the revelation that he used to be the director of intelligence at a company called IDEFENSE, which is a verisign company. IDEFENSE is a web security company that monitors intelligence from the middle east conflicts and focuses on cyber threats among other things.

It is also heavily populated with long serving ex military intelligence officials.

The Director of Threat intelligence, Jim Melnick, served 16 years in the US army and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and worked in psychological operations. From the IDEFENSE website:

Prior to joining iDefense, Mr. Melnick served with distinction for more than 16 years in the U.S. Army and the Defense Intelligence Agency. During this period, Mr. Melnick served in a variety of roles, including psychological operations, international warning issues with emphasis on foreign affairs and information operations and Russian affairs. He also served in active political/military intelligence roles with an emphasis on foreign affairs. Mr. Melnick is currently a U.S. Army Reserve Colonel with Military Intelligence, assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Melnick has been published in numerous military and foreign affairs journals, and has received numerous military and DIA awards. Mr. Melnick has a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College, a Master of Arts in Russian studies from Harvard University, and a Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Political Science from Westminster College.

So here we have a company that by it's own admission has a senior military psy-op intelligence officer who has worked directly for Donald Rumsfeld. As Intelcenter and Ben Venzke are directly connected to IDEFENSE, this puts Rumsfeld 3 small steps away from the Al Qaeda propaganda videos.

The NBC "US analysis" should be the focus of the latest tape and not the Times articles. It is an astounding piece of psyop propaganda that attempts in a shoddy way to fill in the "gaps" in 9/11 intelligence. The analyst, Evan Coleman, after admitting that the Pentagon has been "sitting on it" goes on to say:

"It is important for people to watch and realize that this video is conclusive proof that 9/11 was orchestrated by Al Qaeda at the most senior levels."

He then makes a direct assault on the 9/11 truth movement by saying:

"This is the kind of video proof that is going to put a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists out in the cold and for good reason."

View the video below:

Coleman contradicts himself throughout his own report by saying the Pentagon has had the video since 2001 whilst still towing the line that it was Al Qaeda that released the video.

The U.S. government's role in obtaining and carefully stage-managing the dissemination of these tapes, many of them old footage re-released over and over again, is now without a doubt manifestly obvious and demands immediate Congressional investigation. Please spread this information wide and help us expose the most duplicitous and manipulative administration in history, a regime that is engaging in psychological warfare against the American people.

Gulf War Crippled Me And I Didn't Even Go

2006-10-17T06:09:00.000-07:00

Gulf War Crippled Me And I Didn't Even Go

Grace Macaskill / UK Sunday Mail | October 9 2006

A SCOT has become the first soldier to be diagnosed with Gulf War Syndrome - despite never setting foot in Iraq.

Alex Izett, 36, fought a 10-year battle to force theMoD to admit he has the crippling condition.

His suffering began after he was given nine anti-biological warfare injections in 24 hours in preparation for combat - but was then never sent.

His victory means he should get a full war pension, worth £6400-a-year.

Alex said: "This has never been about financial gain - it's about getting the MoD to admit it ruined lives."

The former lance corporal, of Cumbernauld, tried to commit suicide twice after developing osteoporosis, paralysis and kidney problems due to the jabs.

He walks with a stick, his jaw is crumbling, with teeth falling out, and his bones are so weak he has broken his knee cap, shoulder and ribs. But the MoD refused to accept his condition was linked to the injections and awarded him just 70 per cent of a war pension.

If he died, wife Gina, 39, would get nothing. Alex, who lives in Bersenbruck, Germany, appealed and the War Pensions Appeal Tribunal ruled he had GWS last week.

It is the first time a non-deployed soldier has been officially recognised as having the syndrome.

The Veterans Agency will now decide whether he should be awarded the full £124-a-week pension. The MoD must also pay his dental bills.

Alex was told he was going to Iraq in January 1991 and had jabs to protect against chemical weapons. Hesaid: "I asked what they were and was told: 'All you need to know is they protect you.'

"I never thought the Army would inject us with anything dangerous."

Alex quit in May 1991 when Gina fell pregnant with their daughter Sabrina, now 16. He found a new job with Coca- Cola but was soon suffering from fatigue, stomach ulcers and paralysis and was diagnosed with osteoporosis.

Alex - who also has a stepson, Christopher, 20 - realised he had Gulf War Syndrome and applied for a war pension but was refused a full one.

By 2001, he was severely depressed and tried to take his own life by taking 160 prescribed anti-depressants. He tried again a year later.

Alex said: "I was in massive pain and thought I'd never get them to admit the truth. I saw no other way out."

When the Government refused an independent inquiry into Gulf War Syndrome inMay 2004, Alex went on a six-week hunger strike.

He lost three stone before Labour peer Lord Morris of Manchester phoned to reveal a probe was planned.

Alex said: "I'd had enough of the lies. I was not afraid to die."

He finally won his appeal last week and his victory could open the floodgates for dozens of other soldiers.

The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association's general manager, Maria Rusling, said: "Alex having this illness without being in Iraq proves anti-biological warfare injections are to blame."

The MoD said: "We make awards wherever evidence of disablement is shown."

Pro-Torture, Pro-Tyranny Media Rebukes Brave Falun Gong Protester

2006-10-17T06:08:00.000-07:00

Pro-Torture, Pro-Tyranny Media Rebukes Brave Falun Gong Protester
Woman who told mass murdering dictator Hu "your days are numbered" grabbed and arrested by secret service

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 21 2006

The courageous and awe-inspiring actions of the Falun Gong member who warned China's imperial festering slug dictator Hu Jintao that his "day's were numbered" were met with a reaction that foretells the collapse of America into the exact same style of tyrannical despotism mastered by the absolute rulers of China.

Wang Wenyi, a reporter for The Epoch Times, admonished President Bush to stop Hu from persecuting the Falun Gong and after a couple of minutes was grabbed by secret service agents who are now trying to charge her with intimidating a foreign official.

A foreign official who rules over a Communist jackboot society in which any dissent is crushed by the iron fist of the state.

After listening to talk radio in the hours after the incident, we were sickened to hear radio hosts and callers attacking the demonstrator for daring to interrupt President Bush, claiming that it sent the wrong message to China in that the US was not able to manage geopolitical events smoothly.

They were actually insinuating that it was an American virtue to silence free speech and dissent and that the demonstrator made the country look weak to the visiting Chinese despots.

This was echoed by news anchors across the nation. Watch the video and notice how the CNN presenters express relief when the secret service finally grabs and drags her away.

The Drudge Report picked up stories about how not only Chinese TV but also CNN International had tried to censor the protester.

"On China TV: As Hu was speaking when yells of protesters became audible, the screen went black. When the feed came back the screen once again went black when woman was again heard. During CNN International's post-speech commentary, at mention of south lawn heckler, the screen also went black again. The CNN feed returned when the incident ended."

Derek Mitchell, a former Pentagon advisor told the Associated Press that the spectacle was an embarrassment because China, "must know that this Bush administration is good at controlling crowds for themselves, and the fact that they couldn't control this is going to play to their worse fears and suspicions about the United States, into mistrust about American intentions toward China."

The only embarrassment is Mitchell - he is an embarrassment to what it means to be an American. How dare this boot-licking pond scum piece of trash equate the image of America with crowd control and the wholesale abolition of free speech? The Bush administration's taste for staged-managed public town hall meetings and "free-speech zones" would sit perfectly with the Chinese dictatorship as shining examples of how to create the false perception that dissent is only confined to the fringes of society.

If the Bush administration was really devoted to encouraging freedom around the world then why is it cosying up to and making apologies for the most mechanized and tyrannical police state on planet earth?

US officials involved in Hu's visit were quoted by Reuters expressing their anger that it took more than two minutes to grab Wenyi and worried about how it would reflect on Hu's team of traveling bottom feeding power prostitutes.

The reaction from Bush was to be expected. His apology was not offered to Falun Gong or the millions of other persecuted and tortured for his failure to demand answers from Hu, but to Hu himself for the unfortunate embarrassment it caused.

Are we surprised that a President who has presided over a global torture policy and declared himself to be above the law finds common ground with a sniveling disgusting puss filled worm in the shape of Hu Jintao?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Get Every Alex Jones FIlm For Just $5.95!
-----------------------------------------------------------

A recent report by Sky News, in which a journalist secretly filmed interviews with Chinese dissidents and peasants, revealed that the Chinese government had enacted a brutal policy of enforced displacement. The Government and its contractors are seizing people's land and homes and building their own developments on it, forcing the population into living lives of poverty and squalor.

No notification, no legal procedure, no just compensation, the bulldozers and men with machine guns turn up, the inhabitants are dragged out onto the street and the home is demolished.

In countryside areas, the sadistic PLA swoops in on farmers and forcibly ejects them from their own land while communities, showing more backbone than the average American jellyfish, fight and claw back with shovels and farm tools in the face of a highly trained military death squad armed to the teeth with high powered assault weapons.

Massacres on the scale of Tiananmen Square routinely take place with barely a whimper of interest from the western media or governments.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Chinese government is diagnosing anyone who speaks out as having "political monomania," abducting them and taking them to psychiatric hospitals as part of the notorious Ankang system. There they are subject to re-education brainwashing, forced medication, torture and electric shock therapy.

But these are the lucky ones. Concentration camps like the one at Sujiatun are filled with entire families of peaceful Falun Gong practitioners or even mild dissenters. Vomit inducing organ harvesting procedures are performed on live subjects and their remains cremated to hide the evidence.

The forte of the Chinese dictatorship has always been iron fist totalitarianism spanning back to the days of Mao when people who owned any substantial amount of property were abducted and tortured to death.

Mao's reign of terror claimed the lives of at least 50 million people and yet today the image of Mao in the west has been made into a cuddly caricature of cultural sophistication, with restaurants opening in both the US and UK glorifying a stereotype of mass murder, starvation and dehumanization.

Last year the London Guardian reported that Chinese cosmetics companies are using skin harvested from the corpses of executed convicts to develop beauty products for sale in Europe.

Stories of organ harvesting from political prisoners and Falun Gong members are widespread and confirmed by multiple mainstream sources, including this week the esteemed British Transplantation Society, yet the state department, even contradicting it's own reports, suggested that it is an "urban myth."

China also still has a policy of public execution for dissidents. The country has flirted with mobile execution vans as it shifts away from the communist system's traditional bullet in the head, towards a more "civilized" use of lethal injection.

The issues of forced sterilization and forced abortion have also recently resurfaced in the Communist country. Despite withdrawing some funds for these policies, the Bush administration still bankrolls UNESCO projects which have had direct links to forced abortions and sterilizations.

American corporations like Google and Yahoo follow the orders of their Chinese masters, aiding the creation of the most entrenched system of censorship ever witnessed and reporting pro-freedom activists to the authorities who are later arrested and tortured.

Alex Jones stated plainly that the events we saw unfold yesterday at Bush and Hu's public address illustrate nothing less than the fact that we are living in a dictatorship.

"Worship of unbridled power leads to tyranny. Tyranny to slavery and slavery to unimagined human degradation, humiliation and genocide. To watch my fellow countrymen make excuses for the unarguably most evil and longest lasting despotism, the Communist Chinese, causes me to realize that America for all intents and purposes is gone," said Jones.

"Our elite is wedded to the corrupt elite of China and they're waging war against free humans everywhere. To see decadent westerners making excuses for Bush and China is the height of folly but we must understand that the average American associates themselves with the power structure and doesn't realize that their life their liberty their destiny is cheaper than dirt to the infinitely corrupt New World Order."

"Our civilization is run and controlled by degenerate sadistic psychopathic control freak filth. Killing is their business and business is good."

"They're killing America."

Italian probe reveals war crimes: Israel used new weapon prototype in Gaza Strip

2006-10-17T06:06:00.000-07:00

Italian probe reveals war crimes: Israel used new weapon prototype in Gaza Strip

By Meron Rapoport

October 12, 2006

Haaretz

Wounds inflicted by the experimental weapons used in strike on the Gaza Strip.

An investigative report to be aired on Italian television Wednesday raises the possibility that Israel has used an experimental weapon in the Gaza Strip in recent months, causing especially serious physical injuries, such as amputated limbs and severe burns.

The weapon is similar to one developed by the U.S. military, known as DIME, which causes a powerful and lethal blast, but only within a relatively small radius.

The Italian report is based on the eyewitness accounts of medical doctors in the Strip, as well as tests carried out in an Italian laboratory. The investigative team is the same one that exposed, several months ago, the use by U.S. forces in Iraq of phosphorous bombs, against Iraqi rebels in Faluja.

Israel Air Force Maj.-Gen (res.) Yitzhak Ben-Israel, formerly head of the IDF's weapons-development program, told the Italian reporters that "one of the ideas [behind the weapon] is to allow those targeted to be hit without causing damage to bystanders or other persons."

The investigation, by Rai24news, follows reports by Gaza-based doctors of inexplicably serious injuries. The doctors reported an exceptionally large number of wounded who lost legs, of completely burned bodies and injuries unaccompanied by metal shrapnel. Some of the doctors also claimed that they removed particles from wounds that could not be seen in an x-ray machine.

According to those who testified, the wounded were hit by munitions launched from drones, most of them in July.

Dr. Habas al-Wahid, head of the emergency room at the Shuhada al-Aqsa hospital, in Deir el-Balah, told the reporters that the legs of the injured were sliced from their bodies "as if a saw was used to cut through the bone." There were signs of heat and burns near the point of the amputation, but no signs that the dismemberment was caused by metal fragments.

Dr. Juma Saka, of Shifa Hospital, in Gaza City, said the doctors found small entry wounds on the bodies of the wounded and the dead. According to Saka, a powder was found on the victims' bodies and in their internal organs.

"The powder was like microscopic shrapnel, and these are what likely caused the injuries," Saka said.

The Italian investigative team raised the possibility that the IDF is making use of a weapon similar in character to DIME - Dense Inert Metal Explosive - developed for the U.S. military. According to the official website of a U.S. air force laboratory, it is a "focused lethality" weapon, which aims to accurately destroy the target while causing minimum damage to the surrounding.

According to the site, the projectile comprises a carbon-fiber casing filled with tungsten powder and explosives. In the explosion, tungsten particles - a metal capable of conducting very high temperatures - spread over a radius of four meters and cause death.

According to the U.S.-based website Defense-Tech, "the result is an incredibly destructive blast in a small area" and "the destructive power of the mixture causes far more damage than pure explosive." It adds that "the impact of the micro-shrapnel seems to cause a similar but more powerful effect than a shockwave."

The weapon is supposed to still be in the testing phase and has not been used on the battlefield.

The Italian reporters sent samples of the particles found in wounds of injured in the Gaza Strip to a laboratory at the University of Parma. Dr. Carmela Vaccaio said that in analyzing the samples, she found "a very high concentration of carbon and the presence of unusual materials," such as copper, aluminum and tungsten. Dr. Vaccaio says these findings "could be in line with the hypothesis" that the weapon in question is DIME.

On the matter of DIME, Ben-Israel told the Italian reporters that "this is a technology that allows the striking of very small targets."

The report says that the weapon is not banned by international law, especially since it has not been officially tested.

It is believed that the weapon is highly carcinogenic and harmful to the environment.

The non-governmental organization Physicians for Human Rights has written to Defense Minister Amir Peretz requesting explanations for the aforementioned injuries to Palestinians. Amos Gilad, a senior adviser to the minister, is supposed to meet with the group on the matter in the near future.

[The Danger in Your Water] Fluoride has been tied to bone cancer, lower IQs, and osteoporosis.

2006-10-17T06:02:00.001-07:00

Fluoride has been tied to bone cancer, lower IQs, and osteoporosis. So why is it still being added to your water?

by Timothy Gower

One fall day in 2004, Lea Anne Burke got a call from a neighbor. Had she heard that the city council was talking about adding fluoride to their water supply in Snohomish, WA? For years, the northern end of town had received fluoridated water from the nearby city of Everett. But nonfluoridated water from the Pilchuck River ran through pipes on the south side of Snohomish, where Burke, her husband, and their two little girls live.

Burke, 33, is a soccer mom and vice president of the local PTA. She studied environmental science in college and learned enough about fluoride to be convinced that she didn't want it flowing from the taps in her home. She won't even let her family brush with fluoride toothpaste. So Burke joined a small group of citizens who, last year, persuaded the city council to abandon its plan to fluoridate the water. "Until it's proven safe, why do it?" asks Burke.

If you have only ever known fluoride as a champion cavity fighter that keeps your pearly whites strong, Burke's concerns may sound off the wall. After all, two-thirds of US cities and towns fluoridate water, and most US dentists agree that it prevents tooth decay. In fact, in 1999, the CDC named the fluoridation of community water one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.

Yet, controversy and doubts about its safety have dogged fluoride ever since the first US city, Grand Rapids, MI, began adding it to its water supply in 1945. And now, several reports published earlier this year have tarnished fluoride's brilliant veneer. In March, a panel of dentists, toxicologists, and epidemiologists assembled by the National Research Council (NRC) determined that the level of fluoride allowed in community drinking water in this country is too high. In a cruel irony, the panel found that children who consume water containing the highest level of fluoride permitted by the EPA might actually be damaging their teeth; there was even a hint that it might depress IQ. What's more, the panel stated that consuming water with that amount of fluoride over a lifetime could weaken bones and increase the risk of fractures. And just 2 weeks after the NRC report made headlines, a Harvard study suggested that fluoridated water could cause a rare form of bone cancer in young boys.

The two reports have helped fuel the passions of fluoridation opponents, a group made up of scientists and concerned citizens. They claim that adding fluoride to drinking water may have made sense once but is unnecessary now because it is available in other forms, such as toothpaste. Drinking the stuff, they say, exposes millions of Americans to needless health risks. "Fluoridation should be abandoned," says dentist Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto and a member of the panel that wrote the NRC's fluoride report. "It could turn out to be one of the top 10 mistakes of the 21st century."

If Limeback and other top-notch researchers at respected universities are now concerned that we're getting too much fluoride, should you be worried, too?

For starters, read the label on a tube of toothpaste: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If more than is used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.

Poison? Indeed, some forms of fluoride are used in high concentrations to kill rats and crop-eating insects. Municipal employees who add fluoridation chemicals to public water systems must wear protective clothing and respirators. Industrial workers regularly exposed to fluorine, the gas form of fluoride, have suffered skin, lung, and gastrointestinal problems; it has even been fatal for some.

But at the doses most people get, fluoride behaves differently: About half of it exits quickly through the urine, while the remainder settles into the bones or teeth. The 1 mg of fluoride per liter of water (1 mg/L) recommended by the government for water systems is equal to just 1 part per million (or 1 ppm). That scant dose of fluoride has been added to water since the 1940s to fight tooth decay, and early research suggests it did the job well. A 1962 study of Newburgh, NY, one of the first communities to fluoridate its water, found that cavity rates dropped by 70% over a span of 15 years.

That sort of success sounds impressive--but it's no longer relevant, opponents say. When fluoridation began, scientists believed that fluoride needed to be ingested to fight cavities, so that it could be incorporated into the enamel of developing teeth before they erupted through a baby's gums. However, most dental researchers today agree that throughout our lives, fluoride works best when it's applied directly to the teeth, where it not only shores up dental enamel but also shields it from damaging acid produced by bacteria in the mouth. That means today's fluoride toothpastes, rinses, tablets, and other dental products can do the job. At the very least, since most Americans today brush at least once a day, fluoride dental products have diluted some of the benefits of drinking fluoridated water.

In 1990, researchers at the National Institutes of Health compared the dental records of 16,000 children between ages 5 and 17. Half lived in fluoridated communities; the rest did not. They found that the kids who grew up drinking fluoridated water had just 18% less tooth decay than the other children.

Fluoride skeptics add that even this relatively unimpressive statistic loses much of its luster when you examine the numbers more closely. The study showed that children in fluoridated communities had 0.6 fewer decayed tooth surfaces--or about half of one cavity--than those who didn't drink fluoridated water. "That's not much of a benefit," says toxicologist Tim Kropp, PhD, of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit organization that opposes water fluoridation. Especially when you consider that too much fluoride can harm teeth.

Mottled Teeth and Lower IQs
The protective qualities of fluoride were first discovered in communities where the soil contained naturally high levels. What drew scientists' attention: the locals' stained or mottled teeth. Only later was it recognized that they also had fewer cavities. Both the strength and the unsightliness, it turned out, seemed to be due to fluoride exposure as their teeth were developing.

Many dentists consider the staining, called dental fluorosis, to be strictly a cosmetic concern because it's usually mild--chalky streaks or splotches on one or more teeth. Still, the NRC panel determined that about 10% of kids living in communities where the drinking water is close to the EPA upper limit of safe exposure, 4 mg/L, develop severe dental fluorosis; that means not only yellow and brown stains on their teeth but also pits in their enamel, increasing the risk of cavities. Rates of dental fluorosis appear to be on the rise--the CDC says the percentage of Americans between ages 6 and 19 with fluorosis jumped from 23% in the late 1980s to 32% today. To prevent severe dental fluorosis, the NRC panel advised the EPA to lower the allowable amount of fluoride in drinking water. "We have now said to the EPA that the level you guys think is okay could damage the enamel of children," says University of Kansas Medical Center Professor Emeritus John Doull, PhD, a toxicologist and chairman of the NRC panel.

Concerns about relatively mild forms of fluorosis must be balanced against the benefits of the mineral, argues fluoride researcher Steven Levy, DDS, of the University of Iowa College of Dentistry. But it's wrong to dismiss the streaks and splotches out of hand, he says, given how focused people are on the appearance of their teeth.

Levy questions a common practice among many pediatricians and pediatric dentists: prescribing fluoride supplements to children who live in nonfluoridated communities. The American Dental Association (ADA) still recommends daily supplements for such kids from the time they're 6 months old to age 16. But 5 years ago, the CDC issued guidelines stating that even in communities without fluoridation, the only children who should get supplements are those with a high risk of cavities, such as kids with a family history of serious tooth decay. Levy says it may also be appropriate to follow the ADA's guidelines on supplements if a dentist suspects that a child's parents are not inclined to encourage healthy dental habits.

Some experts believe that giving fluoride pills and drops to any child is a mistake. "It's clearly demonstrated that they are a fluorosis risk," says Brian Burt, PhD, a University of Michigan School of Public Health dental epidemiologist. "You're getting more risk than benefit, so I don't see any need for them."

Burt's reasoning seems particularly sound given another concern in the NRC report: Several studies from China have found a persistent link between high levels of fluoride and IQ deficits in children. In one study, children in a town with about 2.5 mg/L of fluoride in the water tested 8 points lower on average than children in a village whose water had just trace amounts of it. Some animal studies have suggested that fluoride can harm brain cells, though the chemical interaction isn't yet completely clear. The report concluded that the "consistency of study results appears significant enough to warrant additional research."

One problem in determining fluoride's potential harm, if any, is that it's not clear how much we get from other sources. Virtually all foods contain at least a trace: Fluoride is a component of soil, so it turns up in fruit, vegetables, and grains. But how much there is depends on where a crop was grown, because the fluoride content of soil varies from one region to another. Agricultural pesticides and irrigation water often contain fluoride, too, which is incorporated into plants. Water given to chickens, cattle, and other farm animals may also be fluoridated.

According to the CDC, the typical American gets 1 to 3 mg of fluoride per day, though experts say that is a very rough estimate. "There's a huge variation in levels of intake," says Levy. He leads a team that has been studying the diets of about 700 children in Iowa (roughly 70% of them in fluoridated communities) to get a more accurate picture of consumption of fluoride in this country. His research has already yielded some worrisome findings: About one-quarter of the children are swallowing twice as much fluoride each day as they should be.

Bone Troubles
Adults could face other troubling consequences. A report last year in the American Journal of Medicine described a woman who developed a rare condition that is known to be caused by overexposure to fluoride: skeletal fluorosis, which produces stiff, painful bones and joints and can be crippling in its later stages. The woman's doctors were puzzled by her symptoms until they discovered the cause. Every day for much of her adult life, she drank 1 to 2 gallons of double-strength instant iced tea. Tea leaves, it turns out, absorb a great deal of fluoride from soil, though levels vary depending on the region where they are grown and the season in which they are harvested.

It takes a lot of fluoride to begin developing skeletal fluorosis--at least 10 mg a day for 10 years. But endocrinologist Michael P. Whyte, MD, of the Washington University School of Medicine, the lead author of the report, says a person can get into the danger zone without quaffing gallons of tea every day. Whyte and his colleagues analyzed 10 types of instant tea for fluoride content. They found a range: Two brands contained only about 1 mg/L--Lipton Instant Diet Iced Tea Mix (Decaffeinated Lemon) and Schnucks Instant. However, most of the teas had at least twice that amount of fluoride, and one popular brand, Lipton Instant, had 6.5 mg/L. (Likewise, brewed tea can contain anywhere from 1 to 6 mg/L of fluoride, depending on the variety used, the water, and the brewing time.)

Picture a lifelong iced tea lover who guzzles a liter (about 1 quart) of a high-fluoride brand made with fluoridated water every day. Whyte suspects the scenario may not be so unusual in hot climates. "That's 7.5 mg. That's getting close to 10 mg a day," he says. "That could start to be associated with symptoms of skeletal fluorosis."

Even lower amounts of fluoride, consumed over enough time, can be problematic. Doull's NRC panel determined that a lifetime of drinking water at the EPA's 4 mg/L upper limit seems to increase the risk of bone fractures. Just 200,000 Americans live in communities where the water supply naturally contains that much fluoride (mostly areas located in South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia). But an additional 1.4 million live in communities where concentrations naturally range from 2 to 3.9 mg/L.

Even the CDC's recommended target of 1 mg/L of fluoride may increase the danger of bone ills: In 1992, researchers from the University of Utah reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association that elderly men were 41% more likely to fracture a hip if they lived in a community where the water contained that amount than if they lived in areas with lower levels; women's risk increased by 27%. (Although the authors didn't ask specifically how long the residents had lived in the towns studied, all were settled communities with little migration in or out.) Joseph L. Lyon, MD, a University of Utah professor of family and preventive medicine and lead author of the study, says findings like his are why adding fluoride to drinking water makes no sense, especially because its benefits can be obtained with toothpaste and other fluoride dental products. "You are imposing risk on all individuals who use a public water system," says Lyon.

The Harvard fluoride study from earlier this year provides yet another reason to question the safety of the 1mg/L standard. Researchers compared 103 people who were diagnosed before age 20 with a rare kind of bone cancer called osteosarcoma with a similar group of people who did not have the disease.

They discovered that young boys who grew up drinking water containing at least 0.7 mg/L of fluoride were up to 5 1/2 times more likely to develop osteosarcoma than boys whose drinking water contained less. (The cancer is more common in boys--risk didn't seem to increase in girls.) Even water with a moderate concentration of fluoride (0.3 to 0.69 mg/L) appeared to boost risk in boys more than threefold.

The Good that Fluoride Does
The Harvard bone cancer study made a big splash, coming 2 weeks after the NRC report. And that drives fluoride advocates crazy, because they feel it didn't tell the whole story. The authors of the NRC report had looked at the study results prepublication and stated that there is still no way to confirm or refute the link between fluoride and bone cancer. Two studies in the early 1990s had suggested a connection, while several others found none. Likewise, lab research designed to determine if--and how--fluoride might promote bone cancer has produced mixed results.

That's true of all the worrisome findings on fluoride, say proponents. Although individual studies have linked exposure to high levels of fluoride with certain medical conditions, several large scientific reviews have failed to conclusively link any major disease to drinking water that contains the government's recommended concentration of 1 mg/L of fluoride, notes dentist and epidemiologist Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, director of oral health surveillance and research for the New York State Department of Health.

What's more, opponents understate the true value of fluoridated water in fighting cavities, says dentist and epidemiologist John Stamm, DDS, a professor of dentistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a spokesman for the ADA. Stamm asserts that the primary finding of the 1990 NIH study mentioned earlier--in which fluoridated water appeared to reduce tooth decay rates by only about a half cavity, on average--is misleading. The youngest children in the study were just 5 years old, suggesting that their permanent teeth had not been in place long enough to develop serious tooth decay. With so few cavities to count, there were only tiny differences between younger children in the fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, making the overall difference look small.

The results were more striking among older children, Stamm notes. For example, kids who were 17 at the time of the study had 1.6 fewer cavities if they had grown up drinking fluoridated water. Is that enough to make fluoridation worthwhile? "Sure, absolutely," says Stamm, who--like most other dentists--argues that constantly bathing the teeth with fluoridated water complements the cavity-fighting work of fluoride dental products.

But for skeptics like Hardy Limeback and Tim Kropp, 1 1/2 fewer cavities seems like a very questionable reward given the potential risk. And they point out that an important British report often used to defend fluoridation actually casts doubts on its safety and benefits. In 2000, what's come to be known as the York Review examined 214 studies probing the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation. Though the review found that adding fluoride to drinking water helps fight cavities, University of York research fellow Paul Wilson called the overall quality of studies his group analyzed "really poor." Many were biased or used outdated scientific methods, he says, so it's impossible to say whether fluoride is safe or a threat. "There is currently a lack of reliable evidence to make a definitive judgment either way," he says.

That review was published 55 years after fluoride was first added to US water systems. The NRC report released earlier this year finds essentially the same thing--there's a troubling lack of evidence proving or disproving fluoride's safety. Even knowing that fluoride fights tooth decay, you may find it unsettling to hear scientists express uncertainty about the possible dangers of something you swallow every day.

Beyond the issues surrounding water fluoridation, however, there is some reassurance: The Environmental Working Group says using fluoride-based dental products make sense, and even Limeback uses fluoride--topically--in his dental practice. Given lingering concerns about the omnipresent compound, a reasonable person may simply decide that she doesn't want herself or her family to swallow fluoride, but instead apply it directly to her and her kids' teeth, where it matters most. For those who eat right and brush regularly, that may be plenty to keep teeth healthy.

If you live in a community with fluoridated water, such a decision will mean filtering your taps or drinking nonfluoridated bottled water (see "10 Steps to Cutting Back on Fluoride"). We're probably years away from a serious reappraisal of fluoridation. Dental epidemiologist Burt, who has suggested reducing the concentration of fluoride added to water systems, says dentists greeted his suggestion with little enthusiasm. The 1 mg/L standard, he says, "has become enshrined, given almost the status of divine revelation in some quarters. There's a feeling that we can't monkey with this."

Lea Anne Burke might be considered a heretic, then. "I'm always suspicious when people tell me, 'You have to do this.' Tell me why and show me some good science. With my children's health at stake, you have to give me some really good reasons." Burke has plenty of company: In 2005, cities in nine states--California, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, and Washington--voted to reject, abandon, or prohibit water fluoridation.

Harvard Study: Strong Link Between Fluoridated Water and Bone Cancer in Boys

2006-10-17T06:02:00.000-07:00

Harvard Study: Strong Link Between Fluoridated Water and Bone Cancer in Boys

EWG Public Affairs | October 13 2006

Boys who drink water with levels of fluoride considered safe by federal guidelines are five times more likely to have a rare bone cancer than boys who drink unfluoridated water, according to a study by Harvard University scientists published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The study, led by Dr. Elise Bassin and published online today in Cancer Causes and Control, the official journal of the Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention, found a strong link between fluoridated drinking water and osteocarcoma, a rare and often fatal bone cancer, in boys. The study confirms studies by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the New Jersey health department that also found increased rates of bone cancer in boys who drank fluoridated tap water.

Bassin's study comes on the heels of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report that found the federal "safe" limit for fluoride in tap water did not protect children from dental fluorosis or increased bone fractures. The NAS recommended that the allowable limit for fluoride in tap water be lowered immediately.

"This study raises very serious concerns about fluoride's safety and its potential to cause bone cancer in teenage boys," said Richard Wiles, EWG's senior vice president. "The findings raise fundamental questions about the wisdom of adding fluoride to tap water."

The Bassin study is also at the center of a joint federal and Harvard ethics investigation into whether Dr. Chester Douglass—the chairman of Oral Health Policy and epidemiology at Harvard Dental School and Bassin's doctoral thesis advisor—lied about the results of her work when reporting the results of his federally funded research to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

Last year, Environmental Working Group (EWG) obtained documents strongly suggesting that Douglass may have misrepresented Bassin's findings. Douglass has received large federal grants to study the relationship between fluoridated drinking water and bone cancer, and is on the payroll of Colgate, the toothpaste giant, where he has edited their dentists' newsletter for more than a decade.

When pressed recently by an investigative reporter from Fox News in Boston as to the quality of Bassin's findings, Douglass had nothing but praise for the work. "She did a good job. She had a good group of people advising her. And it's a nice—it's a nice analysis. There's nothing wrong with that analysis," he said.

"It's nice to see that Dr. Douglass has finally come clean on the quality of Dr. Bassin's work. It's just a shame that he was not so forthcoming when reporting on his work to the NIH," Wiles said.

Fox filmed Dr. Douglass waving a draft copy of Harvard's investigation of his conduct, and saying the university's report will be coming out soon. Last year, EWG asked the NIEHS, which funded Douglass' research, to investigate whether he misrepresented his findings.

EWG urges communities not to add fluoride to tap water, and advises parents to avoid fluoridated water for their children, particularly bottle fed infants. "Fluoride is fine in toothpaste, where it is directly applied to the teeth, but provides almost no dental benefit in water, while presenting serious health risks, particularly for boys," Wiles said.

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

2006-10-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
April 12, 2004

by Paul Connett, PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617

1) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.

2) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the US (See data from World Health Organization in Appendix 1, and the time trends presented graphically at http://www.fluoridealert.org/who-dmft.htm ). The reasons given by countries for not fluoridating are presented in Appendix 2.)

3) Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth. This result was not shown to be statistically significant. In a review commissioned by the Ontario government, Dr. David Locker concluded:

"The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance" (Locker 1999).

4) Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).

5) There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.

6) Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde, 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized. Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002 and Ekanayake 2002).

7) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged the findings of many leading dental researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride's benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC. Thus, you don't have to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. As the benefits of fluoride (if any exist) are topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense, for those who want to take the risks, to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, there is no reason to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply. This position was recently shared by Dr. Douglas Carnall, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal. His editorial appears in Appendix 3.

8) Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective. Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water (Kelly 2000).

9) The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its mildest form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). A major US survey has found 30% of children in optimally fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller 1997), while smaller studies have found up to 80% of children impacted (Williams 1990; Lalumandier 1995 and Morgan 1998). The York Review estimates that up to 48% of children in optimally fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms and 12.5% with symptoms of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).

10) Dental fluorosis means that a child has been overdosed on fluoride. While the mechanism by which the enamel is damaged is not definitively known, it appears fluorosis may be a result of either inhibited enzymes in the growing teeth (Dan Besten 1999), or through fluoride's interference with G-protein signaling mechanisms (Matsuo 1996). In a study in Mexico, Alarcon-Herrera (2001) has shown a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in children.

11) The level of fluoride put into water (1 ppm) is up to 200 times higher than normally found in mothers' milk (0.005 – 0.01 ppm) (Ekstrand 1981; Institute of Medicine 1997). There are no benefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (this is an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).

12) Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.

13) Fluoride is very biologically active even at low concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding (Emsley 1981) and inhibits numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978).

14) When complexed with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals (Strunecka & Patocka 1999, Li 2003).

15) Fluoride has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in a variety of cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993 and Mihashi 1996). Recent studies have also found a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997 and Joseph 2000).

16) Fluoride forms complexes with a large number of metal ions, which include metals which are needed in the body (like calcium and magnesium) and metals (like lead and aluminum) which are toxic to the body. This can cause a variety of problems. For example, fluoride interferes with enzymes where magnesium is an important co-factor, and it can help facilitate the uptake of aluminum and lead into tissues where these metals wouldn't otherwise go (Mahaffey 1976; Allain 1996; Varner 1998).

17) Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water, using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta amyloid deposits which are characteristic of Alzheimers disease (Varner 1998).

18) Aluminum fluoride was recently nominated by the Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for testing by the National Toxicology Program. According to EPA and NIEHS, aluminum fluoride currently has a "high health research priority" due to its "known neurotoxicity" (BNA, 2000). If fluoride is added to water which contains aluminum, than aluminum fluoride complexes will form.

19) Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and exposure alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent (Mullenix 1995). Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or "couch potato" syndrome). More recent animal experiments have reported that fluoride can damage the brain (Wang 1997; Guan 1998; Varner 1998; Zhao 1998; Zhang 1999; Lu 2000; Shao 2000; Sun 2000; Bhatnagar 2002; Chen 2002, 2003; Long 2002; Shivarajashankara 2002a, b; Shashi 2003 and Zhai 2003) and impact learning and behavior (Paul 1998; Zhang 1999, 2001; Sun 2000; Ekambaram 2001; Bhatnagar 2002).

20) Five studies from China show a lowering of IQ in children associated with fluoride exposure (Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Li 1995; Zhao 1996; Lu 2000; and Xiang 2003a, b). One of these studies (Lin Fa-Fu 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g. 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency.

21) Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) showed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997).

22) In the first half of the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (over active thyroid) (Stecher 1960; Waldbott 1978). With water fluoridation, we are forcing people to drink a thyroid-depressing medication which could, in turn, serve to promote higher levels of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in the population, and all the subsequent problems related to this disorder. Such problems include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.

It bears noting that according to the Department of Health and Human Services (1991) fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated to range from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day, which is a range that actually overlaps the dose (2.3 - 4.5 mg/day) shown to decrease the functioning of the human thyroid (Galletti & Joyet 1958). This is a remarkable fact, particularly considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidism in the United States (in 1999, the second most prescribed drug of the year was Synthroid, which is a hormone replacement drug used to treat an underactive thyroid). In Russia, Bachinskii (1985) found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3 ppm fluoride in water.

23) Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa , mimic the symptoms of arthritis (Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation by Chemical & Engineering News, "Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed" (Hileman 1988). Few if any studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis - CDC, 2002) is related to our growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. The causes of most forms of arthritis (e.g. osteoarthritis) are unknown.

24) In some studies, when high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a HIGHER number of fractures, particularly hip fractures (Inkovaara 1975; Gerster 1983; Dambacher 1986; O'Duffy 1986; Hedlund 1989; Bayley 1990; Gutteridge 1990. 2002; Orcel 1990; Riggs 1990 and Schnitzler 1990). The cumulative doses used in these trials are exceeded by the lifetime cumulative doses being experienced by many people living in fluoridated communities.

25) Nineteen studies (three unpublished, including one abstract) since 1990 have examined the possible relationship of fluoride in water and hip fracture among the elderly. Eleven of these studies found an association, eight did not. One study found a dose-related increase in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8 ppm (Li 2001). Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, as a quarter of those who have a hip fracture die within a year of the operation, while 50 percent never regain an independent existence (All 19 of these studies are referenced as a group in the reference section).

26) The only government-sanctioned animal study to investigate if fluoride causes cancer, found a dose-dependent increase in cancer in the target organ (bone) of the fluoride-treated (male) rats (NTP 1990). The initial review of this study also reported an increase in liver and oral cancers, however, all non-bone cancers were later downgraded – with a questionable rationale - by a government-review panel (Marcus 1990). In light of the importance of this study, EPA Professional Headquarters Union has requested that Congress establish an independent review to examine the study's results (Hirzy 2000).

27) A review of national cancer data in the US by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) revealed a significantly higher rate of bone cancer in young men in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas (Hoover 1991). While the NCI concluded that fluoridation was not the cause, no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey (Cohn 1992) found bone cancer rates to be up to 6 times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. Other epidemiological studies have failed to find this relationship (Mahoney 1991; Freni 1992).

28) Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system - it damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of different species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a, b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002 and Zakrzewska 2002). Whilestudies conducted at the FDA have failed to find reproductive effects in rats (Sprando 1996, 1997, 1998), an epidemiological study from the US has found increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 or more ppm fluoride in the water (Freni 1994), and 2 studies have found a reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Susheela 1996 and Barot 1998).

29) The fluoridation program has been very poorly monitored. There has never been a comprehensive analysis of the fluoride levels in the bones, blood, or urine of the American people or the citizens of other fluoridated countries. Based on the sparse data that has become available, however, it is increasingly evident that some people in the population – particularly people with kidney disease - are accumulating fluoride levels that have been associated with harm to both animals and humans, particularly harm to bone (see Connett 2004).

30) Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives. This is because 1) some people (e.g. manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink more water than others, and 2) we receive fluoride from sources other than the water supply. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996 and Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products (Bentley 1999 and Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), teas (Levy 1999), and pesticide residues on food (Stannard 1991 and Burgstahler 1997).

31) Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are not being asked for their informed consent prior to medication. This is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of western Europe has ruled against fluoridation (see appendix 2).

As one doctor aptly stated, "No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.' It is a preposterous notion."

32) While referenda are preferential to imposed policies from central government, it still leaves the problem of individual rights versus majority rule. Put another way -- does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it's against that neighbor's will)?

33) Some individuals appear to be highly sensitive to fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies (Shea 1967, Waldbott 1978 and Moolenburg 1987). In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions. Can we as a society force these people to ingest fluoride?

34) According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993), and other researchers (Juncos & Donadio 1972; Marier & Rose 1977 and Johnson 1979), certain subsets of the population may be particularly vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects; these include: the elderly, diabetics and people with poor kidney function. Again, can we in good conscience force these people to ingest fluoride on a daily basis for their entire lives?

35) Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g. calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodide deficiencies and protein poor diets) (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Chen 1997; Teotia 1998). Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition are the poor, who are precisely the people being targeted by new fluoridation programs. While being at heightened risk, poor families are less able to afford avoidance measures (e.g. bottled water or removal equipment).

36) Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for poor families. The real "Oral Health Crisis" that exists today in the United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.

37) Fluoridation has been found to be ineffective at preventing one of the most serious oral health problems facing poor children, namely, baby bottle tooth decay, otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992 and Shiboski 2003).

38) The early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude." In 2000, the British Government's "York Review" could give no fluoridation trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000, see Appendix 3 for commentary).

39) The US Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed (McClure 1970)!

40) Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged (Seholle 1984; Gray 1987; PHS 1993; and Pinkham 1999). This is significant because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987).

41) Despite the fact that we are exposed to far more fluoride today than we were in 1945 (when fluoridation began), the "optimal" fluoridation level is still 1 part per million, the same level deemed optimal in 1945! (Marier & Rose 1977; Levy 1999; Rozier 1999 and Fomon 2000).

42) The chemicals used to fluoridate water in the US are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they come from the wet scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these chemicals are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000).

43) These hazardous wastes have not been tested comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. The assumption being made is that by the time this waste product has been diluted, all the fluorosilicic acid will have been converted into free fluoride ion, and the other toxics and radioactive isotopes will be so dilute that they will not cause any harm, even with lifetime exposure. These assumptions have not been examined carefully by scientists, independent of the fluoridation program.

44) Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children's blood. Because of lead's acknowledged ability to damage the child's developing brain, this is a very serious finding yet it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries.

45) Sodium fluoride is an extremely toxic substance -- just 200 mg of fluoride ion is enough to kill a young child, and just 3-5 grams (e.g. a teaspoon) is enough to kill an adult. Both children (swallowing tablets/gels) and adults (accidents involving fluoridation equipment and filters on dialysis machines) have died from excess exposure.

46) Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation (see appendix 4).

47) The recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2000), was one of the leading opponents of fluoridation in Sweden, and part of the panel that recommended that the Swedish government reject the practice, which they did in 1971. According to Carlsson:

"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy" (Carlsson 1978).

48) While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they cannot defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the US Environmental Protection Agency (Bryson 2004). According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, "Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view" (See appendix 5).

In light of proponents' refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that "the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues" (Martin 1991).

49) Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991). Most recently, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain; and Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government's handling of the NTP's fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004). Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.

50) The Union representing the scientists at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC is now on record as opposing water fluoridation (Hirzy 1999). According to the Union's Senior Vice President, Dr. William Hirzy:

"In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all - that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."

Conclusion

When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, invested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a fifty year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it's called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children's teeth have not suffered, while their public's trust has been strengthened.

It is like a question from a Kafka play. Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child's mouth?

For those who would call for further studies, I say fine. Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want. This folly must end without further delay.

Postscript

Further arguments against fluoridation, can be viewed at http://www.fluoridealert.org. Arguments for fluoridation can be found at http://www.ada.org and a more systematic presentation of fluoride's toxic effects can be found at http://www.Slweb.org/bibliography.html

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the help given to me in the research for this statement to my son Michael Connett and to Naomi Flack for the proofreading of the text. Any remaining mistakes are my own.

APPENDIX 1. World Health Organization Data

DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country
	DMFTs	Year	Status*
Australia	0.8	1998	More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Zurich, Switzerland	0.84	1998	Water is unfluoridated, but salt is fluoridated
Netherlands	0.9	1992-93	No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Sweden	0.9	1999	No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Denmark	0.9	2001	No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
UK (England & Wales)	0.9	1996-97	11% of water supplies are fluoridated
Ireland	1.1	1997	More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Finland	1.1	1997	No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Germany	1.2	2000	No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
US	1.4	1988-91	More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Norway	1.5	1998	No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Iceland	1.5	1996	No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
New Zealand	1.5	1993	More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Belgium	1.6	1998	No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
Austria	1.7	1997	No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
France	1.9	1998	No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
Data from WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html

APPENDIX 2. Statements on fluoridation by governmental officials from several countries

Germany: "Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/germany.jpeg

France: "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg

Belgium: "This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm

Luxembourg: "Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg

Finland: "We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm

"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual's right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned.

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.) www.fluoridealert.org/finland.jpeg

Denmark: "We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm

Norway: "In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm

Sweden: "Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

Netherlands: "From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

Northern Ireland: "The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/Northern-Ireland.jpeg

Austria: "Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm

Czech Republic:"Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered as follows:

(a) uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)

(b) unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)

(d) toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/czech.jpeg

APPENDIX 3. Statement of Douglas Carnall, Associate Editor of the British Medical Journal, published on the BMJ website (http://www.bmj.com ) on the day that they published the York Review on Fluoridation.

See this review on the web at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/904/a

British Medical Journal, October 7, 2000, Reviews, Website of the week: Water fluoridation

Fluoridation was a controversial topic even before Kubrick's Base Commander Ripper railed against "the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids" in the 1964 film Dr Strangelove. This week's BMJ shouldn't precipitate a global holocaust, but it does seem that Base Commander Ripper may have had a point. The systematic review published this week (p 855) shows that much of the evidence for fluoridation was derived from low quality studies, that its benefits may have been overstated, and that the risk to benefit ratio for the development of the commonest side effect (dental fluorosis, or mottling of the teeth) is rather high.

Supplementary materials are available on the BMJ 's website and on that of the review's authors, enhancing the validity of the conclusions through transparency of process. For example, the "frequently asked questions" page of the site explains who comprised the advisory panel and how they were chosen ("balanced to include those for and against, as well as those who are neutral"), and the site includes the minutes of their meetings. You can also pick up all 279 references in Word97 format, and tables of data in PDF. Such transparency is admirable and can only encourage rationality of debate.

Professionals who propose compulsory preventive measures for a whole population have a different weight of responsibility on their shoulders than those who respond to the requests of individuals for help. Previously neutral on the issue, I am now persuaded by the arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from toothpaste rather than the water supply (see www.derweb.co.uk/bfs/index.html and www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/index.html for the two viewpoints).

Douglas Carnall
Associate Editor
British Medical Journal

APPENDIX 4. List of 14 Noble Prize winners who have opposed or expressed reservations about fluoridation.

1) Adolf Butenandt (Chemistry, 1939)
2) Arvid Carlsson (Medicine, 2000)
3) Hans von Euler-Chelpin (Chemistry, 1929).
4) Walter Rudolf Hess (Medicine, 1949)
5) Corneille Jean-François Heymans (Medicine, 1938)
6) Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood (Chemistry, 1956)
7) Joshua Lederberg (Medicine, 1958)
8) William P. Murphy (Medicine, 1934)
8) Giulio Natta (1963 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)
10) Sir Robert Robinson (Chemistry, 1947)
11) Nikolai Semenov (Chemistry, 1956)
12) James B. Sumner (Chemistry, 1946)
13) Hugo Theorell (Medicine, 1955)
14) Artturi Virtanen (Chemistry, 1945)

APPENDIX 5. Quotes on debating fluoridation from Dr. Michael Easley, Director of the National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research, and one of the most active proponents of fluoridation in the US (Easley 1999). Easley's quotes typify the historic contempt that proponents have had to scientific debate.

"A favorite tactic of the fluorophobics is to argue for a debate so that 'the people can decide who is right.' Proponents of fluoride are often trapped into consenting to public debates."

"Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view."

"Like parasites, opponents steal undeserved credibility just by sharing the stage with respected scientists who are there to defend fluoridation"; and,

"Unfortunately, a most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs when a physician or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses their professional standing in the community to argue against fluoridation, a clear violation of professional ethics, the principles of science and community standards of practice."

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1993). Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service. ATSDR/TP-91/17.

Allain P, et al. (1996). Enhancement of aluminum digestive absorption by fluoride in rats. Research Communications in Molecular Pathology and Pharmacology 91: 225-31.

Arnold HA. (1980). Letter to Dr. Ernest Newbrun. May 28, 1980. http://www.fluoridealert.org/uc-davis.htm

Awadia AK, et al. (2002). Caries experience and caries predictors - a study of Tanzanian children consuming drinking water with different fluoride concentrations. Clinical Oral Investigations (2002) 6:98-103.

Bachinskii PP, et al. (1985) Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system. Probl Endokrinol (Mosk) 31: 25-9. http://www.fluoridealert.org/epa-sf/appendix-e.pdf

Barnes GP, et al. (1992). Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of Head Start children. Public Health Reports 107: 167-73.

Barot VV. (1998). Occurrence of endemic fluorosis in human population of North Gujarat, India: human health risk. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 61: 303-10.

Bayley TA, et al. (1990). Fluoride-induced fractures: relation to osteogenic effect. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 5(Suppl 1):S217-22.

Bentley EM, et al. (1999). Fluoride ingestion from toothpaste by young children. British Dental Journal 186: 460-2.

Bhatnagar M, et al. (2002). Neurotoxicity of fluoride: neurodegeneration in hippocampus of female mice. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology 40: 546-54.

Bigay J, et al. (1987). Fluoride complexes of aluminium or beryllium act on G-proteins as reversibly bound analogues of the gamma phosphate of GTP. EMBO Journal 6: 2907-2913.

Bigay J, et al. (1985). Fluoroaluminates activate transducin-GDP by mimicking the gamma-phosphate of GTP in its binding site. FEBS Letters 191: 181-185.

Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. (1990). Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research 69(Special edition): 723-727.

Bryson C. (2004). The Fluoride Deception. Seven Stories Press, New York.

Burgstahler AW, et al. (1997). Fluoride in California wines and raisins. Fluoride 30: 142-146.

Carlsson A. (1978). Current problems relating to the pharmacology and toxicology of fluorides. Journal of the Swedish Medical Association 14: 1388-1392.

Carnow BW, Conibear SA. (1981). Industrial fluorosis. Fluoride 14: 172-181.

Caspary WJ, et al (1987). Mutagenic activity of fluorides in mouse lymphoma cells. Mutation Research 187:165-80.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2002). Prevalence of Self-Reported Arthritis or Chronic Joint Symptoms Among Adults --- United States, 2001. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 51: 948-950.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50(RR14): 1-42.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 48: 933-940.

Chen J, et al. (2003). Selective decreases of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in PC12 cells exposed to fluoride. Toxicology 183: 235-42.

Chen J, et al. (2002). [Studies on DNA damage and apoptosis in rat brain induced by fluoride] Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 36 :222-224.

Chen YC, et al. (1997). Nutrition survey in dental fluorosis-afflicted areas. Fluoride 30(2):77-80.

Chinoy NJ, Narayana MV. (1994). In vitro fluoride toxicity in human spermatozoa. Reproductive Toxicology 8:155-9.

Chinoy NJ, et al. (1991). Microdose vasal injection of sodium fluoride in the rat. Reproductive Toxicology 5: 505-12.

Chinoy NJ, Sequeira E. (1989). Effects of fluoride on the histoarchitecture of reproductive organs of the male mouse. Reproductive Toxicology 3: 261-7.

Cohn PD. (1992). A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. New Jersey Department of Health Environ. Health Service: 1- 17.

Colquhoun J. (1997) Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41: 29-44. http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm

Connett M. (2004). Fluoride & Bone Damage: Published Data. Submission to National Research Council (NRC). http://www.fluoridealert.org/bone-data.pdf

Connett, P. (2000). Fluoride: A Statement of Concern. Waste Not #459. January 2000. Waste Not, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617. http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-statement.htm

Czerwinski E, et al. (1988). Bone and joint pathology in fluoride-exposed workers. Archives of Environmental Health 43: 340-343.

Dambacher MA, et al. (1986). Long-term fluoride therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Bone 7: 199-205.

De Liefde B. (1998). The decline of caries in New Zealand over the past 40 Years. New Zealand Dental Journal 94: 109-113.

Department of Health & Human Services. (U.S. DHHS) (1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride, Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Department of Health and Human Services, USA.

DenBesten, P (1999). Biological mechanism of dental fluorosis relevant to the use of fluoride supplements. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 27: 41-7.

De Stefano TM. (1954). The fluoridation research studies and the general practitioner. Bulletin of Hudson County Dental Society February.

Diesendorf M.(1986). The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature 322: 125-129. http://www.fluoridealert.org/diesendorf.htm

Ditkoff BA, Lo Gerfo P. (2000). The Thyroid Guide. Harper-Collins. New York.

Easley, M. (1999). Community fluoridation in America: the unprincipled opposition. Unpublished.

Ekambaram P, Paul V. (2001). Calcium preventing locomotor behavioral and dental toxicities of fluoride by decreasing serum fluoride level in rats. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 9: 141-146.

Ekanayake L, Van Der Hoek W. (2002). Dental caries and developmental defects of enamel in relation to fluoride levels in drinking water in an arid area of sri lanka. Caries Research 36: 398-404.

Ekstrand J, et al. (1981). No evidence of transfer of fluoride from plasma to breast milk. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed). 283: 761-2.

Elbetieha A, et al. (2000). Fertility effects of sodium fluoride in male mice. Fluoride 33: 128-134.

Emsley J, et al (1981). An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Journal of the American Chemical Society 103: 24-28.

Fein NJ, Cerklewski FL. (2001). Fluoride content of foods made with mechanically separated chicken. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 49: 4284-6.

Feltman R, Kosel G. (1961). Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report. Journal of Dental Medicine 16: 190-99.

Fomon SJ, et al. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.

Franke J, et al. (1975). Industrial fluorosis. Fluoride 8: 61-83.

Freni SC. (1994). Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 42: 109-121.

Freni SC, Gaylor DW. (1992). International trends in the incidence of bone cancer are not related to drinking water fluoridation. Cancer 70: 611-8.

Galletti P, Joyet G. (1958). Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 18: 1102-1110. http://www. fluoridealert.org/galletti.htm

Gerster JC, et al. (1983). Bilateral fractures of femoral neck in patients with moderate renal failure receiving fluoride for spinal osteoporosis. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed) 287(6394):723-5.

Ghosh D, et al. (2002). Testicular toxicity in sodium fluoride treated rats: association with oxidative stress. Reproductive Toxicolology 16(4):385.

Gray, AS. (1987). Fluoridation: time for a new base line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 53: 763-5.

Grobleri SR, et al. (2001). Dental fluorosis and caries experience in relation to three different drinking water fluoride levels in South Africa. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 11(5):372-9.

Guan ZZ, et al (1998). Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20: 537-542.

Gutteridge DH, et al. (2002). A randomized trial of sodium fluoride (60 mg) +/- estrogen in postmenopausal osteoporotic vertebral fractures: increased vertebral fractures and peripheral bone loss with sodium fluoride; concurrent estrogen prevents peripheral loss, but not vertebral fractures. Osteoporosis International 13(2):158-70.

Gutteridge DH, et al. (1990). Spontaneous hip fractures in fluoride-treated patients: potential causative factors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 5 Suppl 1:S205-15.

Hanmer R. (1983). Letter to Leslie A. Russell, D.M.D, from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA. March 30, 1983.

Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. (1989). Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 4: 223-5.

Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 57: 136-143.

Hileman B. (1989). New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits. Chemical and Engineering News May 8. http://www.fluoridealert .org/NIDR.htm

Hileman B. (1988). Fluoridation of water: Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News. August 1: 26-42. http://www.fluoridealert.org/hileman.htm

Hirzy JW. (1999). Why the EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation. Press release from National Treasury Employees Union. May 1. http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

Hoover RN, et al. (1991). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs US Public Health Service. pp F1 -F7.

Inkovaara J, et al. (1975). Prophylactic fluoride treatment and aged bones. British Medical Journal 3: 73-4.

Institute of Medicine. (1997). Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board. National Academy Press.

Johnson W, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal patients. In: Johansen E, Taves DR, Olsen TO, Eds. Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293.

Joseph S, Gadhia PK. (2000). Sister chromatid exchange frequency and chromosome aberrations in residents of fluoride endemic regions of South Gujarat. Fluoride 33: 154-158.

Juncos LI, Donadio JV. (1972). Renal failure and fluorosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 222: 783-5.

Kelly JV. (2000). Letter to Senator Robert Smith, Chairman of Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, August 14, 2000. http://www.fluoridealert .org/fda.htm

Kilborn LG, et al. (1950). Fluorosis with report of an advanced case. Canadian Medical Association Journal 62: 135-141.

Kiritsy MC, et al. (1996). Assessing fluoride concentrations of juices and juice-flavored drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 127: 895-902.

Kishi K, Ishida T. (1993). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells. Mutation Research 301:183-8.

Kour K, Singh J. (1980). Histological finding of mice testes following fluoride ingestion. Fluoride 13: 160-162.

Kumar A, Susheela AK. (1994). Ultrastructural studies of spermiogenesis in rabbit exposed to chronic fluoride toxicity. International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies 39:164-71.

Kumar JV, Green EL. (1998). Recommendations for fluoride use in children. NY State Dental Journal 64: 40-7.

Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5.

Kunzel W, et al. (2000). Decline in caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-389.

Kunzel W, Fischer T. (1997). Rise and fall of caries prevalence in German towns with different F concentrations in drinking water. Caries Research 31: 166-73.

Lalumandier JA, et al. (1995). The prevalence and risk factors of fluorosis among patients in a pediatric dental practice. Pediatric Dentistry 17: 19-25.

Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

Li L. (2003). The biochemistry and physiology of metallic fluoride: action, mechanism, and implications. Critical Reviews of Oral Biology and Medicine 14: 100-14.

Li XS. (1995). Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 28: 189-192.

Lin FF, et al. (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7. No. 3. http://www.fluoridealert.org/IDD.htm

Locker D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

Long YG, et al. (2002). Chronic fluoride toxicity decreases the number of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in rat brain. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24: 751-7.

Lu XH, et al. (2000). Study of the mechanism of neurone apoptosis in rats from the chronic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 19: 96-98.

Luke J. (2001). Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35: 125-128.

Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildord.

Mahaffey KR, Stone CL. (1976). Effect of High Fluorine (F) Intake on Tissue Lead (Pb) Concentrations. Federation Proceedings 35: 256.

Mahoney MC, et al. (1991). Bone cancer incidence rates in New York State: time trends and fluoridated drinking water. American Journal of Public Health 81: 475-9.

Mann J,et al. (1990). Fluorosis and dental caries in 6-8-year-old children in a 5 ppm fluoride area. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 18: 77-9.

Mann J, et al. (1987). Fluorosis and caries prevalence in a community drinking above-optimal fluoridated water. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 15: 293-5.

Marcus W. (1990). Memorandum from Dr. William Marcus, to Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW, US EPA. May 1, 1990. http:// www.fluoridealert.org/marcus.htm

Martin B. (1991). Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate. SUNY Press, Albany NY.

Massler M, Schour I. (1952). Relation of endemic dental fluorosis to malnutrition. Journal of the American Dental Association 44: 156-165.

Masters R, et al. (2000). Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology 21: 1091-1099.

Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. International Journal of Environmental Studies 56: 435-449.

Matsuo S, et al. (1998). Mechanism of toxic action of fluoride in dental fluorosis: whether trimeric G proteins participate in the disturbance of intracellular transport of secretory ameloblast exposed to fluoride. Archives of Toxicology 72: 798-806.

Maupome G, et al. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.

McClure F. (1970). Water fluoridation, the search and the victory. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington DC.

McDonagh M, et al. (2000). A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination,. University of York, September 2000.

Meng Z, Zhang B. (1997). Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lymphocytes of workers at a phosphate fertilizer factory. Mutation Research 393: 283-288.

Mihashi,M. and Tsutsui,T.(1996). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride to rat vertebral body-derived cells in culture. Mutation Research 368: 7-13.

Moolenburgh H. (1987). Fluoride: The Freedom Fight. Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh.

Morgan L, et al. (1998). Investigation of the possible associations between fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and childhood behavior problems. Pediatric Dentistry 20: 244-252.

Mullenix P, et al. (1995). Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17: 169-177.

Narayana MV, et al. (1994). Reversible effects of sodium fluoride ingestion on spermatozoa of the rat. International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies 39: 337-46.

Narayana MV, Chinoy NJ. (1994). Effect of fluoride on rat testicular steroidogenesis. Fluoride 27: 7-12.

National Research Council. (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF). (2000) Letter from Stan Hazan, General Manager, NSF Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, to Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Committee on Science, US House of Representatives. July 7. http://www.keepersofthewell.org/product_pdfs/NSF_response.pdf

National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C. The results of this study are summarized in the Department of Health and Human Services report (DHHS,1991) op cit.

O'Duffy JD, et al. (1986). Mechanism of acute lower extremity pain syndrome in fluoride-treated osteoporotic patients. American Journal of Medicine 80: 561-6.

Olsson B. (1979). Dental findings in high-fluoride areas in Ethiopia. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 7: 51-6.

Orcel P, et al. (1990). Stress fractures of the lower limbs in osteoporotic patients treated with fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 5(Suppl 1): S191-4.

Paul V, et al. (1998). Effects of sodium fluoride on locomotor behavior and a few biochemical parameters in rats. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 6: 187–191.

Pinkham, JR, ed. (1999). Pediatric Dentistry Infancy Through Adolescence. 3rd Edition. WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia.

Public Health Service (PHS). (1993). Toward improving the oral health of Americans: an overview of oral health status, resources, and care delivery. Public Health Reports 108: 657-72.

Retief DH, et al. (1979). Relationships among fluoride concentration in enamel, degree of fluorosis and caries incidence in a community residing in a high fluoride area. Journal of Oral Pathology 8: 224-36.

Riggs BL, et al. (1990). Effect of Fluoride treatment on the Fracture Rates in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine 322: 802-809.

Rozier RG. (1999). The prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis in North American children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 239-46.

Schnitzler CM, et al. (1990). Bone fragility of the peripheral skeleton during fluoride therapy for osteoporosis. Clinical Orthopaedics (261): 268-75.

Seholle RH. (1984). Preserving the perfect tooth (editorial). Journal of the American Dental Association 108: 448.

Seppa L, et al. (2000). Caries trends 1992-98 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoride. Caries Research 34: 462-8.

Shao Q, et al. (2000). [Influence of free radical inducer on the level of oxidative stress in brain of rats with fluorosis]. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 34(6):330-2.

Shashi A. (2003). Histopathological investigation of fluoride-induced neurotoxicity in rabbits. Fluoride 36: 95-105.

Shea JJ, et al. (1967). Allergy to fluoride. Annals of Allergy 25:388-91.

Sheth FJ, et al. (1994). Sister chromatid exchanges: A study in fluorotic individuals of North Gujurat. Fluoride 27: 215-219.

Shiboski CH, et al. (2003). The association of early childhood caries and race/ethnicity among California preschool children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 63:38-46.

Shivarajashankara YM , et al. (2002). Brain lipid peroxidation and antioxidant systems of young rats in chronic fluoride intoxication. Fluoride 35: 197-203.

Shivarajashankara YM , et al. (2002). Histological changes in the brain of young fluoride-intoxicated rats. Fluoride 35: 12-21.

Singh A, Jolly SS. (1970). Fluorides and Human Health. World Health Organization. pp 239-240.

Singh A, et al. (1963). Endemic fluorosis: epidemiological, clinical and biochemical study of chronic fluoride intoxication in Punjab. Medicine 42: 229-246.

Sprando RL, et al. (1998). Testing the potential of sodium fluoride to affect spermatogenesis: a morphometric study. Food and Chemical Toxicology 36: 1117-24.

Sprando RL, et al. (1997). Testing the potential of sodium fluoride to affect spermatogenesis in the rat. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35: 881-90.

Sprando RL, et al. (1996). Effect of intratesticular injection of sodium fluoride on spermatogenesis. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34: 377-84.

Stannard JG, et al. (1991). Fluoride Levels and Fluoride Contamination of Fruit Juices. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 16: 38-40.

Stecher P, et al. (1960). The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs. Merck & Co., Inc, Rathway NJ. p. 952.

Steelink C. (1992). Fluoridation controversy. Chemical & Engineering News (Letter). July 27: 2-3.

Strunecka A, Patocka J. (1999). Pharmacological and toxicological effects of aluminofluoride complexes. Fluoride 32: 230-242.

Sun ZR, et al. (2000). Effects of high fluoride drinking water on the cerebral functions of mice. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 19: 262-263.

Susheela AK. (1993). Prevalence of endemic fluorosis with gastrointestinal manifestations in people living in some North-Indian villages. Fluoride 26: 97-104.

Susheela AK, Kumar A. (1991). A study of the effect of high concentrations of fluoride on the reproductive organs of male rabbits, using light and scanning electron microscopy. Journal of Reproductive Fertility 92: 353-60.

Sutton P. (1996). The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation. Lorne, Australia: Kurunda Pty, Ltd.

Sutton P. (1960) Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press. Second Edition.

Sutton, P. (1959). Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press. First Edition.

Teotia M, et al. (1998). Endemic chronic fluoride toxicity and dietary calcium deficiency interaction syndromes of metabolic bone disease and deformities in India: year 2000. Indian Journal of Pediatrics 65: 371-81.

Teotia SPS, Teotia M. (1994). Dental caries: a disorder of high fluoride and low dietary calcium interactions (30 years of personal research). Fluoride 27: 59-66.

Teotia SPS, et al. (1976). Symposium on the non-skeletal phase of chronic fluorosis: The Joints. Fluoride 9: 19-24.

Tsutsui T, Suzuki N, Ohmori M, Maizumi H. (1984). Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts induced by sodium fluoride. Mutation Research 139:193-8.

Waldbott GL, et al. (1978). Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.

Waldbott GL. (1965). A Battle with Titans. Carlton Press, NY.

Wang C, et al. (2000). Treatment Chemicals contribute to Arsenic Levels. Opflow (a journal of the American Water Works Association). October 2000.

Wang Y, et al. (1997). [Changes of coenzyme Q content in brain tissues of rats with fluorosis]. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 31: 330-3.

WHO (Online). WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme. Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden. http://www.whocollab. od.mah.se/euro.html

Williams JE, et al. (1990). Community water fluoride levels, preschool dietary patterns, and the occurrence of fluoride enamel opacities. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 50: 276-81.

Wu DQ, Wu Y. (1995). Micronucleus and sister chromatid exchange frequency in endemic fluorosis. Fluoride 28: 125-127.

Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94.

Xiang Q. (2003b). Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride 36: 138.

Zakrzewska H, et al. (2002). In vitro influence of sodium fluoride on ram semen quality and enzyme activities. Fluoride 35: 153-160.

Zhai JX, et al. (2003). [Studies on fluoride concentration and cholinesterase activity in rat hippocampus]. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi 21: 102-4.

Zhang Z, et al. (2001). [Effects of selenium on the damage of learning-memory ability of mice induced by fluoride]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 30: 144-6.

Zhang Z, et al. (1999). [Effect of fluoride exposure on synaptic structure of brain areas related to learning-memory in mice] [Article in Chinese]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 28:210-2.

Zhao XL, Wu JH. (1998). Actions of sodium fluoride on acetylcholinesterase activities in rats. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences 11: 1-6.

Zhao LB, et al (1996). Effect of high-fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Fluoride 29: 190-192.

Zhao ZL, et al. (1995). The influence of fluoride on the content of testosterone and cholesterol in rat. Fluoride 28: 128-130.

Ziegelbecker R. (1970). A critical review on the fluorine caries problem. Fluoride 3: 71-79.

The 19 studies on the possible association of hip fracture and fluoridated-water.

a) Studies Reporting an Association between fluoridated water (1 ppm fluoride) & hip fracture.

1 a) Cooper C, et al. (1990). Water fluoride concentration and fracture of the proximal femur. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 44: 17-19.

1 b) Cooper C, et al. (1991). Water fluoridation and hip fracture. JAMA 266: 513-514 (letter, a reanalysis of data presented in 1990 paper).

2) Danielson C, et al. (1992). Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah's elderly population. Journal of the American Medical Association 268: 746-748.

3) Hegmann KT, et al. (2000). The Effects of Fluoridation on Degenerative Joint Disease (DJD) and Hip Fractures. Abstract #71, of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society For Epidemiological research, June 15-17, 2000. Published in a Supplement of American Journal of Epidemiology P. S18.

4) Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1992). The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older; a national ecologic study." Annals of Epidemiology 2: 617-626.

5) Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1990). Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: US white women aged 65 years and olders. JAMA 264(4): 500-2.

6 a) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1995). Fluorine concentration in drinking water and fractures in the elderly. JAMA 273: 775-776 (letter).

6 b) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1998). Risk factors for fractures in the elderly. Epidemiology 9(4): 417-423. (An elaboration of the 1995 study referred to in the JAMA letter).

7) Keller C. (1991) Fluorides in drinking water. Unpublished results. Discussed in Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B,(1992) Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis International 2: 109-117.

8) Kurttio PN, et al. (1999). Exposure to natural fluoride in well water and hip fracture: A cohort analysis in Finland. American Journal of Epidemiology 150(8): 817-824.

9) May DS, Wilson MG. (1992). Hip fractures in relation to water fluoridation: an ecologic analysis. Unpublished data, discussed in Gordon SL, and Corbin SB. (1992). Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis International 2:109-117.

b) Studies reporting an association between water-fluoride levels higher than fluoridated water (4 ppm+) & hip fracture.

Li Y, et al. (2001). Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 16: 932-9.

Sowers M, et al. (1991). A prospective study of bone mineral content and fracture in communities with differential fluoride exposure. American Journal of Epidemiology 133: 649-660.

c) Studies Reporting No Association between water fluoride & hip fracture:

(Note that in 4 of these 8 studies, an association was actually found between fluoride and some form of fracture – e.g. wrist and hip. See notes and quotes below.)

Cauley J. et al. (1995). Effects of fluoridated drinking water on bone mass and fractures: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 10: 1076-86.

Feskanich D, et al. (1998). Use of toenail fluoride levels as an indicator for the risk of hip and forearm fractures in women. Epidemiology 9: 412-6.

While this study didn't find an association between water fluoride and hip fracture, it did find an association - albeit non-significant 1.6 (0.8-3.1) - between fluoride exposure and elevated rates of forearm fracture.

Hillier S, et al. (2000). Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case control study. The Lancet 335: 265-2690.

Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1993). Hip Fracture Incidence Before and After the Fluoridation of the Public Water Supply, Rochester, Minnesota. American Journal of Public Health 83: 743-745.

Karagas MR, et al. (1996). Patterns of Fracture among the United States Elderly: Geographic and Fluoride Effects. Annals of Epidemiology 6: 209-216.

As with Feskanich (1998) this study didn't find an association between fluoridation & hip fracture, but it did find an association between fluoridation and distal forearm fracture, as well as proximal humerus fracture. "Independent of geographic effects, men in fluoridated areas had modestly higher rates of fractures of the distal forearm and proximal humerus than did men in nonfluoridated areas."

Lehmann R, et al. (1998). Drinking Water Fluoridation: Bone Mineral Density and Hip Fracture Incidence. Bone 22: 273-278.

Phipps KR, et al. (2000). Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density and fractures: prospective study of effects in older women. British Medical Journal 321: 860-4.

As with Feskanich (1998) and Karagas (1996), this study didn't find an association between water fluoride & hip fracture, but it did find an association between water fluoride and other types of fracture - in this case, wrist fracture. "There was a non-significant trend toward an increased risk of wrist fracture."

Suarez-Almazor M, et al. (1993). The fluoridation of drinking water and hip fracture hospitalization rates in two Canadian communities. American Journal of Public Health 83: 689-693.

While the authors of this study conclude there is no association between fluoridation and hip fracture, their own data reveals a statistically significant increase in hip fracture for men living in the fluoridated area. According to the authors, "although a statistically significant increase in the risk of hip fracture was observed among Edmonton men, this increase was relatively small (RR=1.12)."

Death & mutations ... the Silent Killer - Depleted Uramium alert! Invisible War.

2006-10-17T05:59:00.000-07:00

Death & mutations ... the Silent Killer - Depleted Uramium alert! Invisible War.

"Depleted" uranium and the alarming claims of soldiers and Iraqis who have been exposed to it. Weapons of Mass Destruction in Washington DC? It is known world wide, he says, that DU weapons have long-term implications that, right now corporations and governments are hiding. The use of uranium weapons is absolutely unacceptable, and a crime against humanity. Consequently the citizens of the world and all governments must force cessation of uranium weapons use.

Death & mutations ... the Silent Killer

'The United States must order an end to illegal use of depleted uranium munitions DU is a waste product of the process that produces enriched uranium for use in atomic weapons and nuclear power plants. Much like natural uranium, it is both toxic and radioactive.

When DU burns, it spews tiny particles of poisonous and radioactive uranium oxide in aerosol form, which can then travel for miles in the wind. Humans can ingest or inhale the small particles. Even one particle, when lodged in a vital organ--which is most likely to happen from inhalation-- can cause illnesses from headaches to cancer.'

These videos present the background to depleted uranium:

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnOEvcX9D9A

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvCztxiX5hQ

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap9D3Dq4RwA

Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OJ66fVERxU

Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltOnbz1p_3g

Part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr-sBIHLulg

Part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jud5qdMqLtE

Source: http://www.uruknet.biz

38 Million Sharks Killed for Fins Annually, Experts Estimate

2006-10-17T05:58:00.000-07:00

38 Million Sharks Killed for Fins Annually, Experts Estimate

Nicholas Bakalar
for National Geographic News

October 12, 2006

--> leave the z-deck alone! --> -->- startbody --> Some chicken stock, a few mushrooms, chicken breast, scallions, a little sherry, oil, spices—shark fin soup is fairly easy to prepare. But to make soup for six, you'll also need about a pound (half a kilogram) of shark fin meat.

Demand for that crucial ingredient has led to the killing of a median of about 38 million sharks a year, according to a new study that offers what may be the first reliable estimates of the number of sharks killed for their fins.

The United Nations has estimated that only about ten million sharks are harvested each year. Some conservationists, however, put the number at closer to a hundred million.

But until now estimates of the shark harvest were little more than guesses, because the numbers depended on shark fishers to report their catches.

The shark-fin industry, concentrated in a few Asian trading centers, is secretive and wary of any attempts to regulate, or even investigate, its practices.

To make matters murkier, most fisheries-management groups give little attention to sharks, because they are often considered bycatch—fish caught by accident—given their low value per pound.

"Apart from implementing various restrictions on the finning of sharks at sea in some countries—e.g., the U.S. and the EU—investment in setting up fisheries-management systems for sharks has been nonexistent for most shark fisheries," said study co-author Murdoch McAllister of the United Kingdom's Imperial College London.

How It Works

Murdoch and his colleagues' new, mathematical estimating method uses trade records from commercial markets and genetic techniques to identify species.

In their effort to accurately estimate the number of fins harvested—and therefore the number of sharks killed—the scientists conducted interviews with traders and studied almost 400 fin samples.

In the end the researchers concluded that from 1996 to 2000 26 to 73 million sharks were traded yearly. The annual median for the period was 38 million—nearly four times the UN estimates but considerably lower than those of many conservationists.

Growing Demand

"The global demand for shark fins has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and this has created incentives for fishermen to go after sharks and retain shark fins," McAllister said.

According to Peter Knights, executive director of the conservation nonprofit WildAid, demand for shark-fin meat is the biggest problem facing the fishes.

That demand, Knights says, is especially strong among China's growing middle class. Newly flush Chinese may be buying shark-fin meat simply to prove they can, he adds, since the delicacy has little nutritional value and hardly any flavor.

Even so, the meat isn't limited to Asian menus.

A cup of shark-fin soup at the China Max seafood restaurant in San Diego, California, for example, can be had for $18. Braised whole shark fin runs $40.

"We make it all the time," said a man who answered the phone at the restaurant.

Casting Doubt

Russell H. Hudson is a spokesperson for the Seafood Coalition, an umbrella group of fishing-industry organizations. He agrees that the world trade in sharks is huge, but he says that the new report doesn't tell a complete and accurate story.

"More samples are needed to be collected at all life and marketing stages for this analysis to keep going forward," Hudson said.

"Maybe they should work with some fishing interests to help verify their conversions. The same species in different oceans tend to grow and mature at different lengths."

Knights, of WildAid, agrees that the new findings are imperfect.

The new data is "useful," he said. "But to be really useful it should be done by species and by individual areas," Knights said.

"[Shark data is] not recorded anywhere in that way. That's the biggest problem in getting sharks listed as endangered."

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species now lists only three shark species—basking, whale, and great white—as endangered. (See great white shark photos, facts, wallpapers, and more.)

Knights says studies of fishing rates may be more helpful, and these have indicated precipitous declines in shark populations.

"Sharks are the tigers and lions and cheetahs and leopards of the sea. And if we lose them—these top predators—there will be long-term damage," he said.

"They're slow reproducing, late to mature, more like mammals than fish in their biology—and we're completely trashing them.

"There's virtually no management of shark fisheries around the world. We're playing with fire," Knights said.

Study co-author McAllister is hopeful that it's not too late.

"Some progress is being made," he said. "In at least a few instances decision-makers at high levels are taking the results of recent studies like ours seriously and taking more stringent and immediate actions to address current threats to shark populations.

"For example," McAllister said, "based partly on our study, just last week the European Parliament voted to reduce the tolerance level for the maximum permissible percentage of shark landings that can be made up of fins from 5 percent down to 2 percent."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061012-shark-fin.html

Not Convinced Vaccines are bad?, Vaccines: Sids and Autism

2006-10-14T21:25:00.000-07:00

Not Convinced Vaccines are bad?, Vaccines: Sids and Autism

SIDS Cases by Age Group

How Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is really just a way to brainwash the public (or do i mean sheep) into believing that vaccines are "good," that they don't kill, and that they prevent disease.

The doctors did not want to talk about her death being related in any way to the vaccine and, one after the other, refused to answer our many questions. I was repeatedly told that vaccines were for "the greater good." I was even told that loss of life through immunization was "expected" in the war against disease but these losses were considered to be at "acceptable" levels. However, this did not feel very acceptable or good to me as a mother with empty arms that ached for my child. The coroner finally told us months later that the cause of death was determined to be "SIDS" (sudden infant death syndrome), meaning "no known cause," and refused to release a copy of the autopsy report to us.

...I later learned that most vaccine-induced deaths in this country are listed as SIDS and SIDS statistics are NOT included in vaccine adverse reaction data, even if a child dies only a few hours after receiving inoculation. This data is presented to physicians and the public to reassure them that vaccines are safe.

We are trading our children's lives to save the government money. We are told that the benefits outweigh the risks but many of the diseases that we vaccinate for are not even life threatening; however, the vaccine itself has the potential to kill.

Vaccines kill at a much higher rate than we are led to believe. We play vaccine roulette with our children's lives and we never know which child will fall victim next.

If the odds are 1 in 500 thousand for death, 1 in 100 thousand for permanent brain injury, 1 in 1700 for seizures and convulsions or one in 100 for adverse reaction, are you willing to take that chance? Are any odds acceptable enough to convince you to gamble with your child's life?

I can assure you that death from vaccination is neither quick nor painless. I helplessly watched my daughter suffer an excruciatingly slow death as she screamed and arched her back in pain, while the vaccine did as it was intended to do and assaulted her immature immune system. The poisons used as preservatives seeped through her tiny body, overwhelming her vital organs one by one until they collapsed. It is an image that will haunt me forever and I hope no other parent ever has to witness it.

A death sentence considered too inhumane for this county's most violent criminals was handed down to my beautiful, innocent, infant daughter, death by lethal injection.

The true war is not against disease; we have somehow become our own worst enemy by putting our faith in science instead of nature.

Don't be a sheep...

Read the Whole story
http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/7/vaccine_death.htm

The Danger of Vaccines, and How You Can Legally Avoid Them
http://www.mercola.com/forms/vaccine_teleconference.htm