Fluoride in your bones - cancer ahead

Categories

Health

As the legislative battle rages in Great Britain over adding fluoride to the drinking water, with opposition from Greens and Mulsim, we hear from Ireland that last year, a study has established a definite link between the mineral in drinking water and bone cancer.

Jennie Gorman from Australia has picked up and forwarded this important information and some discussion on the practice of fluoride in drinking water, which I would like to share with you.

Bedfordshire is starting its own campaign. Paul Armstrong, who lived in Bedfordshire all of his life, says that the area has had fluoridated water for the past thirty years but he did not even know! He has done his research and decided to work towards ending fluoridation. See his new site Fluorideinbeds.org.

Subject: Fluoride in drinking water, please write to your MP

My thoughts on adding toxic Fluoride into water supplies. August 2003.

The following European Countries do not add fluoride to their water supplies: France, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Austria, Belgium.

It was of interest to find out that one company that sells Hydrofluorosilicic Acid to Ireland is owned by a European Government that will not add the chemical to its own population's drinking water supply due to health risks. The European Chemical Company that sells this acid to Ireland, Kemira Chemicals, is owned (allegedly) by the Government of Finland.

However Finland stopped its own fluoridation programme in 1992 when health studies identified links between water fluoridation and osteoporosis. The government of Finland however sells Ireland a toxic waste product that the Irish government adds to the drinking water supplies of the population at a rate of 2000 gallons per day. (And I expect it also pays for the product)

A Press Release dated 7.1.2002 part of which I repeat here says: "New research of bone cancer figures has shown a 40% elevated rate in the Republic of Ireland (fluoridated) compared to Northern Ireland
(unflouridated). The bone cancer in question called osteosarcoma is one of the most prevalent cancers in young males, aged 9-20. There are both animal and human studies linking osteosarcoma and water fluoridation/fluoride, (1,2- see immediately below)). One study in 1992, in the United States, indicated that in three counties of New Jersey there was nearly 7 times the osteosarcoma rate in young males in the fluoridated communities compared to the non-flouridated communities. (3)

[ (1) Schlesinger et al (1956). Newburgh-Kingston Caries-Flurine study X111.
Pediatric Findings After ten Years. Journal of the American Dental Association, 52.

(2) Mihashi M, Tsutsui T. Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride to rat vertebral bady-derived cells in culture. Mutat Res 1996 May; 368(1):7-13.

(3) Cohn PD. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of asteosarcoma among young males. N J Dept of Health, Trenton, new Jersey. Nov 8, 1992.]

Extracts from an article by Paul Connett PhD dated November 28th 2002

The article starts off by saying " Water fluoridation is a peculiar American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so "safe" and effective that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated
at picnic tables. One by one all of these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched."

He writes that, "Fluoridation is unethical because:

1) It violates the individual's rights to informed consent to medication.

2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.

3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.

4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.

5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

As Stated by Dr Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):

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".

Paul Connett's paper continues, Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because,

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.

2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massier & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1997' ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998)

3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental flourosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

*************************

Should there be a 'democratic' referendum? (House of Commons Hansard 1st July 2003) "We have received representations from the water industry requesting that the legislation on fluoridation be amended to make strategic health authorities solely responsible for deciding where the population is in favour, that a new fluoridation scheme should be introduced".

Should a decision be made on the outcome of a referendum? The plain answer is NO because quite simply Fluoridation is indiscriminate mass medication. The people of this country should have the absolute RIGHT to decide for themselves what medication they take or decide not to take. I am not sure whether it is against the Convention on Human Rights. They are most certainly denied the right to drink pure water without medication when fluoride is added, whether they want it or not, to the water supply. Fluoride as a chemical may well be scheduled as a poison under the poison Act 1972. It is worth checking out.

From the same debate in Parliament Dr Andrew Murrison said

"Countries as diverse as Finland, Cuba, Canada and Germany are now abandoning water fluoridation, but are not finding that tooth decay has increased or decreased. Why should we consider bucking the trend in this country by introducing this illiberal measure?" Yes, why indeed.

I am told that the Health Authority authorises the Water Companies whether to add fluoride into the water system. Surely as a "HEALTH AUTHORITY, there should be some measure of caution added to their decision? Virtually every European country has either stopped, rejected outright, or in some cases even banned water fluoridation as a HEALTH programme (countries already given).

If Health Food shops, whose products have been used safely for many years, and are bought over the counter by those people only who wish to buy them, find that their products have to be treated as a 'medicine' and undergo thorough testing at an extra high cost (which will put up the price of the products), it make sense that fluoride, as a medicinal product must undergo the same rigorous testing, and testing independently of each container the product come in. There must be no get out for this, just because the product is authorised by the Health Authority itself.

How can any one actually know how much a person is going to drink of fluoridated water? Even babies that have no teeth are likely to have it in their made up, by caring Mum, in their milk formula, yet baby is consuming (for the weight of his/her little body) as much as a grown overlarge person takes in for his/her body. That cannot be right? Older people without any teeth are still forced to drink fluoridated water, WHY? Because some people are too lazy to clean their teeth properly, so just because of lazy people, the whole population has to have unwanted medication.

I do question, when a child's second teeth are permanently discoloured by dental fluorosis, the only part of the human skeleton we can see, what exactly is happening to the rest of the skeleton? Skeletal fluorosis? If fluoride reduces tooth decay, why not just use fluoridated toothpaste?

Recommended reading from the EU web site is, explanations re "The Safety of Fluorine Compounds in Oral Hygiene Products for Children under the age of 6 years." An EU Opinion, 26 pages,

Which left me wondering why on earth we are still using fluoridation in our drinking water? Dental experts claim fluoride drinking water is perfectly safe, yet they also 'recommend' a "safe" amount for daily intake?
Critics would argue of course that this is absurd, for people drink differentamounts of water each day, and that therefore there cannot be a 'safe' regulated daily intake of this chemical.

The EU's own report states, that "In the USA, between 1989 and 1994, about 10,000 cases of suspected over-ingestion of fluoridated home use dental products in children from birth to 6 year of age were reported. The outcomes were generally not serious. Of these 10,000 cases, 2000 were
toothpaste-related and caused 1 major, 6 moderate and 387 minor outcomes." (See pages 6 and 7 of this report concerning overdoses.)

I question whether there can be an acceptable 'safe' level, simply because of the uneven distribution of natural fluoride in the earth's crust. We are aware even in this country that Cornwall has different mineral content to that of the rest of the UK. I think of Malta and how that Island is formed and the mineral content there and on Gozo. To me it seems an impossible idea to try to harmonise what can be deemed a "safe" measure of fluoride for all, when nature itself has no intention of lending itself to the will of the European Union. Not even for the World Trade Organisation or World Health Organisation either, for that matter.

The maximum level of fluoride in drinking water is set at 1.5 mg/1 by Directive 98/83/EC. In some Member states, drinking water is supplemented with fluoride. This is in line with WHO standards, set in 1984, reviewed in 1993 and currently being reassessed. This level is set irrespective of climate.

Directive 2003/40/Establishes concentrations limits in mineral waters and includes the following,

Article 4
1. Natural mineral waters with a fluoride concentration exceeding 1,5 mg/l shall bear on the label the words "contains more than 1,5 mg/l of fluoride: not suitable for regular consum