“WE ARE MAD AS HELL AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!”

Fluoride Action Network | December 9, 2015

First a VICTORY to report. Yesterday we heard that citizens of Port Angeles, Washington have voted against fluoridation. This vote has come after a very long and difficult struggle which we will be discussing in a future bulletin. Now today’s fundraising bulletin.

Yesterday we brought you the incisive letter that Peel region (with a population of 1.3 million, not 3 million as we said yesterday) Councillor John Sprovieri wrote to Donna Westfall, a former councillor of Crescent City in California. Here we bring you two more letters: 1) Donna’s letter to the Peel Council dated Sept 10 (see below) which triggered the response we printed yesterday and 2) a second letter from John Sprovieri.

I believe that the fundamental importance of these letters is the way these councillors turned the tables on fluoridation promoters. More often than not Councils sit back and let pro-fluoridation spokespersons produce their monologues on fluoridation’s “safety and effectiveness” usually with no expert in the room to give the other side of the story. What both of these councillors have done is to lay down fundamental questions that none of the fluoridation pushers can answer.

What Donna and John discovered in the process is that there is not a single agency in the U.S. or Canada that can answer these questions. Moreover, none of them can be held responsible for the safety of this practice or for the safety of the chemicals used. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of local municipal officials.

Most councils do not know this. When they find out they do not like it (shades of Peter Finch opening the window and yelling, “I am as mad as hell and I am not going to take it any more”).  Donna Westfall (from California) and John Sprovieri (Canada) are two that have found out what is going on. They are opening their windows and hopefully other councillors will open theirs as well…

We need to hear from more councillors who have found out what is going on. Meanwhile, there is powerful information in this exchange, which can help many other communities see the light. Before we get to these letters, here is an update on our fundraiser.

Fundraiser update:

Yesterday, we received $1,040 from 11 people to bring our current total to $16,553 from 99 supporters. Thank you to all who have so generously contributed so far.  If you are holding back please note that we are just one donation away from an additional pledge of $100 and $3,447 away from triggering a very generous pledge of $2000. So with your help we can make some rapid progress towards of our mini-goal of $75,000 by midnight Dec 24.

To make a tax-deductible donation you can either:

• Donate online using our secure server.

• Or by check – please make checks payable to Fluoride Action Network and send to: FAN, c/o Connett, 104 Walnut Street, Binghamton NY 13905

Why give to Uncle Sam when you can donate to FAN?  Uncle Sam has used enough of our tax money to promote fluoridation. Your donation to FAN will help to end it!

GIFTS FOR DONATIONS:

FAN Poster: One poster for $11 for U.S. and Canada ($15 for other countries). Three posters for $22 (or $30 for other countries). Please email us at info@fluoridealert.org  for bulk order rates. If you want to print your own posters, we are happy to send you the artwork.

Bumper Sticker: Free for any donation. If you donate online, please email us that you want one or two bumper stickers at info@fluoridealert.org . If you donate by check, let us know if you want either one or two stickers. Thanks.

Paul Connett, PhD
Senior adviser to FAN
Coordinator of the Fundraising team for 2015
____________________________________________________

Letter #1: Donna Westfall’s letter to the Peel Council

As a former city councilwoman, I was instrumental in investigating my constituent’s complaints about the harmfulness of water fluoridation. As a result I helped in getting an initiative to the ballot and we successfully voted in a moratorium on Nov 6, ’12 to turn off the toxic industrial waste fluoride (HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID OR HFSA) because our supplier UNIVAR, (formerly Basic Chemical Solutions) would not provide three things:

1.) Toxicological report

2.) Listing of contaminants

3.) Proof that their product was safe for all water consumers, infants to seniors.

This absurd practice of adding HFSA is based more on politics than science. Why should a water department be given the power to medicate anyone when they don’t take a health history, they don’t pass out a listing of side effects or monitor the dose. This is tantamount to gross negligence. Water consumers started to send in their payment UNDER PROTEST so that when the class action lawsuits begin they would be covered.

After adding water fluoridation for 44 years, our town had 70% cavities in our children’s teeth, (this figure was quoted from Dr. Susan Wellman, Dentist who is pro-fluoride) high obesity rates and low test scores. Hardly an endorsement for continuing this unethical practice. We were also ranked 34th in the nation for cancer while Brookings, Oregon….. just 25 minutes north of us…. was ranked 765th in the nation for cancer for the same time period and Bookings never fluoridated their water.

We have high rates of not only cancer, but thyroid, diabetes and kidney disease all with links to HFSA.  One constituent ended up in ER with seizures after showering for 10 minutes. Her doctor has subsequently written a letter describing her allergic reaction to water fluoridation. She was on a medication which contained fluoride and that in combination with absorbing this poison transdermaly by showering put her in the Emergency Room.

New Hampshire Governor Lynch signed into law on Aug 4, 2012 infant warnings concerning mixing fluoridated water with formula because of the high prevalence of fluorosis. Fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. Our Environmental Protection Agency announced in early 2011 that 41% of our nations teenagers had fluorosis and recommended cutting the parts per million down to .7. Our city council reduced the ppm from 1.2 to .7. That was a step in the right direction but not nearly enough because our EPA is doing nothing to really test or protect the public from this toxic industrial waste product. The only safe level when considering the addition of HFSA to drinking/bathing water is ZERO.

If you happen to call the NSF (which is not a government agency) and ask them questions about the testing they do on HFSA, they will tell you that they won’t provide that information because of non-disclosure agreements. If you call the manufacturer, distributor or supplier, they will not provide information about the 3 requested docs listed in my opening paragraph above as I already did that back in 2011. I sent out over 40 letters and got zero responses.

I predict that water fluoridation will become one of the biggest frauds and scams ever perpetrated against the public in the 20th and 21st century. That phrase often quoted by the CDC as being one of the best things since sliced bread was made up by a Public Relations guy. It’s time to stop quoting that drivel. Water fluoridation will be compared to Tobacco science, DDT science, Asbestos science, Thalidomide science, etc.

It is my opinion based on the research I’ve done which has been extensive these last 5 years, that it’s all about the money. Some brilliant schemers came up with this idea to get rid of toxic industrial waste by saying it was good for children’s teeth. That’s a bunch of baloney. It’s good for the bank accounts of the producers of HFSA because if they had to get rid of their toxic industrial waste legally, it would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead they dupe the politicians with  and endorsements which is not science and sell them a product in which humans are utilized to filter this poison through their bodies while 99% goes down the drain. The dumb politicians buy it hook, line and sinker and shut their brains down. They become incapable of independent thought as I witnessed first hand with my fellow council members and other councils I’ve visited. But the HFSA manufacturers, suppliers and distributors are laughing all the way to the bank because they’ve got these municipalities paying them for poison. Plus, I checked out our retirement accounts and lo and behold, the MOSAIC company is one of the funds city employees can invest their retirement money in. Again, as I said, brilliant scheme from start to finish. I just hope to see the day that some of them end up in prison.

But here’s the part they don’t tell you. In 2011, our city finished a $43.8 million upgrade/expansion on our waste water treatment plant with state-of-the-art technology that utilizes MBR or Membrane Bio-Reactor technology. When I asked our Public Works Director if this gets the fluoride out of the water, he replied, “NO.” So this poison is going into our Pacific Ocean.

Poison the public. Poison the oceans. Poison the food and beverages. Because of that, we are all already over-fluoridated.

Please do your homework.

Respectfully,
Donna A. Westfall
Crescent City, Calif. 95531

See all FAN bulletins online

Related:

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

Dangers Of Fluoride and How To Decalcify Your Pineal Gland | BeWellBuzz.com

Yummy Non-fluoride Toothpaste

15 facts you need to know about fluoride

15 facts you need to know about flouride by Masterofmanythings

http://www.getholistichealth.com/40204/15-facts-most-people-dont-know-about-fluoride/

Related:

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

Dangers Of Fluoride and How To Decalcify Your Pineal Gland | BeWellBuzz.com

Yummy Non-fluoride Toothpaste

THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, EPA AND INTEGRITY

Fluoride Action Network | December 2, 2015

Welcome to day 2 of FAN’s annual fundraiser. Yesterday we received 18 donations for a total of $1,226 (including two recurring donations for which I computed the total annual donation). This is doubled by our generous matching pledger to yield a grand total of $2,452 from 19 people. This matching pledge will continue up to $5,000.

To make a tax-deductible donation you can either:

Donate online using our secure server.
Or by check – please make checks payable to Fluoride Action Network and send to: FAN, c/o Connett, 104 Walnut Street, Binghamton NY 13905
We try to make these fundraising bulletins either fun or informative or both.  Today it is informative and the information therein should be powerful ammunition in the hands of those who believe that honest science should determine public health policy.

We asked William Hirzy, PhD, formerly a senior scientist at the EPA who specialized in risk assessment, and now FAN’s representative in Washington, DC, to tell us what he knows about the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and what that Act would require the EPA Office of Water to do if they were genuinely interested in determining a safe drinking water standard for fluoride.

Paul Connett, PhD
Senior Adviser to FAN, and
Director of the 2015 Fundraising campaign
____________________________________________________________________________________

The Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA and Integrity

By J.William Hirzy, PhD

SDWA: Congressional Intent

In our Constitutional form of government laws are made by the Legislative Branch, implemented and enforced by the Executive Branch, with disputes adjudicated by the Judicial Branch. The legislative history of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, the Act) provides an explanation of just what the Congress intends for the SDWA to do for public health. That history provides guidance for the Executive and Judicial Branches in implementation of and making judgments about the Act.

Theoretically, the Executive Branch, in the person of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the courts are bound to follow the guidance given by Congress via the legislative history of the Act. To the extent that these Branches follow that guidance, they are acting with integrity and in conformance with our Constitution; to the extent that they do not, they violate both the Constitution and the concept of integrity.

As far back as the initial development of the SDWA, Congress mandated that drinking water standards aimed at protecting public health were to be set in a two-step process. First, a health based goal now known as the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) was to be set, “…solely on considerations of public health and not influenced by political, budgetary or other considerations.” (1). The MCLG is a non-enforceable goal, “…sufficient to prevent the occurrence of any known or anticipated adverse health effect with an adequate margin of safety.” (2)

A key consideration, especially given EPA’s pending revision of SDWA standards, is how Congress intended “anticipated effect” and “adequate margin of safety” to be interpreted. The following paragraph is clear guidance for that interpretation.

 “The incorporation of an adequate margin of safety is not to be confused with the anticipation of adverse health effects. Recommended maximum contaminant levels (now, MCLGs) are to be established by a three-step process. First, the known adverse health effects of contaminants are to be compiled. Second, the Administrator must decide whether any adverse effects can be reasonably anticipated, even though not proved to exist. It is at this point that the Administrator must consider the possible impact of synergistic effects, long-term and multi-media exposures, and the existence of more susceptible groups in the population. Finally, the recommended maximum contaminant level must be set to prevent the occurrence of any known or anticipated adverse effect. It must include an adequate margin of safety, unless there is no safe threshold for a contaminant. In such a case, the recommended maximum contaminant level should be set at the zero level.” (3) (Emphasis Added)
Adverse Health Effect: Developmental Neurotoxicity

There are a growing number of peer-reviewed primary studies on the effect of fluoride exposures on children’s intellectual capabilities, with new research findings being published every few months. These human studies are consistent with other human, animal, fetal and cellular studies indicating fluoride’s neurotoxicity. FAN has compiled a list of some 314 such peer-reviewed studies (4).

Until recently the vast majority of these studies were not available to mainstream Western researchers who have relied on the PubMed search engine. Many of the articles either appeared in Chinese or in the specialist journal Fluoride (which has been excluded from Pub Med, probably for political reasons).  However, after FAN had many of the human studies translated into English they became more accessible. A major breakthrough for Western scientists came in 2012 when Choi et al (2012) published a meta-analysis of 27 studies (including those translated by FAN) that investigated a possible association between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in children. (5) The results were remarkably consistent with 26 out of 27 showing an IQ lowering of approximately 7 IQ points. The mean concentration of the fluoride concentration in the 20 studies where the source of the fluoride was water (not coal) was 3.52 ppm, which is lower than the current federally enforceable standard of 4 ppm (the MCL).

Based on the Choi et al. (2012) findings the noted public health scientists, Drs. Phillippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan, have added fluoride to the existing list of substances that cause developmental neurotoxicity. (6)

There can be no question that developmental neurotoxicity meets Congressional criteria for consideration as a “…known or anticipated adverse effect on health…” of fluoride.

Members of FAN have used data from a number of the studies on fluoride’s effect on children’s IQ in a risk analysis using standard EPA methods to estimate a possible “safe” level of exposure. Our work indicates that there may be no “safe” level of exposure to fluoride regarding developmental neurotoxicity, similar to the case of lead. Such a finding if made by the EPA would force an end to water fluoridation.

Studies from areas of China endemic for fluorosis indicate that fluoride can damage the fetal brain (7). Thus it is not clear whether the critical period of exposure as far as fluoride’s impacting human brain development is concerned occurs in the womb or after birth or both.

If EPA is to perform its duty to set fluoride drinking water levels in conformance with Congressional intent and its own Principles of Scientific Integrity (8), it must do so to protect against causing damage to children’s brains, before and after they are born.

To date despite FAN’s extensive communications with the Office of Water on this subject over several years (both in person and in writing) the personnel there have shown no evidence that they are willing to consider fluoride’s impact on the brain in their determination of a new MCLG for fluoride.

After the National Research Council reviewed fluoride’s toxicology in 2006, the panel concluded that the current MCLG and MCL (both set at 4 ppm) were not protective of health and recommended that the EPA Office of Water determine a new MCLG. Nine years later the Office of Water has still not completed this risk analysis but ominously in 2011 appeared at press conference with the Department of Health and Human Services in Jan 2011 “hinting” that they would produce an MCLG which would not threaten the fluoridation program. Their “draft” analysis indicated that they were using severe dental fluorosis as the most sensitive harmful health effect of fluoride, avoiding all mention of fluoride’s neurotoxicity.

Meanwhile, for the ordinary citizen it is bizarre that while U.S. regulatory agencies have take extensive and expensive measures to limit exposure of children to lead because it is neurotoxic, that they should standby in silence while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (in the form of the Oral Health Division of the CDC) aggressively promote the deliberate and reckless addition of fluoride – a known neurotoxic substance – to the public drinking water.

References:

1. Leg. Hist. of the Safe Water Drinking Act, 1982 p. 552

2. ibid p. 551

3. ibid p 552

4. Fluoride Action Network. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2, accessed Dec 1, 2015.

5. Choi et al. 2012. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10):1362-8.

6.  Grandjean and Landrigan. 2014. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology, 13:330–38.

7-10.  See pre-natal studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain05/

11. Principles of Scientific Integrity, online at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/epa-principles-of-scientific-integrity.pdf.

See all FAN bulletins online

Related:

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

Dangers Of Fluoride and How To Decalcify Your Pineal Gland | BeWellBuzz.com

Dr. Paul Connett on Water Fluoridation

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water: http://welcometohealth.blogspot.com/2014/09/over-4000-professionals-call-for-end-to.htm

by Joe Broadhurst/CKUT

"Water fluoridation is a peculiarly 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 these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched."

Dr. Paul Connett is the Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network and he joined Joe Broadhurst on CKUT Radio in Montreal to discuss fluoride in public drinking water.

Fluoride Gate: An American Tragedy

Here is a good fluoride documentary I hadn't seen before. I drink spring water and use non-fluoride toothpaste, baking soda, and mouthwash for my teeth. When I saw the dentist today he kept remarking on the great shape of my teeth, stating at one point: "We won't be making money off of this guy's mouth!" He also noted that my lack of health problems stands in stark contrast to most of his patients.

WeDeserveSafeWater

"A film created by Dr. David Kennedy that outlines the dangers of artificial fluoride. Of particular interest is the dangers for young children."

The film also gets into how fluoride disproportionally affects minorities. 



Related:

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

Dangers Of Fluoride and How To Decalcify Your Pineal Gland | BeWellBuzz.com

Yummy Non-fluoride Toothpaste

Drinking Baking Soda for Health Benefits | How To Improve Your Health

10 Facts About Fluoride

Related:

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

Dangers Of Fluoride and How To Decalcify Your Pineal Gland | BeWellBuzz.com

Yummy Non-fluoride Toothpaste

Dangers Of Flouride and How To Decalcify Your Pineal Gland | BeWellBuzz.com

Related:

Research Reveals Link Between Calcification of the Brain and Alzheimers Disease

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

Melatonin? Melanin? Define Pineal Gland Activation Explained!

Apex Shower Filter System for Fluoride, Hard Water, Chlorine & Chrloramine Removal

New ADHD Study, More on Thyroid Study & Latest Victories

February 28, 2015  

A New Day, Another Study

Just when you thought we wouldn’t get any more bombshells this week, a study was published yesterday linking fluoridation to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States.The study entitled, “Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association,” was published in the journal Environmental Health.  According to the authors:

“State prevalence of artificial water fluoridation in 1992 significantly positively predicted state prevalence of ADHD in 2003, 2007 and 2011, even after controlling for socioeconomic status.

A multivariate regression analysis showed that after socioeconomic status was controlled each 1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011. Overall state water fluoridation prevalence (not distinguishing between fluoridation types) was also significantly positively correlated with state prevalence of ADHD for all but one year examined.

Conclusions: Parents reported higher rates of medically-diagnosed ADHD in their children in states in which a greater proportion of people receive fluoridated water from public water supplies." 

Stay tuned for more FAN coverage of this and the thyroid study as they continue to get covered by the media, and as the pro-fluoridation lobby responds with their criticisms and propaganda. 

More Great Media Coverage of Thyroid Study

The media continues to widely cover the new study published earlier this week in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health linking fluoridation to an increase in hypothyroidism in the U.K.  Since the publication of FAN’s bulletin on the study entitled “Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England?  A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water,” the story has been covered by more mainstream media outlets then we can list.  Some include:

-WebMD

-Philadelphia Inquirer

-UK Daily Mail

-The Oregonian

-Birmingham Mail

-The New American 

Our favorite news story published since Tuesday’s great Newsweek article, was in the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday.  Two endocrinologists were interviewed and both had great quotes in opposition to fluoridation, including the following:

"This dramatic increase in thyroid dysfunction associated with fluoridation of the water supply adds to previous studies indicating that fluoride has an inhibitory effect on the thyroid gland," said Dr. Terry Davies, a professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York City.

The study "supports the argument that our water supply should be pure water and nothing else," said Davies, who is also an endocrinologist at The Mount Sinai Hospital.

A Steady Stream of Victories

February has been a very good month for the fluoride-free movement, not only due to the publication of two great studies, but also due to a steady stream of communities ending the practice, with even more on the verge:  

South Dublin, Ireland—South Dublin County Council become the 5th major council calling for an end to fluoridation in 2015 and the 10^th in the past year, collectively representing more than 2 million Irish residents.  This comes less than a month after councilors in Cavan County and the community of Galway both passed motions calling for members to register their opposition to fluoridation.

Yoshikawa, Japan—Officials in this Japanese city with 70,000 residents decided against fluoridating the drinking water after considering a fluoridation proposal for 17 years.  The proposal was defeated by a strong fluoride-free grassroots movement in combination with the election of a new Mayor who opposed the practice. 

New Brunswick, New Jersey—Councilors voted to stop using fluoride in the water supply for their 50,000 residents as part of their plans to improve the town’s infrastructure.  They felt that fluoride was readily available in other forms and that people were choosing to drink bottle water instead of tap water, making the practice a waste of money.  Also in NJ, Egg Harbor will hold a meeting on March 5 to consider ending the practice after the Water and Sewer Department Superintendent urged councilors to oppose the practice.

Boynton Beach, Florida—Town officials will no longer fluoridate the drinking water for their 70,000 residents due to the cost of updating the broken fluoride injection equipment and the limited availability of the additive.

Montello, Wisconsin—Councilors approved a motion ending fluoridation on February 12^th after contacting area dentists and learning that “a person would get more fluoride from brushing their teeth daily than by drinking a gallon of city water daily.”  The decision will save nearly $40,000 this year, and $7,000 each year.  Rice Lake, Wisconsin is also considering removing fluoride. 

Brackenridge, Pennsylvania—Councilors are discontinuing their fluoridation program because of the availability of fluoride in other forms, and because, as one councilor stated, “…it’s dangerous to work with.”  Brackenridge follows Ford, PA, which voted to end fluoridation in December.           

Arkansas Legislature—The full Arkansas House passed legislation (HB1355) that will give municipalities the ability to opt-out of the statewide fluoridation mandate, effectively reversing the policy by allowing local control on the issue.  The bill won by a vote of 60-34 despite efforts by the Arkansas Dental Association to oppose it.  The bill will now go to the Senate, where it will have a public hearing in the Health committee before being heard on the Senate floor. 

February’s Teleconference Audio

If you missed this month’s International Fluoride Free Teleconference you can now download the audio.  February’s call was dedicated to campaigners from around the world coming together to offer each other support in the effort to end fluoridation.

Click Here to Download the Audio 

You can also register for the March teleconference entitled, “Social Media: Today’s Way to Change Hearts and Minds.”  The call will take place on Saturday, March 14^th at 5PM (Eastern Time).  Register today! 

News You May Have Missed

-New York’s Fluoridation Fuss, 50 Years Later (New York)
-NYS Governor is Misled About Fluoride Safety (New York)
-In Oneida, Opposing Views Expressed on Fluoridation (New York)
-Bennington: Citizens Against Fluoridated Water Speak Out (Vermont)
-Fluoride Toxicity in Plants Irrigated With City Water (Michigan)
-Sonoma: Council Delays Stand on Fluoridation (California)
-Farmington’s Efforts to Remove Fluoridation Ordinance (Missouri)
-Rice Lake Considers Removing Fluoride (Wisconsin)
-Fluoride Committee Appointed by Topsfield Town Moderator (Massachusetts)
-Lewiston-Auburn Water Agencies to Repair Fluoride System (Maine)
-Campaign to Stop Adding Fluoride to Hull Water Supply (U.K.)
-New Push to Block Ballina Fluoridation Plan (Australia)
-Acclaimed Fluoridation Experts Touring New Zealand in February (New Zealand)

Stuart Cooper

Campaign Manager

Fluoride Action Network

Related:

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

Ten Key Papers that Challenge the Pro-fluoridation Mantra

1. Brunelle and Carlos. 1990. Recent Trends in DentalCaries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research,69(Special Issue):723-727.

2. Featherstone JD. 2000.The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), Jul; 131(7):887-99.

3. Warren JJ, et al. 2009. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes--a longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 69(2):111-15. Spring.

4. Ko L, Thiessen KM. 2014. A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.

5. Luke J. 2001. Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35(2):125-128. See also Luke’s PhD thesis click here.

6. Xiang Q, et al. 2003a. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36(2):84-94, and Xiang Q, et al. 2003b. Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study [letter]. Fluoride 36(3):198-199.

7. National Resource Council of the National Academies. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.

8. Bassin EB, et al. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control, May;17(4):421-8.

9. Choi AL, Grandjean P, et al. 2012. Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10):1362–1368.

10. Choi AL, et al. 2015. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 47:96–101.

Related:

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

Opposing Fluoridation in Canada in 2014

December 8, 2014 

James Beck PhD, MD, and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea-Green, 2010), has been in the forefront of helping communities oppose fluoridation throughout Canada. He was highly involved in successfully ending fluoridation in his hometown of Calgary, Alberta. One account of that victory noted:

… It’s as though someone turned on the tap and common sense and courage started to flow at City Hall. On Tuesday, Calgary’s city council voted overwhelmingly in favour of no longer adding the industrial waste product of fluoride to our water supply. After just two and a half hours of debate, a vote was held and 10 aldermen voted to do the right thing and stop mass-medicating 1.1 million citizens…

Common sense, courage flowing at City Hall

by Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald, February 9, 2011.

In solidarty,

Ellen Connett

Managing Director

Fluoride Action Network

___________________________________________________________________

Opposing fluoridation in Canada in 2014

By James Beck, MD, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics
University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada

2014 has been an active year in Canada in the effort to end fluoridation of public water supplies. In the provinces of Canada the decision to start or stop fluoridation is a decision of the local government, generally a town or city council. Plebiscites are not binding on councils. As yet there is no legal mandate at the provincial or federal level. This year we have seen several council decisions and plebiscite votes against fluoridation and one plebiscite vote for it by a very narrow margin. 

In addition there are promising efforts and public stirrings in opposition to fluoridation in several of our ten provinces. In the province of Ontario (our most populous) a legal action has been launched to force the Regional Council of Peel to stop fluoridation. It is a particularly interesting and pertinent challenge because it is based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The argument is in the legal context of our ethical argument against fluoridation. The result will affect all jurisdictions in Canada.

With respect to what we face in opposing fluoridation, I can add a recent event preceding a plebiscite in a small city in the Province of British Columbia. I faced the president-elect of the Canadian Dental Association in a public meeting. This practicing dentist argued with the usual safe-and-effective mantra. But the depth of ignorance—unless he was lying—was appalling. He even offered a fairy tale about the level of fluoridation in Europe and insisted that fluoride is a nutrient. This is not new, of course, but it is worthwhile to remind ourselves of what we face, as difficult as it is to believe. 

Our task is to be calm and responsible and civil in our arguments and communications. And here is where FAN helps us. Our ammunition is truth, credible research, and reason. FAN is an extremely valuable and rich source of information and useful news and more personal support. From here in Canada I can tell you that FAN is global in its relevance and in its actions.

Note from FAN: Canadian Communities rejecting fluoridation in 2014:
Huntsville, Ontario, January (population 19,100)
Lake of Bays, Ontario, January (population 3,500)
St John, New Brunswick, March 10 (population 76,550
Richmond, Québec, October 19 (population 3,300)
Prince George, British Columbia, November 15 (population 71,970)
Sparwood, British Columbia, November 15 (population 3,500)
La Prairie, Québec, December 2 (population 20,000)
For more information go to Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation

---

Fluoride Action Network Fundraising Update

We have received 91 donations for a total of $9,814. Beginning today, all donations will be doubled up to $2,500, due to a generous challenge from a FAN member.

We ask for your support to help us reach $150,000 from 1,000 donors for our 2015 operating budget.

We need each other to fight this battle, and by working together we can win!

To make a tax-deductible donation you can either:

•    Donate by using our secure online server, or

•    Donate by check (payable to Fluoride Action Network) and send to:

FAN, 104 Walnut Street, Binghamton NY 13905

See the various premiums available at different donation levels. 

Related:

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

Why Doesn't Anyone Care About Drinking Fluoride?

 

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation - Learn Why, How You Can Help Their Campaign, & How to Filter Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

FluorideAlert.org:

Professionals Statement

FAN's Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation has been signed by over 4,000 medical, dental, scientific, and environmental professionals. See the list of signatories and add your name to the list. Professionals can add their name to this statement by clicking the link below.

http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/

Take Action!

http://www.fluoridealert.org/take-action/

An Inconvenient Tooth - Fluoride Documentary



Is There Fluoride in YOUR Water? Find Out With the Fluoride Finder

http://thyroid.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/MWF/CountyDataV.asp%3FState=PA

Alternatively:

Testing for Fluoride In Drinking Water

If you are billed for your water by a local water system/district, contact your community water district to determine whether your water is fluoridated and the level of fluoride in your water. Check your water district billing statement for the utility’s contact information.

http://fluorideworks.org/community/my_water/

The two sites above are helpful, but misinformed about the danger of drinking Fluoride, as detailed in the first two resources above.

Filtering Fluoride From Your Drinking Water Controversy

The Berkey fluoride water filter uses a time tested method that was developed to reduce fluoride in your drinking water. Berkey developed this filter to address the concerns of the many who find the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water questionable or unacceptable. Fluoride has been deliberately added to many municipal water supplies since the 1950's. This common practice is now becoming more controversial to say the least. New reports and studies about the harmful effects of adding fluoride to drinking water are emerging. The health and hygiene benefits of applying fluoride directly to the surface of teeth are a well known and seldom disputed. The dispute begins with fluoride that has been added to drinking water only comes in contact with the teeth for a very short amount of time and in a very diluted form. After this contact the fluoride is than swallowed and the human body is subject to the well known ill effects of the fluoride compound for hours after ingestion. Critics claim that in this age of high fluoride tooth pastes that are correctly applied directly to the surface of the tooth, the benefits of fluoride in the water supply are negligible and quite possibly unnecessary. Berkey fluoride water filter allows you to make this decision about your health for yourself by reducing the amount of fluoride in your water by 95%...

Berkey Fluoride Water Filter- PF2
Regular Price: $61.00
Special Price: $54.00

http://www.berkeyfilters.com/berkey-water-filters/specialty-filters/fluoride.html

"A film created by Dr. David Kennedy that outlines the dangers of artificial fluoride. Of particular interest is the dangers for young children."

The film also gets into how fluoride disproportionally affects minorities. 

Iodine Protects Against Fluoride Toxicity

Fluoride Gate: An American Tragedy

Dangers Of Flouride and How To Decalcify Your Pineal Gland | BeWellBuzz.com

We invite your group to become a founding member of the Worldwide Alliance To End Fluoridation

Fluoride-Free Toothpaste That Rebuilds, Hardens, and Strengthens Enamel to Reduce Sensitivity by Repairing Enamel

ProPur ProMax Shower Filter w/ massage head - Reduces and removes over 200 contaminants from shower water, including: heavy metals, VOCs, pesticides, fluoride, chlorine, pharmaceuticals, and odors.