Boston TV Station Reports Dangers Of Fluoride In Water

By on March 16, 2010 in News 13

Boston’s WCVB TV reports on suspicious sodium fluoride being added to local water supplies. The video clip shown below has some overlays from a viewer with deeper concerns than those expressed in the report:

, , ,

  • http://www.myspace.com/caramelcorpse Schweí K. Übersteigen

    Are you kidding me!? I thought this was gonna talk about the very fact they're even putting fluoride in water (and in unsuspecting people's toothpaste!)! Fluoridated-water was originally served to prisoners to keep them lazy, complacent, and easier to control!
    Fluoride whitens teeth but weakens them considerably over time! Thus forcing people to spend large amounts of money on Dentistry and oral hygiene products (Why I buy the shit that contains no fluoride or horrible chemicals)!
    And guess what the main ingredient in Rat Poison is!..Yeah. Fluoride!

    • jamacanmecrzy

      Thanks to you I'm switching to no-fluoride toothpaste. And water? What to do about that! Buy bottled, boil water, fill rain drums (which is a naturally great way to save and conserve water)?

      • http://www.myspace.com/caramelcorpse Schweí K. Übersteigen

        Me and my wife have a filtration system on our house (what probably still doesn't get it all out of our drinking water),
        I don't trust bottled water ether because not only does many bottled water products also contain fluoride, but most all contain traces of Arsenic! …Switch to beers n' vodka maybe? lol.

        But if people think I'm nuts, be sure to read whats on the fucking of bag of fluoride 6 seconds into this video!..
        “DANGER! POISON- TOXIC BY INGESTION!” “DO NOT GET IN EYES OR ON SKIN!” “DO NOT INGEST OR INHALE!”

    • oman28

      It is actually sodium fluoride.

      • annonymous-man

        Yes, and my girlfriend uses a rat poison (warfarin) to counteract her abnormally thick blood and to keep it from clotting.

  • oman28

    Unfortunately most people don't realise that the solitary term “fluoride” is quite meaningless. Any fluoride is by nature a compound chemical formed by fluorine (a highly toxic and pungent gas) and some other molecule. For example fluorine + calcium = calcium fluoride and because fluorine is quite a promiscuous molecule there are many 'fluorides' out there each one a different chemical compound. This is indisputable scientific fact. Sodium fluoride is a poison – again indisputable fact. The pro fluoridation lobby claim it is OK to add a poison to a water supply (or a toothpaste) as long as it is not too much. WTF? Other fluorides are waste products from the fertiliser production industry and are routinely added to water supplies under the guise of promoting dental health. If fluorides such as sodium fluoride in toothpaste work then why do we need it in our water supply?

    • http://www.myspace.com/caramelcorpse Schweí K. Übersteigen

      Your very informative and appreciated!

      “…why do we need it in our water supply?”
      Yeah, that's truly scary to me!

  • 5by5

    Most people think that what they are adding is simply some more of the naturally occurring fluoride into our water, in order to protect our teeth. The industry claims that it's no big deal because fluoride is naturally present in water as ions. It claims that these ions are the same whether acquired by water as it seeps through rocks or added to the water supply by industry. Problem is, they don't obtain the fluoridation through ionization in PRACTICE.

    Chemicals used to fluoridate 90% of the nation's drinking water are actually industrial grade hazardous wastes captured in the air-pollution-control scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry, called silicofluorides. These are industrial products never found naturally in water or living organisms. In fact they are toxic enough to be used in rat poison and insecticides.

    For instance, most of the fluoride in Los Angeles' water supply actually comes from chemical plants in Florida. Also, it should be noted as well, that there are actually many different types of fluoride, and the particular type added does different things to the body's internal systems. The California Code of Regulations lists 39 fluoride compounds classified as hazardous wastes. The Lucier Chemical Industry Ltd's own study from 1990 revealed in their content specs for hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6 – a the particular type of fluoride product often put into our water), that “A typical batch of commercial grade fluoridation product is 24% hydrofluorosilicic acid and 76% waste water which contains varying amounts of heavy metals.” Also used are Sodium Fluoride (NaF), Sodium Fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6), and Calcium Fluoride (CaF2).

    In terms of relative toxicity, for comparison, let's look at the regs about other chemicals and heavy metals. In 1987, the maximum level of arsenic allowed in water was 50 parts per billion (ppb). The maximum level of lead permitted was 15 ppb.

    So how much fluoride was considered “safe”? Only a mere 4 ppm (parts per MILLION) and earlier recommendations prior to corporate influence were even lower – 1 ppm.

    In other words, fluoride is still considered more toxic than ARSENIC.

    Fluoride is basically a highly toxic poison. Thus the warning that if your child swallows even a little over the amount of toothpaste on an average brush, that you should take them to the Poison Control Center – and yet you have taken in much more than that over the years in just your drinking water. The FDA even classifies fluoride is a prescription drug, not a mineral nutrient. Yet it is put into our water supply, where there can be no control as to dosage. Gee, that's mighty odd.

    The science on this has revealed that there is no benefit for tooth enamel via fluoride ingestion. Indeed the CDC's own study in 2000 revealed that 90% of tooth decay comes from fissures in the tooth's surface that aren't responsive to fluoride anyways, and that if it's taken in significant dosage, it can cause skeletal fluorosis (basically bone weakness/fractures).

    Silicofluorides also have other effects when ingested. A Dartmouth Foundation for Neuroscience and Society study of 280,000 children in Massachusetts revealed that the inclusion of silicofluorides like Sodium Fluorosilicate that are widely used in water fluoridation treatment throughout the country, significantly increased the children's absorption of lead. Children in communities that used that particular type of fluoridation were over twice as likely to have dangerous levels of lead in their blood. Lead is of course linked with learning disabilities, but it also increases hyperactivity, and the likelihood of other drug abuse. A separate survey of 151,000 children in New York collected from data obtained by the New York State Department of Children's Health from 1994-1998 revealed the same thing – kids with blood lead poisoning.

    The largest study on tooth decay ever conducted in America was performed by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987. It found no significant reduction in decay rates in children surveyed in 84 cities. PS. that study cost taxpayers $3.6 million dollars.

    A Chemical and Engineering News abstract of a Brain Research Study from 1998 revealed that test animals treated with the same amounts of fluoridation as is used commercially in our water supply, suffered neural injury and increased deposits of B-amyloid protein in the brain, something which is characteristic of humans suffering from Alzheimer's Disease.

    Even if the parts per billion are low in any particular test sample, the fact is that ingesting the stuff over many years could create an aggregate toxicity that outweighs the seemingly small trace amounts permitted under the regulations. What may be a trace amount over the span of a couple months becomes a huge impact on your body systems when ingested repeatedly for 20-30 years.

    So if adding it to the water it doesn't provide any health benefits, and if there are no safety standards for its inclusion in the water as was revealed in April 1998 by the EPA Director of the Office of Science and Technology, then why does this stuff continue to get added to the water?

    I think the answer is that corporations simply want to avoid the disposal fees associated with proper remediation of what is in fact a toxic waste byproduct of manufacturing fertilizers.

    So they promote this as necessary additive, and literally poison the water, rather than pay a fee. Yup, that sounds about par for the course…..

    See, according to federal regulations, if a fluoridation substance is given away, it is classified as a hazardous waste, requiring remediation and proper disposal. BUT, if it is sold for transportation costs or a token fee, it is considered a product.

    Seems that when these companies like Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., or Cargill Fertilizer were required to control the environmental emissions of fluorine-containing vapors, they then, rather than properly disposing of the stuff, decided that they had to find a new market for the recovered fluorine, and “Voila!” you got their fluoride by-products in your water being spun as “healthy”.

    The history on this is interesting too.

    Turns out that back in 1943, the September issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association stated flatly that fluorides are protoplasmic poisons that inhibit enzyme systems, and that water containing even 1 part per million (ppm) or more fluoride is undesirable. This was the AMA's stand on fluoridation shortly before the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed nationwide fluoridation. Now why would the Public Health Service suddenly endorse inserting this medically classified poison into the water?

    Well it seems that not long after Oscar Ewing, an Alcoa Aluminum lawyer, became head of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1947. Alcoa was one of the biggest producers of hazardous fluoride waste at that time. Today, it is the phosphate fertilizer industries.

    Back in the day, Ewing ordered a fluoride experiment to be conducted on Americans (without their consent, I might add), then tried to claim that he found a 70% reduction in tooth decay in the communities tested. Newburgh, NY was the test community, and Kingston NY was the control. As Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19 reported, the New York State Department of Health's 1989 study showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh's kids actually have a HIGHER rate of tooth decay (63.2%) than un-fluoridated Kingston (41.7%) does.

    So how did Ewing come up with the stat of a 70% reduction in tooth decay? By fudging the numbers, of course.

    They ignored the fact that fluoride interferes with proper growth of children's permanent teeth, which causes the new teeth to grow in later than normal. Teeth that have not yet emerged cannot decay, therefore, at first (at age 6) the fluoridated Newburgh children had 100% less tooth decay, by age 7 also 100% less, age 8 – 67% less, age 9 – 50% less, and by age 10 – 40% less. Realizing their experiment was going downhill, Ewing stopped the experiment early, totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70%. Had the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30%, 20%, 0%, and eventually these children had more cavities — not less.

    But hey, the chemical/fertilizer/aluminum industry got to dump their crap without paying for it, so… BONUS!

    Pfft.

    Typical results from the revolving door between corporations and government. This perhaps was just one of the early examples of the pattern we've seen repeated by the coal industry, or energy companies like Enron, or banking corporations, oil corporations, etc….. Rinse, lather, repeat.

    If you want to read some more on this, I'd also suggest a visit to the Library (that place with all the “analog” books) to find the following:

    “Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” by George Glasser, July 22, 1991.
    “New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits,” by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989.
    “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” by J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, May 1, 1999.

    • Word Eater

      I enjoyed reading your post and all of the information you provided. We have water delivered in water-cooler style bottles once a month and use a water cooler to refill plastic bottles. Hopefully, we are relatively free of ingested fluoride.
      You aren't supposed to swallow fluoride toothpaste, so why would I want to drink it?

      That said, I have an issue with some of your math.

      “In terms of relative toxicity, for comparison, let's look at the regs about other chemicals and heavy metals. In 1987, the maximum level of arsenic allowed in water was 50 parts per billion (ppb). The maximum level of lead permitted was 15 ppb.

      So how much fluoride was considered “safe”? Only a mere 4 ppm (parts per MILLION) and earlier recommendations prior to corporate influence were even lower – 1 ppm.

      In other words, fluoride is still considered more toxic than ARSENIC.”

      4 ppm = 4,000 ppb which is way more than 50 ppb.

      The allowable amount of fluoride is 80 times higher than the allowable amount of arsenic. Even if you drop to the old value of 1 ppm, it is still 20 times higher than the arsenic amount.

      Fluoride is considered LESS toxic than arsenic by your numbers.

      • 5by5

        You are quite correct, and the mistake was entirely mine. During my write up and all the research, my brain simply blurred million and billion. Apologies.

        That said, as you mentioned, if swallowing a teaspoon of in merits a trip to the Poison Control Center, what does drinking it every day for 40-50 years do to one's system?

        I think many of the illnesses we encounter in modern life are the result of aggregate toxicity. Dow Chemical is probably scientifically correct when they say that propylene glycol (also used as a chemical intermediate in the production of resins for paints and varnishes, printing ink solvents, hydraulic fluids, to make antifreeze, heat-transfer fluids and aircraft deicing fluids) is safe in the small amounts allowed by the FDA (though it should be added that it is barred from use in food in Europe because of cancer risks), but what is the net result when you consider that not only is it in every shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, toothpaste, perfume, lotion, etc. that you slather on your body every day, and is also in food coloring, which is in virtually every pre-processed food product you consume? Could it be a contributor to the rise in hypothyroidism?

        The point I would make is that too much of the science in this regard is still operating on that old Cartesian clockwork model, where you can separate the parts and examine them independent of the main device, while the truth of life is that it is a complex SYSTEM full of intertwining connections that yield impacts greater than the sum of their parts.

        Chemical A may be fine on it's own, but what happens when it's combined with Chemical B, C, and D?

  • PROPAGANDADESTROYER

    its very sick, ive seen people protest when a town decides to REMOVE the fluoride. people are brainwashed. they love being poisoned, and willfully accepting it. a simple google search should make anyone in their right mind not want fluoride in their water. i live in akron ohio, the water out here tastes like chemicals…. straight up.

  • ebwolf

    I'm fortunate enough to live in a rustic area and have access to a mountain stream for drinking water, so no worries there. But will someone please explain what's up with the toothpaste? What kinds are (relatively speaking) non-poisonous?

  • 5by5

    You are quite correct, and the mistake was entirely mine. During my write up and all the research, my brain simply blurred million and billion. Apologies.

    That said, as you mentioned, if swallowing a teaspoon of in merits a trip to the Poison Control Center, what does drinking it every day for 40-50 years do to one’s system?

    I think many of the illnesses we encounter in modern life are the result of aggregate toxicity. Dow Chemical is probably scientifically correct when they say that propylene glycol (also used as a chemical intermediate in the production of resins for paints and varnishes, printing ink solvents, hydraulic fluids, to make antifreeze, heat-transfer fluids and aircraft deicing fluids) is safe in the small amounts allowed by the FDA (though it should be added that it is barred from use in food in Europe because of cancer risks), but what is the net result when you consider that not only is it in every shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, toothpaste, perfume, lotion, etc. that you slather on your body every day, and is also in food coloring, which is in virtually every pre-processed food product you consume? Could it be a contributor to the rise in hypothyroidism?

    The point I would make is that too much of the science in this regard is still operating on that old Cartesian clockwork model, where you can separate the parts and examine them independent of the main device, while the truth of life is that it is a complex SYSTEM full of intertwining connections that yield impacts greater than the sum of their parts.

    Chemical A may be fine on it’s own, but what happens when it’s combined with Chemical B, C, and D?