| By Michael Barbee |
| This article has been viewed 6078 times. |
How about the small amount of fluoride compounds added to water
supplies to bring the total fluoride content to about one part per
million in order to prevent tooth decay? Too little to do any harm?
First, fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on earth, on par
with arsenic and lead. It has no proven biological use inside the human
body (teeth included). There is no minimum daily requirement for
fluoride. And second, it is a cumulative poison. Only about half of
what we consume is excreted. The other half collects in the teeth and
bones, making them dense, but brittle. Those little white spots visible
on the teeth of many children are called dental fluorosis, a condition
which not only predisposes them to decay, but also provides a sign that
systemic fluoride poisoning is taking place. Dental fluorosis appears
to serve as a red flag for future bone fractures as well.
The neurotoxic nature of fluoride is also linked to motor
dysfunction, IQ deficits and learning disabilities. In the year 2000,
a group of Boston physicians concluded: "Studies in animals and human
populations suggest that fluoride exposure, at levels that are
experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking
water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain."
An interesting question is: How did we get tricked into poisoning
ourselves in the first place? Fluoride was crucial to the H-bomb
makers. It was needed to help process uranium; tons of it were needed.
During the mid-1940s the DuPont Corporation supplied the U. S.
military's Manhattan Project with the fluoride it required. There was a
big problem, however. The area in New Jersey surrounding the DuPont
plant was being contaminated by toxic fluoride emissions. People were
made ill, cattle and horses were crippled, and crops were either
contaminated or completely wiped out.
In preparation for an impending court battle--and to head off any
negative publicity which might negatively impact the fluoride/bomb
production--the Manhattan Project authorized the military to conduct its
own fluoride studies. Not only did they want information which would
help diffuse the farmer's anger, but they also needed to know to what
extent the fluoride workers were being damaged from fluoride exposure.
Some of the lab studies were performed at Strong Memorial Hospital,
the same facility which injected toxic, radioactive plutonium into
unsuspecting human guinea pigs. Research from that time showed that
fluoride had a negative impact on the central nervous system. This
corroborates recent research showing the same thing--to the extent that
the IQ's of children in fluoridated areas are lower than normal. Other
information and studies from the 1940's are apparently still
"classified" or have "disappeared."
The aluminium industry was also eager to get the fluoride bandwagon
rolling. They had been marketing their fluoride waste as a rat poison
and insecticide and were looking for a larger market. Therefore, a
ten-year test was planned to prove to the public that fluoride in water
would reduce the incidence of cavities. Before the test was completed as
planned, and despite the fact that there was no clear evidence that
fluoride was either safe or effective, water fluoridation was declared a
triumph for public health.
Today, when fluoride's safety is questioned, people with legitimate
concerns are often treated with disdain. They are told that fluoride in
"optimal" amounts is safe--the studies say so. The promoters and
defenders of this toxin need to be asked: "What studies?" When old
and/or faulty research (by today's standards) is tossed out, including
that from other countries like England's recent York Review (of
fluoridation) in which important data was omitted or misinterpreted,
there remain no reliable studies confirming the safety of water
fluoridation. None. Zero. Not even are there any double-blind studies
showing fluoride's effectiveness. There are, however, over 500
peer-reviewed studies showing adverse effects from fluoride.
Hardy Limebeck, head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for
the University of Toronto, once belonged to a group of dental
professionals giving talks to promote the benefits of water
fluoridation. He was one of Canada's primary promoters of public
fluoridation--until he began to take a closer look at the research. Now
he states: "For the past 15 years, I had refused to study the
toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning
our children was the furthest thing from my mind."
He adds: "Your well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50
years of misinformation from public health and the dental association.
Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong."
Excerpted from "Politically Incorrect Nutrition" by Michael Barbee (Vital Health Publishing)
supplies to bring the total fluoride content to about one part per
million in order to prevent tooth decay? Too little to do any harm?
First, fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on earth, on par
with arsenic and lead. It has no proven biological use inside the human
body (teeth included). There is no minimum daily requirement for
fluoride. And second, it is a cumulative poison. Only about half of
what we consume is excreted. The other half collects in the teeth and
bones, making them dense, but brittle. Those little white spots visible
on the teeth of many children are called dental fluorosis, a condition
which not only predisposes them to decay, but also provides a sign that
systemic fluoride poisoning is taking place. Dental fluorosis appears
to serve as a red flag for future bone fractures as well.
The neurotoxic nature of fluoride is also linked to motor
dysfunction, IQ deficits and learning disabilities. In the year 2000,
a group of Boston physicians concluded: "Studies in animals and human
populations suggest that fluoride exposure, at levels that are
experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking
water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain."
An interesting question is: How did we get tricked into poisoning
ourselves in the first place? Fluoride was crucial to the H-bomb
makers. It was needed to help process uranium; tons of it were needed.
During the mid-1940s the DuPont Corporation supplied the U. S.
military's Manhattan Project with the fluoride it required. There was a
big problem, however. The area in New Jersey surrounding the DuPont
plant was being contaminated by toxic fluoride emissions. People were
made ill, cattle and horses were crippled, and crops were either
contaminated or completely wiped out.
In preparation for an impending court battle--and to head off any
negative publicity which might negatively impact the fluoride/bomb
production--the Manhattan Project authorized the military to conduct its
own fluoride studies. Not only did they want information which would
help diffuse the farmer's anger, but they also needed to know to what
extent the fluoride workers were being damaged from fluoride exposure.
Some of the lab studies were performed at Strong Memorial Hospital,
the same facility which injected toxic, radioactive plutonium into
unsuspecting human guinea pigs. Research from that time showed that
fluoride had a negative impact on the central nervous system. This
corroborates recent research showing the same thing--to the extent that
the IQ's of children in fluoridated areas are lower than normal. Other
information and studies from the 1940's are apparently still
"classified" or have "disappeared."
The aluminium industry was also eager to get the fluoride bandwagon
rolling. They had been marketing their fluoride waste as a rat poison
and insecticide and were looking for a larger market. Therefore, a
ten-year test was planned to prove to the public that fluoride in water
would reduce the incidence of cavities. Before the test was completed as
planned, and despite the fact that there was no clear evidence that
fluoride was either safe or effective, water fluoridation was declared a
triumph for public health.
Today, when fluoride's safety is questioned, people with legitimate
concerns are often treated with disdain. They are told that fluoride in
"optimal" amounts is safe--the studies say so. The promoters and
defenders of this toxin need to be asked: "What studies?" When old
and/or faulty research (by today's standards) is tossed out, including
that from other countries like England's recent York Review (of
fluoridation) in which important data was omitted or misinterpreted,
there remain no reliable studies confirming the safety of water
fluoridation. None. Zero. Not even are there any double-blind studies
showing fluoride's effectiveness. There are, however, over 500
peer-reviewed studies showing adverse effects from fluoride.
Hardy Limebeck, head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for
the University of Toronto, once belonged to a group of dental
professionals giving talks to promote the benefits of water
fluoridation. He was one of Canada's primary promoters of public
fluoridation--until he began to take a closer look at the research. Now
he states: "For the past 15 years, I had refused to study the
toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning
our children was the furthest thing from my mind."
He adds: "Your well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50
years of misinformation from public health and the dental association.
Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong."
Excerpted from "Politically Incorrect Nutrition" by Michael Barbee (Vital Health Publishing)
All rights reserved. Any reproducing of this article must have the author name and all the links intact.
No comments:
Post a Comment