The Fluoride Debate

HOME

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY/
ENVIRONMENT

CENSORSHIP

THE FLUORIDE
DEBATE

BENEFITS
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6
Question 7
Question 8

ALTERNATIVES
Question 9
Question 10
Question 11
Question 12


SAFETY
Question 13
Question 14

OVERDOSE
Question 15
Question 16
Question 17

DISEASES
Question 18
Question 19
Question 20
Question 21
Question 22
Question 23
Question 24
Question 25
Question 26
Question 27
Question 28
Question 29
Question 30
Question 31
Question 32
Question 33

PUBLIC
POLICY

Question 34
Question 35
Question 36
Question 37
Question 38
Question 39
Question 40

COST
EFFECTIVENESS
Question 41
Question 42
Question 43

CONCLUSION

HISTORY / ENVIRONMENT

Why would anyone want to put fluoride in the water if it didn't reduce tooth decay? How did this theory get started and who stands to gain by it?

The aluminum, steel and fertilizer industries all produce toxic hazardous waste by-products called silicofluorides, which are much more toxic than lead, almost as toxic as arsenic, and contain some of both. Today, they can only be disposed of in expensive toxic waste dumps. Prior to "fluoridation" these companies spent a fortune disposing of this waste, and paying for damages to livestock and the environment. (See 0-1: "Fluoridation Revisited," by Dr. Murray N. Rothbard, Professor of Economics, University of Nevada, from The New American, 12/14/92. Also, see 0-2 and 0-3: copies of various Congressional Records, which speak of the problems that were encountered then, and are still occurring today).

"Alcoa's Vancouver, Washington plant was found guilty of dumping 1,000 to 7,000 pounds of fluoride poison each month into the Columbia River ... The fluoride contaminated the grass and forage and resulted in injury and death to cattle." Seattle Times, Dec. 16, 1952.

At Vancouver, disposal of 1,000 to 7,000 pounds of fluoride per month was considered pollution. Yet, if city officials dump as much or more fluoride into municipal water supplies (5,000 pounds a day in San Francisco) it is called a "health measure."

Dr. Edward Groth, III said:

"As a pollutant, fluoride has sufficiently severe effects, and is wide-spread enough, that the American Association for the Advancement of Science named fluoride the third most serious air pollutant in the country, (after SO2 and ozone) in December 1966. ... Over fifty industries were involved."

"Shortly after the U.S. Public Health Service began promoting the fluoridation of water supplies, they stopped reporting levels of airborne fluorides. ... Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that fluoride is potentially the most expensive pollutant industry has to deal with. ... When industrial plants are required to keep fluoride out of the air, they take the next cheapest route and dump it into the water."

"The question of fluoridation should be carefully evaluated in reference to what is known about fluoride pollution. Fluoride is added to water supplies in amounts far larger than concentrations that are known to be harmful in the air in order to reduce cavities in children's teeth." (See 0-4: "Air Is Fluoridated," Dr. Edward Groth III, former Senior Staff Officer, Environmental Studies Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C.)

F. B. Exner, M.D., F.A.C.R., stated: "The one utterly relentless force behind fluoridation is American 'big industry' and the motive is not profit as such, but fear. Fear of colossal damage suits, and fear that official intervention will begin to mushroom wherever fluoride devastates air, water, soil and all forms of life. Added to this is fear of forfeiting the legally permissible level for dumping fluoride wastes into water supplies which is presently in effect for the specific purpose of accommodating industry." (See 0-5: Another Fluoride Pollution Bombshell, Betty G. T. Franklin, Jan. 1968).

"As we approach the close of the first century, history appears to repeat itself, in that environment is again given prominence in the causation of disease involving man's management of the health hazards connected with air pollution, stream pollution, fluoridation (our emphasis) and radiation." Walter L. Bierring, M.D., Past President of American Medical Association, and Director of the State of Iowa Department of Health, Journal of American Medical Association, 12/19/59.

Laws controlling the disposal of toxic wastes do not permit the industries creating these fluorides to release them into the environment. However, the "laundering" process of fluoridation allows these same toxins to be spread indiscriminately on lawns and gardens, incorporated into processed foods, and released by the ton into water and air, in sewer effluent and sludge. In other words, their solution to pollution is dilution.

Download
The Fluoride
Debate

as a .pdf

What is a .pdf?
It is an electronic file that is an e-book version of this website. Please be sure to have Adobe Acrobat's Plug-in installed for your internet browser so that you may view it.

 

 

NOTICE

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.


This site and accompanying book is published by
Health Way House | 403 Marcos St | San Marcos, CA 92069

First Edition
February 2001

This information provided on this site was compiled by
Anita Shattuck | Tel: 760-752-1621 | bakeranita@cox.net

This site and accompanying book was edited by
Edward Bennett

Site Builder: Michelle@Jabbocat Consulting