Do you think fluoride should be added to public water sources? / LJWorld.com

Previous Next

Asked at Massachusetts Street on August 11, 2007

“Absolutely, because it’s very important for the enamel on your teeth. It helps lower the long-term costs of health care.”

— Debbie Smith, regional sales manager, Shawnee

“I always thought it was good for your teeth. But if there are enough people out there saying that it’s not, then I think the government needs to allocate some resources to determine if they should or not.”

— Aaron Butell, call center supervisor, Lawrence

“I guess it depends on how bad the potential negative side effects are and whether they outweigh the positive effects.”

— Ashley Langford, Kansas University pharmacy student, Lawrence

“I don’t know why it shouldn’t. I’ve never known anyone who has been negatively affected by it.”

— Ken Campbell, store owner, Lawrence

KU prof among hundreds demanding hearings on fluoride

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

Danny_4 (anonymous) says…

Dumping diluted Toxic Industrial Litter into Drinking-Water Supply is sheer Lunacy.
As Ratepayers, people have a basic right to a safe & clean supply!
There are Indeed Negative Health Impacts from such Insane Practice.
What does one expect from a Toxic Waste?
No Thanks!
August 11, 2007 at 3:15 a.m.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…

And this is why I sojourn here,
Alone and palely loitering,
Though the sedge is wither'd from the lake,
And no birds sing.
August 11, 2007 at 7:16 a.m.
nyscof (anonymous) says…

Many people have been harmed from fluoride. Read "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," by a distinguished KU retired professor, Albert Burgstahler, PhD.

It should not be so hard to believe that some people are allergic to or intolerant of fluoride. We all know that people can be sensitive to many "normal" things like milk and peanuts. Why should fluoride be any different.
In fact, it's adverse effects and/or side effects are listed in the Physicians' Desk Reference - which lists side effects of most drugs. A major problem is that fluoride is attached to politics and most physicians have not been trained to discern fluoride's adverse effects.

Here are some here: http://www.fluorideaction.net/health

Find out more
Fluoridation 101
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

Fluoridation News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu

Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net

Fluoride Journal http://www.FluorideResearch.Org
August 11, 2007 at 7:24 a.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

Maybe that is the problem, that the public has not been educated enough in the harmful effects of flouride. Obviously for those who search for it on the internet, the research of the harmful effects of flouride are abundant and credible.

What we need now, without the help of mainstream media, since they seem disinterested in reporting all this research, is to find a way to educate the public in such a manner that they are not able to miss it, grocerystore checkouts where people generally wait, gas stations, postal avenues. Get Wal-mart on the band-wagon, for they are seriously trying to save public face while they continue their unethical practices.

We get flouride in toothpaste, mouthwashes, on and in our foods. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it should be put in our drinking water.

How much does it cost Lawrence a year to flouridate our water? I wanna know.
How much money would Lawrence save if they just stopped buying flouride for drinking water?

What does bathing in flouride do to the largest organ in our body, the skin?
Dentists are unwilling to address that issue, and I have called them on it. Wonder why?
August 11, 2007 at 8:02 a.m.
Stew (anonymous) says…

A simple question requiring no education is how does one regulate the amount needed for individuals. For example, if a toddler and an adult drink the same size glass of water is the amount of flouride in the water the right concentration for each individual. A question that does require some education is does the flouride interact with other chemicals in the diet of the indivual which could lead to future problems.
August 11, 2007 at 8:45 a.m.
conservativepunker (anonymous) says…

Commie Plot! Commie Plot! Come on folks, people have been freaking about flouridated water since the 1950s.......
August 11, 2007 at 9:03 a.m.
nbnozzy (anonymous) says…

I've been drinking Lawrence's flourinated water since 1971 and my teeth are in great shape. I do know a lot of farm and rural people who have used well water for as many years and now have rotted teeth or are now wearing dentures. I do believe the benefits of flouride in the drinking water vastly outweigh any negative side effects.
August 11, 2007 at 9:23 a.m.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

Protect your precious bodily fluids.
August 11, 2007 at 9:33 a.m.
Pywacket (anonymous) says…

Yes! LSD, as well. And chocolate should be added to milk, rum to Coke, vodka to lemonade, and Bailey's to coffee.

Nexsht queshtion....
August 11, 2007 at 10:03 a.m.
Dracul (Bill Chapman) says…

As I have stated before, every thing is toxic! The level of use needed to harm/ kill is what determines the lethality of the toxin.
I do believe that the inclusion of fluoride in water should be stopped though. There are many different types of fluoride and even chemically pure elements have different isotopes that can change how they will effect a person's health. I also do not like the big brother attitude that is behind the fluoridation idea. The idea is: fluoride has (supposedly) been proven to be good for dental health, so by adding it to city water systems will help the public's' dental health.

My question is though, fluoride may be good for the teeth, but is it good for the rest of the body?

Also, could fluoride be a substance that has long term problems when built up in body tissues?
There was an article in Discover magazine about the way chemicals could interact with mice; the chemicals could "turn on" or "turn off" genetic cues that would cause changes in the mices' offspring. Specifically, the mice used were mice bred to be obese and diabetic, with the introduction of certain chemicals into a pregnant mouses' food, the offspring of the mouse were no longer had diabetic OR obese tendencies. This study was limited to mice, but what if humans had similar trigger chemicals? How many of the current diseases are due to something our parents ate before we were born? With the amount of chemical additives in food today I'm almost scared to eat any sort of packaged food.
August 11, 2007 at 10:45 a.m.
BigDog (anonymous) says…

If you go to websites that are opposed to fluoride in water ...... wow you find out why they are opposed. For every website that talks of the dangers of fluoride there is a website that speaks of the benefits.

Why is it that most dentists are in support of fluoride in water? Are they conspiring against us? I would talk to your dentist about the benefits and possible dangers of fluoride ......... unless they are in on this big conspiracy too.
August 11, 2007 at 10:53 a.m.
sgtwolverine (anonymous) says…

I think they should add a hint of lemon to the water.

What's with the four million OTS questions today?
http://www2.ljworld.com/onthestreet/
August 11, 2007 at 10:53 a.m.
BigDog (anonymous) says…

sgtwolverine

How about a hint of rum? We might be a happier society then ....... its worth a try.
August 11, 2007 at 11:04 a.m.
Ceallach (anonymous) says…

flouride? I'm with the Nobel winner, it's obsolete. Also, sgt, lemon is so "yesterday" . . . it should be a hint of lime, donchaknow :) It doesn't matter to me, I don't drink Lawrence water unless there is no bottled or filtered option. I find little comfort in reading the city's little pamphlets, conveniently enclosed in my bill, about all the govt requirements they are meeting.
August 11, 2007 at 11:27 a.m.
prospector (anonymous) says…

I don't think about it.

Sarge, the students are back LJW issue. Just packed with everything you want or don't want to know about KU.
August 11, 2007 at 11:32 a.m.
sgtwolverine (anonymous) says…

Ceal, don't you remember? You put the lime in the Coke! Besides, even if lemon is "yesterday," it's also "tomorrow," because that lime thing is just a passing fad. Lemon is a classic.

Thanks, prospector.
August 11, 2007 at 11:38 a.m.
Pywacket (anonymous) says…

Ceal & Sgt~ get with the program, youse guyz! The cool people prefer a hint of fresh pink grapefruit juice and a tiny splash of pomegranate in their drinking water, with lightly bruised lavender buds and cold-pressed apricot oil in the bath. By next week, these tips will be considered quaint, as we will be moving on to something dizzyingly new.
August 11, 2007 at 11:46 a.m.
Godot (anonymous) says…

Wouldn't it be ironic if it were determined that the buildup of flouride in the body contributes to weight gain?
August 11, 2007 at 11:57 a.m.
canyon_wren (anonymous) says…

I am opposed to fluoridation of public water supplies. The money saved could be used to provide fluoride tablets free to people and families who believe fluoride is beneficial. What a waste to put it in water that will be used on lawns, in toilets, laundry, etc.!

I personally believe that the medical/dental community will be forced to acknowledge its ultimate harm. Big Dog, you ask why most dentists recommend it? For the same reason that for years every doctor almost insisted that women approaching menopause should be taking hormones. It's no secret that a lot of doctors receive "rewards" for recommending certain drugs, etc. Doctors finally have had to acknowledge that the hormone therapy caused cancer. The same thing will happen with some (if not all) statins, which some studies show that, rather than preventing Alzheimer's, are contributing to its increase. The medical/dental community doesn't know everything--they don't claim to, of course, but it takes a lot of time for them to admit that what seems good in early usage turns out to be very negative in its long-term effect.

Health issues aside, the sheer economic waste of putting fluoride in public drinking water makes it ridiculous. Since so many people are buying bottled water now; let the marketers sell a selection with fluoride in it for those who think it is so great.
August 11, 2007 at 12:10 p.m.
Ceallach (anonymous) says…

Godot, so I can eat a blizzard without guilt because its the blasted flouride that's the problem? Oh, I guess that won't work cuz I just posted that I seldom drink the water :\ Me and my big mouth . . or would that be finger tips?

Py, thanks for the update, I do soooo strive to be counted among the "cool." Bruising the lavender buds seems a little too violent for me, but if that's what it takes . . .
August 11, 2007 at 12:10 p.m.
kansasdaughter (anonymous) says…

I stopped drinking tap water in 1990. My children (17 & 22 y.o.) have never had a cavity, never had a flouride treatment, and have not consumed tap water in great amounts. I read about flouride toxicity in 1990, while pregnant, and decided then to eliminate it from my family's diet. I had to tell our dentist that I did not want my children to have flouride treatments-he was shocked to the point of speechlessness when I told him that it is toxic waste and has no place in the human body. He thought I was a kook:oh well.
To those who poo-poo this 'conspiracy theory'; do yourselves and your families' a favor and just read up on the subject, analyze what you read, and form your own conclusions. There are some really good links posted in the related article, read them.

IMO, the health of our teeth depends on genetics, nutrition, care, and cleaning. There can be other variables, but I strongly believe that flouride is of no help in making teeth resistant to decay.
August 11, 2007 at 12:47 p.m.
Pywacket (anonymous) says…

Don't worry, Ceal. By bruising them, you empower them to release their volatile oils, thus fulfilling their destiny. You can almost hear their little molecules screaming, "Hurts so good!!"

I'm really riding the fence on the fluoridated water issue, and I completely denounce wacko conspiracy theories as the crapola they usually are, but Canyon Wren has some good points. The medical/pharma industries often sell us a bill of goods based on nothing more compelling than its "seems likely" quality. The hormone/menopause example is a good case in point.

There are thousands of other good examples. For instance, I remember being grossed out as a kid when I learned that moms were shaved (euphymism: "prepped") before childbirth. Books for moms-to-be archly explained the necessity for this, claiming that this reduced bacterial infections.

Then they realized that no one had actually done any comparative studies to see whether that claim were true. Once they did such studies, it became apparent that "prepped" moms ended up with more postpartum infections than "unprepped" moms. Blame it on skin being compromised (scraped with a razor) and thus rendered vulnerable to whatever bacteria were present. Such prepping is no longer routinely done (thus enabling moms to escape at least one indignity, along with some nasty infections).

Point is--the medical profession has always been a little too quick to embrace (and force us to accept) new theories that are presented with more force than fact. Add in the perks they get from the pharmaceutical companies and we really do need to keep informed on responsible research that's being done.

It is true that the incidence of dental caries (cavities) is dramatically reduced where the water is fluoridated. But perhaps that is not the entire story, and we probably should take a closer look at cumulative effects, not only on the teeth but on every system in the body. If we support good research and get some answers, we might find there are ways to retain any benefits of fluoride without reaping whatever detrimental effects we might be experiencing.
August 11, 2007 at 1:21 p.m.
kansasdaughter (anonymous) says…

Pywacket,
Please read the associated article : http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/aug...
and the provided links. Your sentance, "It is true that the incidence of dental caries (cavities) is dramatically reduced where water is flouridated." is false and is a repeat of what the ADA has told us since the 50's. I urge you and all nay-sayers to read the research from the 30's to the present. At the very LEAST flouride is not helpful to the body, and the WORST is that it is toxic to the body.
August 11, 2007 at 1:32 p.m.
compmd (anonymous) says…

The millions of people who aren't sick and dying from fluoridation and the fact that fluoridation is also a natural phenomenon should say something.

I personally believe that a handful of people with lawyers are not smarter or better informed than thousands of doctors and scientists that

1) know chemistry better than others
2) know biology better than others.

Glad to see the tinfoil hat brigade is in full force today. I'm going to have a nice big glass of ice water. From the tap. be afraid!
August 11, 2007 at 1:48 p.m.
Pywacket (anonymous) says…

ksdtr~ Why do you assume I have not read a lot on this already? You can find websites to back up whatever agenda you're promoting (or to fan the flames of fear if that's what you enjoy). I am trying (since I am NOT promoting an agenda) to sift through reputable data from sources I trust. That's why I'm riding the fence. The data are conflicting and I see no clear answers yet.

I already read that article this morning. As for the "links it provides," two are to earlier articles beating the same drum as today's and the other is to an affidavit of one of the fluoride opponents in the article. Collectively, these links provide some good hard science--not to mention an unbiased view! (sarcasm)

Here are some more links to help balance things out. Unlike the openly anti-flouridation crusaders, these sources at least attempt to present a balanced look: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safet...
http://www.dentalhealth.org.uk/faqs/l...
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/cl...

There is much to learn on the subject, but it's hard to learn anything when you only read one side of an issue and ignore whatever data doesn't fit the conclusion you've already embraced.

One more thing to note--I hope no one who is up in arms over fluorine compounds is drinking Coke, Pepsi, or other types of pop or soda (regular or diet) in large quantities. If so, you probably have more important things to worry about than what's coming from the kitchen tap.
August 11, 2007 at 3:04 p.m.
kansasdaughter (anonymous) says…

pywacket-i don't wish to fan any flames and I am not promoting any agenda. The info that I have read was not from the internet (not that you couldn't find it there), and honestly, was published in the early nineties. I don't care about agendas, I care about what is good or harmful to me and mine. Please remember how doctors and dentists and other 'health care providers' promoted smoking in the 50's-70's when the evidence of tobacco companies themselves said it was harmful. I choose to be cautious, definitely not alarmist.

canyon wren-I was thinking the same thing about watering the yard, washing clothes, etc.
August 11, 2007 at 3:27 p.m.
Pywacket (anonymous) says…

ksdtr~ I should have been more clear on that point--I was referring to the people in the article as promoting an agenda--and hence offering only links that backed up the views they've already espoused.

I agree that the medical field has not been entirely reliable or even unified on any number of issues. And, yes, there were physicians in the pockets of the tobacco industry back in the 40s, 50s, and possibly even later who hawked cigarettes in advertisements; however, I'm not aware that tobacco use was endorsed by the AMA or any other authoritative body (if so, it was decades earlier; by the 50s and 60s, at least, the harm from tobacco was becoming starkly obvious). The case for fluoridated water is different in this regard. We don't have rogue doctors or dentists being paid by the chemical companies to endorse fluoridation. We have the AMA, the CDC, the ADA, and other reputable groups in this and many other countries recommending its use.

True--some good researchers, dentists, and docs are starting to question whether fluoridation is being done in the most efficacious manner and to take a closer look at each of the three major fluorine compounds commonly used in municipal water supplies, but most are not ready to throw out baby, bathwater, tub, and towels (so to speak) in one decisive move--that's because they do not have decisive data saying that the detrimental effects of fluoridation outweigh the positives.

And it is true that there was a dramatic decrease in tooth decay in many municipalities once fluoridation of the water supply took place. This decrease was especially dramatic in some of the nation's poorest communities, where such fluoridation treatment was often the only "dental treatment" many people received.

I simply believe that there is more to learn before we take any rash steps and that we should try hard to root out the views of extremists and quacks--on either side of the issue--and to look to reputable studies for good data. That's why I'm not ready to place myself firmly in either camp.
August 11, 2007 at 4:56 p.m.
farmgal (anonymous) says…

nbnozzy, my family & I grew up drinking well water w/o any floride added. We all have great teeth. No false teeth in our family so far. And only a couple of small cavities over decades. It's about eating right, taking care of your teeth & genetics. No floride for me, please.
August 11, 2007 at 5:14 p.m.
Pywacket (anonymous) says…

farmgal~ If everyone had parents who were reasonably intelligent/knowledgeable about the dietary needs of children, and who had the means to provide such a diet, it would be wonderful. Unfortunately, there are huge pockets of impoverished (financially and educationally) citizens in this country. To many kids growing up in shocking poverty, who fall asleep with a bottle of cow's milk in their mouths every night, then graduate to sugary cereals, pop, and twinkies, and who receive no dental care, water fluoridation has made a profound difference.

For whatever downside there is to fluoridation (and that's something that truly needs more study), it has made the difference in many lives between a mouthful of rotted teeth by the age of 10 or 15 and a chance to grow up not needing dentures by the time they are out of high school.
August 11, 2007 at 10:48 p.m.
Ceallach (anonymous) says…

Py, All that releasing volatile oils and fulfilling destinies . . . we're still talking about lavender buds, right? :P
August 11, 2007 at 11:07 p.m.
Ceallach (anonymous) says…

Manana
August 11, 2007 at 11:19 p.m.
Pywacket (anonymous) says…

Ha! Ceal~ the only volatile oils I've released tonight were those of a couple lime wedges into a cold cosmo... Ã votre sante! et bon soir...
August 12, 2007 at 12:59 a.m.
nyscof (anonymous) says…

Fluoride ingestion has never been evaluated by the Food an Drug Administration See: http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2...

Water fluoride chemicals are contaminated waste products of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and are allowed to contain trace amounts of arsenic, lead, mercury and more See: http://www.nsf.org/business/water_dis...

Water fluoride chemicals have never been safety tested by any government or private agency
See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/images/l...
August 12, 2007 at 6:55 a.m.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
August 12, 2007 at 2:14 p.m.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…

Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?
August 12, 2007 at 2:48 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

What I have learned is that you must make note, when the "officials" are telling you things like when it meets government criteria, or they are adding less than the average level, is that the criteria on which they base things is always changing, is in flux.

It is always good to also be familiar with the history of how the recommendations, the limits, the criteria have changed and flowed.

What I am saying is: Don't just take the govt.'s word for it, local and otherwise, and be content with that. People do that " oh, ok" too readily when talking to government officials.

Look at the history, perhaps decades of history, of the how the statistics of flouridation have moved and changed, at the local, state and national level.

I learned this when sitting in on some interesting sessions about the pollution levels of the Ogallala Aquifer. It isn't enough that they meet the normal limits. You must also note how normal limits have officially changed over time, as government manipulates important numbers for good and bad.
August 12, 2007 at 3:02 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

Europe does not flouridate. Hmmm!
August 12, 2007 at 3:05 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

Once I went shopping for a dentist and the test question was whether they supported the flouridation of drinking water. All the ones I checked on did indeed support it, but they didn't want to address what that drinking water does to the rest of the body, other than teeth. They didn't want to discuss what constant flouridation does to the skin, to the gastrointestional tract, the endocrine system. I thought they were attempting to be deliberately short-sighted and deliberately were holding an abstracted view of the flouridation of drinking water.
August 12, 2007 at 3:29 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

It really must be an easy and uneventful life to attribute a lot to the pat "conspiracy theory" answer. I have to admit that that thoughtless kind of life must certainly be nice. I have just never been able to do it, to mentally stop the important questions, to be unconcerned with the bigger picture. There are days when I sure do wish I was more simple-minded. But I am pretty sure after a time of that simplemind and lack of foresight, that I would not be happy with myself.
August 12, 2007 at 3:34 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

Pywacket, I see that abstrated view clearly indicated in your post.

So what does fluoride in drinking water do to the gastrointestional tract, to the skin after shower or bath, to the kidneys, to the bladder, to the liver, to the pancreas, to the brain?

Got some kind of answer for me?
August 12, 2007 at 4:10 p.m.
kansasdaughter (anonymous) says…

M_M, I agree wholeheartedly with your 3:34 post.
August 12, 2007 at 7:50 p.m.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…

Ice cream Mandrake, children's ice cream.
August 12, 2007 at 8:44 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

Jack, I hear there are some really great neuroleptics out there, available to those who need it.
But then of course, you might get the facial grimacing that Bush displays these days.
Oh well. It is all about feeling good.
August 12, 2007 at 9:38 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

Thanks, KsDgtr. I always worry that no one gets my humor.
I don't get Jack's humor at all.

My child had gray teeth in 2005. Didn't need a Dr. or dentist to tell me something was wrong.
I have a cooler with Merc water in it now, so we only bathe in fluoride (correcting my spelling since I have been misspelling it now for some time), risking what it does to the skin and topical absorption thru the skin. Child's teeth are white again.

You know that makes me wonder about all the teeth whitener stuff out there. What do you suppose that is all about?

I was born and raised conservative. So people, let's conserve. Limit the chemicals in our bodies and our land.
August 12, 2007 at 9:48 p.m.
JackRipper (anonymous) says…

I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
August 12, 2007 at 9:55 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

I am pretty sure the FBI is tapping your computer. They watch skinheads like you. LOL
August 12, 2007 at 11:21 p.m.
compmd (anonymous) says…

Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says:

Europe does not flouridate. Hmmm!

Europe also does not put high fructose corn syrup into everything imaginable.
August 13, 2007 at 1:43 a.m.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…

I've read: a
-that the reason we have flouride in our drinking water is because several industries (aluminum production, fertilizer production, nuclear industry) produce prodigious quantities of this non-degrading toxin.
-that the original studies on putting flouride in drinking wat showed that the control city had more tooth decay and less cancer.
-that topical treatment of the teeth is far better than drinking this toxin, hence the fact that your dentist doesn't just hand out flouride pills.
-that most toothpates now have flouride, in fact, some supposedly have enough so that one tube could conceivably kill a small child. That's probably a stretch.
I've read here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/i...
"The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man...Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the "father of public relations." Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called "The Original Spin Doctor" in an admiring article in the Washington Post... The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation "creeping socialism" ... was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.
...(Bette Hileman, "Fluoridation of Water," Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the "mechanism which controls the public mind," which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..." And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, "either with or without their conscious cooperation," will "automatically influence" the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that "it is wholesome to eat bacon." For, Bernays added, he "knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians." (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add "dentists" to the equation, and substitute "fluoride" for "bacon," and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after... as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles."
August 13, 2007 at 9:05 a.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

I also think that Europe found Nutrasweet or aspartame to be a neurotoxin.
Tho I don't know this for fact, I believe aspartame never passed the British FDA-lke agency.

German is big on keeping additives and preservatives out of their food supply.
August 13, 2007 at 3:51 p.m.
SloMo (anonymous) says…

My teeth are grayish-brown and pitted from over-fluoridation of our water supply when I was an infant. The technical term is "fluorosis". It isn't like tetracycline stains that are superficial, the staining goes all the way through and the pitting is really deep.

Because of the pitting, it is very difficult to keep my teeth clean enough. I have to go to the hygeinist four times a year instead of the standard two times (and I have to pay for the two extra times out of my own pocket).

So how much is too much? Well, someone hit upon it in an earlier post - it depends on the individual.
August 14, 2007 at 8:51 a.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

I am sorry to hear about your teeth and the challenges you face, SloMo

I think it is better to let a dentist assess who needs more fluoride and who doesn't. Obviously there are genetic difference in enamel strength and so on. But as far as I know today, even dentists don't have assessment tools with which to determine who needs more fluoride and who needs less. Isn't that interesting, given that there are differences in all people about how much fluoride their teeth need?!

I think it is time to get the fluoride out of our water supply, thus saving teeth, soft tissue and money.
August 14, 2007 at 9:02 a.m.
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…

NO!!! Read the history and you can clearly see the chain of events.

All the children living in a town near Pikes Peak with a lot of calcium fluoride in their water had brown, "mottled", stained teeth. (Yuck, right?) An investigation of the "Colorado Stain" revealed that they had very high fluoride concentration in their water from the cryolite mineral in the ground. The fluoride was blamed for the staining and suspected of causing other health problems and physical deformities.

The brown, stained teeth also had fewer cavities than others' normal teeth. This was also attributed to the fluoride, but deemed positive!!

After blaming "severe fluorosis" for the staining, scientists tried to determine a safe maximum fluoride level for water. Somehow, though, at the same time, they determined that some areas with low fluoride levels needed MORE, to prevent cavities.
???

From a report to the the Surgeon General made in 1932:

"Is mottled enamel merely an oral manifestation of a general toxicity, or something similar? The hair of some of these mottled enamel cases is unusually coarse, almost like horse hair. Finger nails are apparently not normal. Two of the three local physicians state that there is apparently an unusually large amount of skin disorders among those using the city water supply. Future surveys will attempt to obtain this additional dermatological data in order to determine whether it correlates with the mottled enamel."

No 'further surveys' were conducted to follow this up. Dean's later studies were even abandoned after early data indicated that completing the surveys could not be considered safe for those being tested.

A fluoridation survey was conducted in Amarillo, TX in the 30s. A pediatrician of Amarillo, Texas, reported in 1934 that "defective development of the long bones in babies whose diet includes water with fluorides in toxic amount". "Some of these babies have more tendency to bowing of the legs, even in the face of constant antirachitic therapy, thus supporting the theory that the toxic fluorides interfere with bone and dental metabolism."

The only part of this survey that was allowed to be published was that Amarillo children and fewer cavities than Wichita Falls children.
August 14, 2007 at 11:24 a.m.
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…

We are taught never to swallow toothpaste. Even if the claims were true, why would we ingest something intended just to rinse a toxic element over our teeth?

Fluoride pollution became rampant due to the industrial expansion of the "Roaring 20s". A highly publicized air pollution disaster occured in 1933 in the Meuse Valley in Belgium. Fluoride experts identified it as the poison agent.

"Only recently, that is, within the last ten years, has the serious nature of fluoride toxicity been realized," wrote Lloyd DeEds, senior toxicologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1933.
"It is a well-established fact that chronic intoxication [poisoning] may manifest itself in man as recognized abnormalities only after constant, or at least frequent, exposure over many years....The possibility of fluoride hazard should...be recognized in industry...where this element is discharged into the air as an apparently worthless by-product."

Above quotes from" Lloyd DeEds, "Chronic Fluorine Intoxication," Medicine. Vol. 12, 1933, pp. 1- 60.

In 1939, American Aluminum Company (ALCOA), the largest producer of the industrial waste sodium fluoride, was being threatened with law suits over fluoridation damages. Gerald J. Cox, employed by ALCOA, conducted a lab rat experiment and 'concluded' that fluoride should be added to drinking water. In 1947, Oscar R. Ewing, an ALCOA attorney, was named head of the Federal Security Agency, and thus head of the Public Health Service.

Fluoride was soon added not just to drinking water across the country, but also ended up in fertilizers sprayed on fruits and vegetables.

I.G. Farben, who produced the poison gas used in Nazi death camps, has been attributed with fluoridating water in German and Russian POW camps because of evidence that it lowers IQ, thus making the prisoners easier to control.

Google "fluoride" and you will literally get as much data as you can find time to absorb.

"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century."
- Robert Carlton, Ph.D, EPA scientist
August 14, 2007 at 11:35 a.m.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…

pppp
August 14, 2007 at 3:33 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

WOW, Emily, you have some amazing facts there.

I am discovering that dentist do not routinely assess clients for their need levels of fluoride, tho there has been a bit of chatter about it in their orgs.

First we have fluoridated drinking/bathing water.
Then we get it in other foods as well.
We also get it on our toothpaste and mouthwashes.

Dr's are not assessing the fluoride needs of the children,
no standard of practice is in place for this issue.
" Of the 1,045 physicians who filled out and returned the questionnaire, most had a general understanding of the importance of fluoride in preventing tooth decay, but they failed to base their recommendations on the individual child's current needs or risk of developing caries in the future.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release...

Even just fluoride toothpaste can cause fluorosis, without the Fluoridation process in drinking water.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release...
"A study of 1,189 seventh-grade children in India found that nearly 13 percent had fluorosis, a primarily aesthetic condition that affects adult teeth during their development. Children in this study who had used a fluoride toothpaste (8.2 percent) before age 6 had almost twice the rate of fluorosis as children not exposed to fluoride at that age. In the United States, about 95 percent of children 6 years or younger use fluoride toothpaste. (snip)
Mascarenhas said she chose Goa because the state does not add fluoride to its water supply and other sources of fluoride are scarce. This means the children received most of their fluoride from toothpaste. (snip) "But parents should put less toothpaste on their child's brush and supervise the child when she brushes."
August 14, 2007 at 10:08 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

Fluoridated beverage consumption and dental fluorosis: There's a connection

Fluoride is a mineral that protects against dental cavities; however, too much fluoride during tooth formation can lead to dental fluorosis, which is usually characterized by white streaks or splotches on the teeth. Fluoride is naturally present in well water in various concentrations, is added to many public water systems to protect against cavities, and is found in beverages made with these water sources. Fluoride is readily available from toothpastes, mouthrinses, foods, and beverages, and its increased availability may be increasing children's likelihood of developing fluorosis. The amount of fluoride consumed from beverages is due to the amount of beverage consumed and the concentration of fluoride in the beverage. Today, a team of researchers from the University of Iowa, during the 35th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Dental Research, presented the results of a study in which they examined the relationship between beverage fluoride intakes and fluorosis of the permanent incisors (i.e., front teeth).
As part of the Iowa Fluoride Study, they have been following children, currently 10-13 years old, from birth. Their parents have recorded food and beverage intakes multiple times throughout the years. The researchers have analyzed well waters and purchased beverages for fluoride concentrations. (snip)

Our results suggest that fluoride intake from beverages during infancy and early childhood can increase the risk of the child's developing fluorosis in permanent incisors. High fluoride intake from beverages could be due to either drinking too much of a beverage prepared with accepted fluoride concentrations, or normal intake of beverages prepared with water having naturally high fluoride concentrations. The association between fluoride ingested from beverages and dental fluorosis should be carefully balanced with fluoride's benefits in preventing caries.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release...
August 14, 2007 at 10:10 p.m.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…

If fluoride is already IN most of the things we eat or drink, why not cut the fluoridation process out here and direct the money saved elsewhere?

Potentially harmful fluoride levels found in some instant teas
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release...
St. Louis, Jan. 25, 2005 -- Instant tea, one of the most popular drinks in the United States, may be a source of harmful levels of fluoride, researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis report. The researchers found that some regular strength preparations contain as much as 6.5 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, well over the 4 ppm maximum allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency and 2.4 ppm permitted in bottled water and beverages by the Food and Drug Administration.
The discovery stemmed from the diagnostic investigation of a middle-aged woman suffering from spine pain attributed to hyper-dense bones. Testing for the cause of her symptoms revealed the patient had high levels of fluoride in her urine. She then disclosed a high consumption of iced tea--claiming to drink one to two gallons of double-strength instant tea throughout the day--which led the researchers to test for fluoride content in several brands of instant tea available on grocery store shelves.
August 14, 2007 at 10:11 p.m.
wynner70 (anonymous) says…

It just amazes me the brain dead government school camp inductees (public schools) educated to sucK up and swallow down every chemical, pill, propaganda or scheme that enriches the elite to the detriment and misery of the guy on the street.Wake up AmeriKA. Der fuerher is calling you. flouride is a poisen! What they are putting in the public water is not stanus flouride you get from the dentist (also poisen) but the residue from aluminum processing. do you know what that means and what that does to your brain and the rest of your body?If flouride is so wonderful to medicate public water systems why have all the europeans banned it by law.And why don't municipalities add Vitamin C to the public water???? Or multi Vitamins or herbs and minerals, How would you like some form of "Prozac -Zoloft -Paxil Cocktail" combination.? That would give you a buzz.. No wonder the masters of this deception get away with this crap. You all buy into it.http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/19/why-tap-water-can-harm-your-kids.aspx?source=nl now go learn what more and more "intelligent" international medicals are saying about flouride
August 19, 2008 at 2:36 p.m.