Re: Toxic Chemicals In Your Water

On Dec 27, 2:52 pm, D Baten <dserv.ba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/24/2010 5:15 PM, carole wrote:

On Dec 25, 7:57 am, Ilena Rose<B...@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
Important information brought to you by Ilena Rosenthal,
Healthloverhttp://ilenarose.blogspot.com

http://ccpurewater.org/Fluoride.html

Toxic Chemicals In Your Water

Apparently calcium is the antidote for sodium fluoride poisoning, so
while we can't do anything about the sodium fluoride in the water we
drink, we can get our own body to neutralise it by making sure we get
enough calcium in our diets.

Since excess calcium leads to a series of other problems like
hypercalcaemia, please describe how you would properly monitor, and
control intake of calcium so as to avoid this well documented issue.





The following link goes into some detail on the difference between
sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride, a cellsalt.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16364990/The-Fluoride-Debate-Letter-to-Forward

--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Its pretty hard to keep in touch with reality when you see so little
of it."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which part did you not uderstand?

Important information brought to you by Ilena Rosenthal,
Healthlover
http://ilenarose.blogspot.com

http://ccpurewater.org/Fluoride.html


Toxic Chemicals In Your Water


Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of
aluminum, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons,
anaesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas.
It's historically been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until
some aluminum industries with an overabundance of the stuff sold the
public on the terrifically insane but highly profitable idea of
buying
it at a 20,000% mark-up, injecting it into our water supplies, and
then DRINKING it.
Independent scientific evidence repeatedly showing up over the past
50
years reveals that fluoride allegedly shortens our life span,
promotes
cancer and various mental disturbances, accelerates osteoporosis and
broken hips in old folks, and makes us stupid, docile, and
subservient, all in one package. There are reports of aluminum in the
brain possibly being a causative factor in Alzheimer's Disease, and
evidence points towards fluoride's strong affinity for aluminum and
also its ability to "trick" the blood-brain barrier by looking like
the hydrogen ion, and thus allowing chemical access to brain tissue.


"That any so-called "doctors" would persuade a civilized nation to
add
voluntarily a deadly poison to its drinking water systems is
unbelievable. It is the height of criminal insanity.
"No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to
1941 that, quoting from both Lenin's Last Will and Hitler's Mein
Kampf:
'America we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within.'" ...
~ Einstein's nephew, Dr. E.H. Bronner (a chemist who had also been a
prisoner of war during WWII) in a letter printed in The Catholic
Mirror, Springfield, MA, January 1952.


"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this
century, if not of all time."
- Robert Carton, PhD, scientist, formerly of the US Environmental
Protection Agency.


"The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison, harmful, toxic
and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts,
will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in
print that fluoridation of the water supply is 'safe'."
- Ludwig Gross, M.D., former Chief of Veterans Administration
Cancer Research, Bronx, NY.


"Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick
national liquidation. It is criminal insanity--treason!"
-Dr. E.H. Bronner, Mfg. Research Chemist, Los Angeles.


Fluoridation / Fluoride


Toxic Chemicals In Your Water
Neurotoxic and Lowers IQ


In 1995, neurotoxicologist and former Director of toxicology at
Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix published
research showing that fluoride built up in the brains of animals when
exposed to moderate levels. Damage to the brain occurred and the
behaviour patterns of the animals was adversely effected. Offspring
of
pregnant animals receiving relatively low doses of fluoride showed
permanent effects to the brain which were seen as hyperactivity
(ADD-like symptoms). Young animals and adult animals given fluoride
experienced the opposite effect -- hypoactivity or sluggishness. The
toxic effects of fluoride on the central nervous system was
subsequently confirmed by previously-classified government research.
Two new epidemiological studies which tend to confirm fluoride's
neurotoxic effects on the brain have shown that children exposed to
higher levels of fluoride had lower IQs.
Causes Cancer


The Department of Health in New Jersey found that bone cancer in male
children was between two and seven times greater in areas where water
was fluoridated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
researchers confirmed the bone cancer-causing effects of fluoride at
low levels in an animal model. A new study has shown that
fluoridation
of water is linked to uterine cancer deaths.
The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of
Osteosarcoma...
Changes Bone Structure and Strength


Fluoride gradually builds up in the bones and causes adverse changes
to the bone structure. Quite a few studies have shown that
fluoridation leads to increases in hip fractures. The tensile
strength
of the hip is destroyed over time by fluoride ingestion.
Banned in Many Countries


Fluoridation is not legal or not used in the overwhelming number of
countries including industrialized countries.
China BANNED: "not allowed"
Austria REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added
Belgium REJECTED: encourages self-determination - those who want
fluoride should get it themselves.
Finland STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of
drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our
teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing
trend of caries...."
Germany STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing
trend of caries
Denmark REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the
public water supplies in Denmark."
Norway REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated"
Sweden BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!
The Netherlands Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision
against
fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgement
overturned
on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it.
Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.
Hungary STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite
technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.
Japan REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg
regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste
by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.


ISIS Press Release 07/01/05
No to Fluoridation


The "mass medication" of UK's drinking water with a listed poison
will
cost London's health authorities alone more than �21 million. Sam
Burcher reports


Sources for this article are posted on ISIS members' website. Details
here.


Fluoridation for all of England and Wales


Fluoridation was introduced into the UK in the 1960s when areas in
and
around Birmingham and Newcastle were fluoridated, along with the
Republic of Northern Ireland, making up 11% of the UK population. The
Government has now decided to put fluoride into all public water
supplies in England and Wales, with the aim of reducing tooth decay
among children in "deprived" areas.


Under the Water Bill 2003, water providers will be obliged to add
fluoride to their supplies. According to a letter from health
minister
Hazel Blears and environment minister Elliott Morley to the Deputy PM
John Prescott, "those who remain adamantly opposed would be able to
use water filters that remove fluoride or buy bottled drinking
water".


Campaigners opposed to fluoride include the National Pure Water
Association (NPWA), Green Network and The Green Party. Green Party
spokesperson Martin Skrewsbury says, "The general trend in the world
is against fluoridation." He pointed out that the risks of tooth
decay
in fluoridated Gateshead and non-fluoridated Liverpool are the same.


Dental disease increases six-fold by fluoridation


The American Journal of Diseases of Children states: "With few
exceptions the biochemistry of fluorine (fluoride) emphasis its toxic
features. The production of endemic dental fluorosis in human beings
by drinking water is an outstanding example of the toxic effect of
the
excessive intake of the element." Dental fluorosis is fluoride
poisoning that causes hypomineralisation (irregular calcification)
and
a disorder of ameloblasts (enamel forming cells) that mottle, weaken
and discolour children's teeth. In 2000, the Newcastle NHS Trust
reported dental fluorosis in 54% of children aged 8-9 years compared
to 24% of 8-9 year olds in non-fluoridated Northumberland.
In 1999, Baroness Hayman responded in a Written Answer for the
Government, "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of
systemic toxicity." Despite this sanction, the Government have
backtracked on the safety of fluoride, supported by the British
Dental
Association, which states that fluoride is a positive step to
narrowing the health inequalities that currently exist.


Fluoride is poison


Hydrofluosilic acid and other fluorosilicates are not naturally
occurring. They are waste products derived from the industrial
manufacture of aluminium, zinc, uranium, aerosols, insecticides,
fertilizers, plastics, lubricants and pharmaceuticals.
Professor Kaj Roholm, the author of the first and most comprehensive
monograph on fluorosilicates classifies hydrofluorisilic acid and
hexafluorisilic acid as "extremely toxic." One chemical company
selling fluoride to water suppliers describes it as "a colourless to
straw yellow, transparent, fuming, corrosive liquid with a pungent
odour and irritating action on the skin."


Hydrofluorsilic acid is listed as Part II poison under the Poisons
Act
1972. As such its use as a commercially ingestible product in water
contravenes the UK and EU pharmaceutical legislations governing the
regulation of medicinal substances as well as the Poisons Act.


Natural fluoride occurs in mineral salts such as calcium fluoride and
magnesium fluoride.


Worldwide rejection


Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway
Switzerland, West Germany, Netherlands and Italy have all banned the
addition of hydrofluorosilic acid to drinking water. So have Japan
and
India, where fluoride occurs naturally and skeletal fluorosis
(thickening of bones) is prevalent. In 1942, the Lancet reported
severe dental fluorosis in areas where natural calcium fluoride
concentrations of one ppm (part per million) - the Governments "safe"
limit - caused skeletal defects in children with poor nutrition.
Dr John Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New
Zealand changed his mind about fluoride when his worldwide study
revealed that dental decay was "slightly better in children in
non-flouridated areas" and fluoride caused more harm than good to
children's teeth.


Professor Hardy Limeback, a consultant to the Canadian Dental
Association also studied the health effects of fluoride on children
in
fluoridated Toronto. He found an increasing trend in Torontonians
having double the level of fluoride in hipbones compared to children
in unfluoridated Montreal. Prof Limeback warned that children under
three years should never drink fluoridated water or use fluoride
toothpaste or products and fluoridated water must never be used for
making baby formula. He rebuts the safety of fluoride and is
concerned
that no tests have been undertaken by the international pro-fluoride
lobby to assess the effects of fluoride accumulation.


The WHO is aware of over-exposure to fluorides and concludes in its
1994 monograph Fluoride and Dental Health, "Dental and public health
administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the
population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for
caries (tooth cavities) prevention."


Bad for bones


Since 1990, 54 US and Canadian cities have rejected hydrofloursilic
acid, but some 60% of the US remains fluoridated. In these areas
there
has been a dramatic increase of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young
males aged between 9-19. A National Cancer Institute Surveillance
Epidemiology and End Results Program recorded an increase of 79% of
osteosarcomas in young men living in fluoridated areas of Iowa and
Seattle. But in the unfluoridated areas the incidence of bone cancer
decreased by 4%.
In New Jersey, rates of osteosarcoma was three to seven times higher
among males aged between 10-19 than in unfluoridated regions. This
evidence is supported by the US National Toxicology Program, which
recorded a statically significant dose-related increase of
osteosarcoma in young male rats ingesting fluoride. A paper published
in Science in the 1980's stated that fluoride directly affects bone
cells by increasing proliferation and alkaline phosphatase activity.
It also enhances growth and mineralisation of embryonic bone.


Five major epidemiological studies from France, the UK and the US
show
higher rates of hip fractures in fluoridated regions. The US has the
highest number of hip and other bone fractures and the longest
history
of fluoride use. In 1997, the EPA scientists went on record against
the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water.


Links to obesity and hypothyroid


Water in the West Midlands has been fluoridated for forty years. In
2003, the region topped the UK's "fat list" with 22% of the
population
classed as clinically obese. Doctors are concerned that pregnant
mothers ingesting fluoride from drinking water are pre-disposing
their
offspring to obesity.
Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield, a thyroid specialist, believes that
fluoride is partially to blame for the high incidence of under active
thyroid problems in Birmingham. He says, "There is no doubt that
fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid
hormones." This is because fluoride interferes with the uptake of
iodine crucial for the regulation of hormones. Dr Peatfield was
suspended by the GMC (General Medical Council) because he made
natural
thyroid treatments available to his patients. He was subsequently
reinstated.


Up until the 1950s, European doctors used fluoride to reduce the
symptoms of an overactive thyroid gland. However, the maximum daily
intake of 6.6mg per day of fluoride by populations overexposed to
fluoride exceeds the maximum dose of 4.6mg used to depress the
thyroid
gland. In the US, an estimated 13 million women have been diagnosed
with an underactive thyroid, and drugs used to treat hypothyroid were
the second most prescribed medication in 1999.


Campaign against fluoride


A recent study of five primary schools around Birmingham indicated
that 34% of young children had dental fluorosis. Peter Mansfield of
The National Pure Water Association (NPWA) tested 200 volunteers in
the West Midlands and found that 60% had four times the "safe" level
of fluoride in their urine. The NPWA has campaigned against
fluoridation for 4 decades. These are some of the their concerns:
The susceptibility of children to toxic substances in water and the
environment
The toxicity of fluoride in water
The prevalence of dental fluorosis
Failure to apply the Precautionary Principle
Violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
2000


The junior health minister for England and Wales estimates that 15%
more children will have less dental decay because of mass
fluoridation. But how many more will have dental fluorosis, and
accumulative health problems caused by fluoride? And the chief target
group for fluoridation, the less well off, are being deprived of
choice, for it is precisely they who will not be able to afford
bottled water and filters, to protect their children from a poison
more toxic than lead.


The York Review (2000) on the safety and effectiveness of water
fluoridation, presented by England's Department of Health Centre for
Reviews and Dissemination (NHS CRD) at York University, states that
"48% of children in optimum fluoridated areas worldwide have dental
fluorosis and that 12.5% have symptoms of "aesthetic concern." They
conclude there is "surprisingly little research" into the harmful
effects from fluoride and recommend "high quality research" into
fluoride's possible links with infant mortality, IQ and congenital
defects.


Scotland's devolved parliament pulled the plug on plans to add
fluoride to Scotland's drinking water in November 2004. The first
minister said, "We will not be changing the current legislation on
fluoridation of the water supply in this parliament. We will however
bring forward a range of other measures to improve the dental health
of children, especially in their early years."


To participate in a letter writing campaign to stop water companies
adding fluoride to tap water contact the National Pure Water
Association (NPWA) or Greens


You are not supposed to know this, because then you will stop buying
toothpaste etc. containing fluoride and stop drinking and bathing in
municipal water supplies.


Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway,
Switzerland, West Germany, Netherlands and Italy have all banned the
addition of hydrofluorosilic acid to drinking water. In Italy they
even remove natural fluorides from the water.


Isn't it time the people in the States wake up to this?


Who profits from Fluoridation


Fluoride is promoted as a kind of "magic bullet" which is supposed to
prevent tooth decay harmlessly whatever junk food children may eat.
Clearly the promotion of fluoridation and other fluoride products
assists the manufacturers of foods containing large amounts of sugar
and other refined carbohydrates to prosper.
One of the principal fluoridation-promoting bodies in Australia, the
Dental Health Education and Research Foundation (DHERF), is
associated
with the University of Sydney. The 1979 Annual Report of the DHERF
contained a list of financial donors, the "Honour role of
contributors". These included the Coca Cola Export Corporation, the
Wrigley Co., the Australian Council of Soft Drink Manufacturers, the
Colonial Sugar Refining Co., Arnotts Biscuits, Cadbury Schweppes,
Kelloggs and Scanlens Sweets.


From the DHERF's total expenditure of $199,000 (Australian dollars)
in
1979, $43,000 was explicitly designated for "Fluoridation promotion".
Out of $97,000 designated for "Research and educational programmes"
and "Publications and films" a large part was also devoted to
fluoridation. The promotion of good nutrition including the avoidance
of sugary foods, appears to play a very minor role in DHERF's
educational and research programmes. Yet it is just these foods, not
a
so-called "fluoride deficiency' ', which comprise the principal cause
of tooth decay.


Another likely beneficiary of the public health image of fluoride is
the aluminium industry, which funded some of the early American
research on the alleged relationship between tooth decay and the
natural levels of fluoride in town water supplies. Subsequently the
industry advertised its fluoride for use in water fluoridation
programmes in the USA. However, the indirect financial gains to the
industry from fluoridation may be considerably greater than those
from
selling the fluoride. Indeed, it is only in the past six years or so
that discussion of fluoride pollution from aluminium. smelters has
started to become respectable" in Australia.


Not that this is a deliberate conspiracy between dentists and big
business. Most people have the best of motives, and there is no
reason
to question that bodies such as the DHERF and their donors wish to
improve children's teeth. It is sufficient to identify the links
between elite dental researchers on one hand and the sugary food and
aluminium industries on the other, and to point out that the dental
researchers may be in a position of inadvertent conflict of interest.
The existence of innocent participants does not weaken the hypothesis
that the primary pressure for fluoridation originates from the sugary
food and aluminium industries. Dentists and to a lesser extent
doctors
and health administrators play the role of unwitting "cadres" who
perform both the research and the promotional campaigns for
fluoridation. These activities are funded in part from the additional
profits which fluoridation brings to the primary pressure groups.


Mark Diesendorf and Philip R.N. Sutton


Mark Diesendorf BSc PhD, a principal research scientist in the CSIRO
Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Canberra, is currently
setting
up a private consultancy, Science in the Public Interest, Australia.
He is president of the Australasian Wind Energy Association.


Philip R.N. Sutton DDSc FRACDS was appointed senior lecturer in
Dental
Science in 1963 at the University of Melbourne's School of Dental
Science, but resigned in 1974 to have more time to extend his studies
on dental conditions in Polynesia and Micronesia. In 1959, Melbourne
University Press published the first edition of his monograph,
"Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials", which he
updated in 1980


Letter to Lowell L. Henderson, M.D.
September 15, 1990
Dear Dr. Henderson,
I am an American citizen, a lawyer by profession, now living with my
family in Quebec.
About two weeks ago, I received some correspondence from Mr. Peter S.
Morgan of Scottsdale, Arizona, who is concerned about artificial
fluoridation of public water supplies. He had received a letter from
you, dated August 24, 1990, in which you said that "Mayo Clinic,
after
extensive studies, has enthusiastically embraced and promoted
fluorination of water for dental purposes. Subsequent studies have
only reinforced this stance."
I am sorry to see that the illustrious name of Mayo Clinic should be
tarnished by a public stance, at this late date in the history of
science and medicine, at once so shocking and irresponsible.
Some years ago, I acted as principal trial lawyer in two causes for
plaintiffs whose forensic objective was to prove that adjusting the
level of fluoride in public water supplies to an average level of
about 1.0 ppm, by the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid or sodium
silico fluoride or some comparable industrial waste product, such as
the good name of Mayo Clinic has been used to endorse, strongly tends
to induce human cancer on a large scale. I examined the leading
experts in the world on both sides.


The first of these was Paul Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, No.
GD-4585-78 on the docket of the Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas
in Pennsylvania. In that cause, on November 17, 1978, Hon. John
Flaherty, now Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, found the
evidence clear and convincing that artificial fluoridation of public
water supplies causes a large quantity of human cancer. His
jurisdiction was sustained on appeal in 397 Atl. 2d 878, and his
findings have never since been revised or disturbed on appeal.


The other cause was Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of
Houston,
No. 80-52271 on the docket of the Texas District Court for Harris
County in the 151st Judicial District. In that matter, on May 24,
1982, Hon. Anthony Farris found a preponderance of the evidence
showed
that artificial fluoridation of public water supplies "may cause or
may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant
reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man;
that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and
existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial
fluoridation is in some doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in
man." His findings were sustained on appeal in 661 S.W. 2d at 192.


In the wake of the findings of Judge Flaherty, the provincial
government of Quebec established a commission under the direction of
Dr. Benoit Bundock to review the world literature. In November, 1979,
the commission returned a report of 210 pages to the environment
minister. The findings in the Bundock Report are comprehensive, and
parallel the findings of Judge Farris. In light of these results, the
provincial government suspended execution of the mandatory
fluoridation act, Chapter 63 of Quebec Laws of 1975, according to the
maxim, Salus populi est suprema lex. Since then there has been a
change of government, but an advisory council in the environment
ministry advised a continuation of the moratorium, which accordingly
remains in effect to this day.


Is it possible that those responsible at Mayo Clinic have overlooked
these developments? If so, it would not be the first time that the
medical profession has been misled, and then misled the public, as I
can illustrate:


In the transcript of the hearings before Judge Farris, in volume 5 on
pages 950-965, the testimony is found of a doctor of medicine with
impressive credentials and graduate degrees, a high-ranking public
health officer for the city of Houston. She claimed to have ordered a
complete review of world literature, made extravagant pronouncements
on the benefits and safety of artificial fluoridation of public water
supplies, and gave her personal approval to the fluoridation
ordinance
which had been passed by the municipal council. I then went through a
long list of papers, articles, monographs, and reports, written or
given by distinguished scientists of the world, all part of
mainstream
literature on the subject, and published by various governments or
good journals in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan. She
admitted her failure to read or review any of the exhibits which I
handed to her for inspection one at a time. When I placed her in the
hands of opposing counsel, she admitted her want of expertise, then
was excused by the court.


The unfortunate performance of this physician was preceded by the
same
kind of statements about extensive studies and enthusiastic
endorsements as appear in your letter to Mr. Morgan.


There is no study anywhere in world literature, published either
before or since the acceptance of the doctoral thesis of Edward
Growth
at Stanford University in 1973 featuring a reasonable control for
known or unknown variables, and showing that the natural or
artificial
presence of fluoride in drinking water reduces tooth decay in man.
There are, however, a number of articles which indicates that, in
light of massive data now available and giving perspective not
earlier
enjoyed, the natural or artificial presence of fluoride in drinking
water does not reduce tooth decay in man: the most significant of
these are Imai, Relationship Between Fluoride Concentration in
Drinking Water and Dental Caries in Japan, 6 Fluoride 248 (1973);
Ziegelbecker, Naturlicher Fluoridgehalt des Trinkwassers und Karies,
122 GWF Wasser/Abwasser 495 (1981); Colquhoun, Child Dental Health
Differences in New Zealand, 9 Comm. Health Stud. 85 (1987);
andYiamouyiannis, Water Fluoridation and Tooth Decay: Results from
the
1986-1987 National Survey of U.S. School Children, 23 Fluoride 55
(1990).


My greater concern is cancer. Thirty-five years ago, it was
established that fluoride (as NaF) in water promotes cancer, and this
was then covered up. I can document this remarkable, historic, and
critical instance of public health fraud, as it appeared in the Final
Report of the Newburgh-Kingston Fluorine-Caries Study, 52 JADA 290
(1956): At the beginning of the fifth decade of this century, Dr.
Alfred Taylor at the University of Texas did a series of preliminary
experiments by which it appeared that cancer-prone mice consuming
water containing fluoride had shorter life spans than those drinking
distilled water. Because the mice in both the control and
experimental
groups ate chow containing measurable fluoride, Dr. Taylor replicated
his earlier work. He ran a series of twelve experiments, using 645
cancer-prone mice. Here Dr. Taylor used chow containing negligible
fluoride, and he found that cancer-prone mice drinking water
containing 1.0 and 10.0 ppm fluoride had shorter life spans, as
carefully measured for statistical significance. Dr. Taylor published
these results in Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of Mice, 60
Dental Dig. 170 (1954), so as to call them to the attention of the
dental profession, which at the time was watching the surveys then
underway at Newburgh and Kingston, New York, with interest.


Few studies since run have been better designed or as large, or, for
that matter, had plainer meaning in a practical sense. Dr. Taylor's
work was understood to mean that fluoride in water promotes cancer,
and that artificial fluoridation could not be implemented, as those
responsible in the American Dental Association and the United States
Public Health Service well knew. Their culpable knowledge of the
meaning of Dr. Taylor's work may be inferred by the fact that they
deliberately and cynically concealed it. You will say this is
impossible, but the awful truth is rather too clear from the public
record:


Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Cultured Human Oral Keratinocytes by
Sodium Fluoride, 140 Mutation Res. 43 (1984), and Sodium
Fluoride-Induced Morphological and Neoplastic Transformation, Sister
Chromated Exchanges, and Unscheduled DNA in Cultured Syrian Hamster
Embryo Cells, 44 Cancer Res. 938 (1984), and Cytotoxicity, Chromosome
Aberrations and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Cultured Human Diploid
Fibroblasts Induced by Sodium Fluoride, 139 Mutation Res. 193 (1984);
and also Jones and co-workers in Sodium Fluoride Promotes
Morphological Transformation of Syrian Hamster Embryo Cells, 9
Carcinogenesis 2279 (1988), together with several others which have
been published very recently.


It came as no surprise to informed scientists, therefore, when news
broke earlier this year, in the Medical Tribune and in other
publications, of an NTP study, which, as closer examination shows,
reveals that rats exposed to fluoride in water, in doses much lower
than were used to produce cancer by benzene, displayed a higher
incidence in precancerous oral lesions, a higher incidence of oral
tumors and cancers, a higher incidence of thyroid tumors, and the
unique presence of a rare bone cancer. The NTP study also shows that
mice exposed to like doses of fluoride in water displayed the unique
presence of a rare liver cancer. Actually, there is no excuse in
feigning shock and attempts to downplay these results. It has been
known and published, literally for decades now, that fluoride in
water
has been observed to promote cancer in laboratory animals.


I have been admitted to the Pennsylvania Academy of Science in
recognition of my acquired expertise in epidemiology. After some
years
of work, I joined Dr. Dean Burk and Dr. Pierre Morin in the
preparation of an article concerning the fluoridation-cancer
experience of some 18 million people over thirty years. This article
was refereed and reviewed over some eight months, and then published
under the title A Current Restatement and Continuing Reappraisal
Concerning Demographic Variables in American Time-Trend Studies on
Water Fluoridation and Human Cancer, 61 Proc. Pa. Acad. Science 138
(1988). The abstract says,


"This article reviews an important phase of the debate concerning a
striking association between artificial fluoridation of public water
supplies and increased crude cancer death rates in large central
cities of the United States from 1940 through 1968. The authors
believe that this association reveals a causal relationship between
water fluoridation and human cancer. Critics insist that the
association is explained by demographic changes in the two groups of
central cities which have been compared. The authors evaluate the
major papers of these critics, and show that, if all available and
pertinent data are standardized by the indirect method for age, race,
and sex, the association between fluoridation and cancer remains
substantially intact, but somewhat reduced. Attention is also given
to
a recent suggestion that the association can be explained by changes
in population sizes of the twenty cities observed. Analysis of this
proposal reveals that, in the cities considered during the period
observed, changes in population size were essentially an inverse
index
of population aging, and yielded adjustments parallel to those of
age,
race, and sex. It is concluded that artificial fluoridation appears
to
cause or induce about 20-30 excess cancer deaths for every 100,000
persons exposed per year after about 15-20 years."


Dr. William Marcus in the water standards division of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency has expressed grave concerns
about the danger of fluoride in the environment in a paper he gave at
a recent meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington, D.C.
I am honored to state that Dr. Marcus has approvingly cited our
article in an official memorandum of May 1, 1990.


In drawing upon the heroic example of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss, and the
legal meaning thereof as expounded by Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.,
on whose analysis Dr. Dean Burk relied in his testimony before a
subcommittee of Congress on April 6, 1976, I wish to remind those
responsible at Mayo Clinic that, at least in the absence of extreme
emergency, if a physician forcibly prescribes a drug or medicine,
precisely as fluoride is described in the Physicians Desk Reference,
over the protest of his patient, and in so doing refuses to head fair
warnings of lethal effects of such drug or medicine, -- or, if such
physician advises his patient to take a drug or medicine, knowing of
evidence of its lethal properties, -- and , in either event, if such
patient dies, then such physician may be guilty of murder or
manslaughter. And if the measure in question consists in mass
treatment of a population, and a large number of human deaths follow,
then it may be, in my opinion, a case of genocide or some other
species of crime against humanity, contrary to the customary law of
nations. And, in light of existing precedents, I believe that neither
domestic law nor official power nor social pressure nor economic
hardship would be a defense sufficient to prevent condemnation or
censure. Primum non nocere!


I shall be happy, at the request of any physician or committee at
Mayo
Clinic, to forward copies of any or all of the articles or
transcripts
mentioned in this letter, as well as a complete set of our figures
and
calculations in respect to the epidemiological data hereinabove
discussed.


Respectfully yours, John Remington Graham






.

Relevant Pages