Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.
Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"
Motivations - especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:
a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.
So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

for those who have seen my previous posts on the subject of you fluoride, you might know that this is a subject of great interest to me. So for the new eyes that may view this video and the comments, I will be re-posting some information into this tread that bears repeating

If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf

also, the ADA recommends that babies do not get any fluoride.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/infant-fluoride-warning.pdf

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2005
Water Fluoridation:
a Review of Recent Research and Actions


Artificial fluoridation of drinking water by municipalities at 1 ppm of fluoride ion probably does not reduce tooth decay, except for a minor effect on deciduous teeth. Hexafluorosilicic acid and its sodium salt, which contain other toxic substances because they are not purified, certainly have no significant benefit.

Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data.

There is evidence that fluoridation increases the incidence of cancer, hip fractures, joint problems, and that by causing fluorosis it damages both teeth and bones. Other medical problems may also occur, including neurologic damage.

Antifluoridationists compromise their credibility by unwarranted assertions that many stable fluorine-containing materials are harmful.

The EPA should set the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level at 0.4 ppm fluoride in drinking water.

The FDA should reverse its position on permitting sale of products containing fluoride that claim dental benefit without proof of safety or effectiveness.

Fluoridation of municipal water should cease.

Defluoridation of naturally fluoridated water down to 0.4 ppm of fluoride should
be mandated. Individuals should remove fluoride from their tap water if fluoridation cannot be stopped.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons_2005_Water_Fluoridation_review.pdf

If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf

also, the ADA recommends that babies do not get any fluoride.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/infant-fluoride-warning.pdf

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2005
Water Fluoridation:
a Review of Recent Research and Actions


Artificial fluoridation of drinking water by municipalities at 1 ppm of fluoride ion probably does not reduce tooth decay, except for a minor effect on deciduous teeth. Hexafluorosilicic acid and its sodium salt, which contain other toxic substances because they are not purified, certainly have no significant benefit.

Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data.

There is evidence that fluoridation increases the incidence of cancer, hip fractures, joint problems, and that by causing fluorosis it damages both teeth and bones. Other medical problems may also occur, including neurologic damage.

Antifluoridationists compromise their credibility by unwarranted assertions that many stable fluorine-containing materials are harmful.

The EPA should set the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level at 0.4 ppm fluoride in drinking water.

The FDA should reverse its position on permitting sale of products containing fluoride that claim dental benefit without proof of safety or effectiveness.

Fluoridation of municipal water should cease.

Defluoridation of naturally fluoridated water down to 0.4 ppm of fluoride should
be mandated. Individuals should remove fluoride from their tap water if fluoridation cannot be stopped.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons_2005_Water_Fluoridation_review.pdf

a little more

Fluoride Pesticides

The concern centers on the fluoride ion's toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation in humans, wildlife, and soil. The main pesticides are:

• Cryolite: (sodium aluminum fluoride) - mainly used on grapes, fruits, and potatoes. EPA allows fluoride tolerances of 7 ppm, except for kiwifruit, which has a residue tolerance of 15 ppm.

•Sulfuryl fluoride is the most immediate and important pesticide issue for the FAN Pesticide Project. This acutely toxic fumigant received its first-time approval for use on stored food commodities (raw and processed) in the US in January 2004. This approval allows the highest levels of fluoride residue levels in food in the history of the EPA. FAN, together with Beyond Pesticides, submitted formal objections to EPA on this approval (see press release). See the food tolerances approved and petitioned for as of July 15, 2005.

• Sodium fluoride - its only known use is in wood preservatives(railroad ties and utility poles). However, sodium fluoride was used as a "List 4 Inert" until USEPA revoked that use in September 2005. Prior to its revocation, sodium fluoride, as a "List 4 Inert," was approved for use in the US National Organic Program administered by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). In 2000, approximately 125 individuals contacted USDA requesting that the use of sodium fluoride be denied in organic agriculture - all to no avail. UPDATE: On October 10, 2007, USEPA released a series of documents in preparation for a final risk assessment.

Fluorinated Pesticides

• The majority of the pesticides in our data base are fluorinated. We had used the term "organofluorine" to describe organic pesticides containing fluorine in their chemical formula. However, this term is not precise, as the majority of pesticides contain other halogens, primarily chlorine. Seven pesticides in our data base contain three halogens in their chemical formula: fluorine, bromine, and chlorine.

• The toxicity of the fluorinated compound is not due to the release of a free fluoride ion, but to the particular molecular structure of the compound. From our research to date it appears that fluorinated pesticides intensify pesticidal and biological activity. Animal studies available on pesticides with fluorine + bromine in their chemical formula consistently report severe brain effects.

REMBAR

Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I try to give a nuanced response back to your critique.

Perhaps you missed reading in depth several of the headings in that report, for which they based their title “National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe” . http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
I think the title they chose is fair and accurate in that the NRC is advocating that the EPA lower the allowable level of fluoride in our water due to adverse health affects (see the itemized list in the link above for specifics). This directly contradicts both of your statements. (#1 & #2)

#1. I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe

Your statement is incorrect.

On March 22, 2006, a prestigious 12-member panel of the National Research Council completed a three year review of the appropriateness of the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (officially called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) which is currently set at 4 ppm. After one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years, the NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG is too high and has asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental fluorosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture. They have asked the EPA to perform a risk assessment to determine what the standard should be.. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html

#2. “but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.”

Your statement does not take into account that dosage cannot be controlled.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, tea and food.

Also, here is the 2004 USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/fluoride-in-everything.pdf

As you’ll see below in each one of those headings, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
the report came back with several concerns. From negative findings about fluorides affect on our health, recommending lowering what the EPA had set as an (unsafe) standard and mainly suggests more research.

This is a far cry from the 1993 book you cited which stated (only in regards to the Carcinogenicity effects of fluoride) that there is no connection.

I also disagree with you and Doc_M's criticism of my citing a website critical of fluoride, rather than the actual studies in question. That website acts as a repository of information, which also provides summaries of in depth scientific articles from nationally recognized agencies such as

The National Research Council
The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government.

So are you are saying the original site I quoted cannot be trusted because they post critical information from the NRC about EPA studies? You and Doc both make the blanket statement that if the site is biased, then it cannot be trusted. If you would like a website that addresses both arguments and compares and contrasts them, then check this out

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Qruel

Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I try to give a nuanced response back to your critique.
Perhaps you missed reading in depth several of the headings in that report, for which they based their title “National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe” . http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
I think the title they chose is fair and accurate in that the NRC is advocating that the EPA lower the allowable level of fluoride in our water due to adverse health affects (see the itemized list in the link above for specifics). This directly contradicts both of your statements. (#1 & #2)

#1. I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe

Your statement is incorrect.

On March 22, 2006, a prestigious 12-member panel of the National Research Council completed a three year review of the appropriateness of the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (officially called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) which is currently set at 4 ppm. After one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years, the NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG is too high and has asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental fluorosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture. They have asked the EPA to perform a risk assessment to determine what the standard should be.. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html

#2. “but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.”

Your statement does not take into account that dosage cannot be controlled.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, tea and food.

Also, here is the 2004 USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/fluoride-in-everything.pdf

As you’ll see below in each one of those headings, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
the report came back with several concerns. From negative findings about fluorides affect on our health, recommending lowering what the EPA had set as an (unsafe) standard and mainly suggests more research.

This is a far cry from the 1993 book you cited which stated (only in regards to the Carcinogenicity effects of fluoride) that there is no connection.
I also disagree with you and Doc_M's criticism of my citing a website critical of fluoride, rather than the actual studies in question. That website acts as a repository of information, which also provides summaries of in depth scientific articles from nationally recognized agencies such as

The National Research Council
The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the National Research Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public and the scientific and engineering communities. The Research Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine through the National Research Council Governing Board. The chairman of the National Research Council is Ralph J. Cicerone.


So are you are saying this site cannot be trusted because they post critical information from the NRC about EPA studies? If you would like a website that addresses both arguments and compares and contrasts them, then check this out http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Qruel

In reply to this comment by rembar:
I am removing this sift from the Science channel, as this video does not well represent the scientific process by which we should all hope issues such as the use of fluoride would be given.

In addition, for the record, Qruel, when you are citing evidence in an argument, do not choose headlines written that misrepresent the studies that are being cited. Doc_M's criticism of your citing a biased website rather than the actual studies in question was very legitimate, and appropriate in this particular case. If you want to cite studies, cite studies, don't quote somebody "quoting" from a study. This is a good reason for using primary documents in a scientific debate. For example, the first study, represented as "1) National Research Council: Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fluoride standards are unsafe"...well, I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe), and guess what it reads? It says that high doses of fluoride have been proven to cause health problems (which had already been well-documented), but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.

And for a bit of further reading, check out Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride (1993), which has such little gems as : "More than 50 epidemiological studies have been conducted to evaluate the relation between fluoride concentrations in drinking water and human cancer. With minor exceptions, these studies used the method of geographic or temporal comparisons of fluoridation status and regional cancer rates. There is no consistent observation of increased cancer risk with drinking-water fluoridation; most of the studies show no association. The large number of epidemiological studies combined with their lack of positive findings implies that if any link exists, it must be very weak."

A very simple but interesting exercise might be to ask your local dentist the next time you go for a checkup what he or she thinks of fluoride.

10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | December 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physics rules.

The Fusion they are describing here is done with deuterium-tritium. (1)

Deuterium is a stable Hydrogen form that can be found in "abundance" in ocean water. (2)
".... approximately one atom in 6500 of hydrogen (~154 PPM). Deuterium thus accounts for approximately 0.015% (on a weight basis, 0.030%) of all naturally occurring hydrogen in the oceans on Earth" (2)

Tritium is an unstable hydrogen Isotope, also found naturally though not as often. It is found in abundance on the moon. (3)

In other words, of that bathtub, only 0,015% of the hydrogen is actually used. 2 hydrogens are still a lot lighter then 1 oxygen (H2O ;-), so in total only a fraction of 0,015% of all the water is used. After that, we will have to use other materials. Since all of the materials you find on earth are made in the sun through Fusion, well, you can see how endless our fuel supply is. If technology can find ways to harvest the energy without blowing us all up.

One thing though: Fusion also creates radioactive materials. It is less of a problem then with Fission, but they are still there. Dont know why they mention it does not.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

commentary and corrections:
nitrite-cancer link: Still controversial. The American Cancer Society recommends reducing consumption of nitrite-preserved foods.

10. Catfish -- http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html
average 0.049 ppm of mercury according to the FDA - not the worst, but not as good as salmon or almost any other freshwater fish.

9. Canned Soups typically have about 50% of the RDA of sodium per 120 calories, and that RDA is based on a 2000 calorie diet. I.E., to meet the sodium RDA, canned soup would have to be a tiny percentage of your overall caloric intake. MSG serves a dual function as a flavor enhancer and preservative, but it's not really bad for you in moderate quantities

8. Bacon: There's a little bit of protein and cholesterol with the fat and salt. Of course it's still bad for you.

7. Fast food burgers...

6. Twinkies have almost no vitamins, minerals, or protein... They're mostly fat, starch, and sugar.

5. Chips ... she exaggerates.

*discard

sadly looris, this product is neither. it is merely a homeopathic placebo consisting of nearly all wax and potassium dichromate diluted to 1 PPM. you'd have better results buying a gluestick in the art supply asile.

This works with any kind of beverage in which there are no floaties, eg, orange juice would not work because there are bits of orange suspended in the liquid. From what I understand, when water freezes, it needs some sort of rough surface or disturbance for crystals to form. I know this works because I tried it with a bottle of spring water (200 ppm dislolved solids, so definatley not pure) after watching the first video here on VS. the seconf the bottle is shook and there is disturbance great enough to allow crystals to form, the bottle freezes over. It is more like a slush and not solid ice, and the bottles that I forgot about were completly frozen solid the next day. I only kept the bottle in for about 3-4 hours and it worked like in the video. I bet that if you put a rock in the bottle or something, the water would freeze and this would not happen.

Geez ladybug, I can't believe your virtually harmless comment. I almost dropped this, but the more I think about it.. the crazier it is.

From wikipedia:

Carbon dioxide content in fresh air varies and is between 0.03% (300 ppm) to 0.06% (600 ppm), depending on location and in exhaled air approximately 4.5%. When inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume), it is immediately dangerous to the life and health of plants, humans and other animals. The current threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum level that is considered safe for healthy adults for an 8-hour work day is 0.5% (5000 ppm). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues would be significantly less.

These figures are valid for carbon dioxide supplied in "pure" form. In indoor spaces occupied by humans the carbon dioxide concentration will also reach a level higher than in pure outdoor air. Concentrations higher than 1000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants, and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration. The discomfort will be caused by various gases coming from human respiration and perspiration, and not by CO2 itself. At 2000 ppm will the majority of occupants feel a significant degree of discomfort, and many will develop nausea and headache. The CO2 concentration between 300 and 2500 ppm is used as an indicator of indoor air quality in spaces polluted by human occupation.

Acute carbon dioxide toxicity is sometimes known as choke damp, an old mining industry term, and was the cause of death at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, where an upwelling of CO2-laden lake water in 1986 covered a wide area in a blanket of the gas, killing nearly 2000.

From MSDS

>4% by volume in the atmosphere produces labored breathing and is dangerous for even a few minutes of exposure; >12% causes rapid unconsciousness; a few hours exposure at 25% results in death.

Maybe liquid Nitrogen or helium would only be equivalent to holding your breathe.. but CO2 is toxic. So I realize one lb of dry ice in a 20ft x 20ft room is relatively harmless, but you are talking about inhaling it directly over the course of however long you are hitting the hookah. That is going to be way over an average intake of 3000ppm. Now you might argue that when breathing normal air in between hitting the hookah, you are dispelling a lot of excess CO2, but I think your blood is getting elevated toxic levels during the hose sucking parts.