Why Didnã¢â‚¬â„¢t The U.s. Government Or State Governments Provide Social Relief Services At This Time?

Although I just play the office of a scientist on the internet, my male parent really is one. Every bit well as being a medical physician, he is a retired professor of biophysics. I am telling you this because he has recently co-authored a book on a field of study that might involvement readers of ScienceBlogs: fluoridation of human water supplies. The book is entitled " The Case Confronting Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste matter Ended Upward in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep Information technology There " and you can read a detailed review of that book here [PDF].

At my request, he has written upward a guest post outlining the arguments he and his co-authors make in much greater item in "The Example against Fluoride" and says he will be checking the comments in example there are questions. So, without farther ado, take it abroad Dad!

---

Guest postal service by James S. Beck

Participants in this weblog will be familiar with at to the lowest degree ane struggle between science and science-deniers in the context of a human-made disaster, where textile interests and greed and reluctance to face responsibleness and fright of legal liability all lie in the background. That'due south the drama of climate change. Well, hither's another ane for us: fluoridation of public water supplies. The science is perchance simpler and the solution certainly is easier but the parallels are yet hit.

This drama got its start in North America in the 1940'due south after a big effort on the part of industries that were faced with costly police force suits over illness and death, things patently acquired by their industrial use of fluorine-containing chemicals. The government of the United States was as well involved in fluorine use in its enrichment of uranium for fission bombs. The public became involved unknowingly in 1945 with the beginnings of trials of fluoride every bit a preventive of dental caries (cavities). These trials were imposed on big cities in Canada, the US and New Zealand without consent of their inhabitants. The goal of some of the actors was prevention of cavities. The goal of the pushers seems to have been to brand fluoride look harmless and beneficial, thus making legal challenges hopeless of success. But these trials were imposed without prior tests for safety or effectiveness and fluoridation of public h2o supplies was canonical and promoted past the US Public Health Service in 1950 – half-way through these ill-conceived and incompetently executed trials. After that other authorities agencies and some professional associations speedily got on the bandwagon. Currently about two-thirds of the population of the United states is using fluoridated water. In Canada usage varies with province but overall less than xl% of the population has it. In Europe the practice has been refused and stopped to the extent that over xc% of the people do not take information technology.

A cursory review of three critical questions well-nigh fluoridation follows.

Is fluoridation effective in reducing the incidence of dental caries (cavities)?

Fluoridation of public water supplies has been in effect somewhere in the earth for seven decades now. Over that time the prevalence of dental caries has fallen in industrialized countries. This has been taken by many to indicate efficacy. Only research has consistently shown that the decrease has occurred in countries without fluoridation to the same or greater degree as in those with fluoridation. Furthermore information technology is observed that in jurisdictions where fluoridation has been discontinued the incidence of caries has not risen. And studies comparison caries feel of cities fluoridated with cities non fluoridated accept shown no divergence, except where the nonfluoridated cities do improve.

The answer to this first question is clearly no.

Is fluoridation safe?

The most obvious toxic effect has been dental fluorosis. In mild cases it appears as mottling discoloration of tooth surfaces. In moderate and severe cases it involves discoloration, pitting and weakening of the enamel and has serious consequences. The handling of this condition costs tens of thousands of dollars per patient. Even if this effect were only cosmetic, it would take serious negative furnishings on a kid'due south or teenager's life. Aside from dental fluorosis, evidence uncovered over the last 2 decades has shown an clan of fluoride in drinking water with lower IQ in children. There are over xx published studies showing this clan. In laboratory studies of animals and of aborted human fetuses an clan with abnormalities of cells of the brain has been found. Too it has been shown that fluoridation is associated with high levels of lead, a known neurotoxin, in the blood of children.

And there's more, including, but non limited to, the following:

• Fluoride intake is a cause of impaired thyroid part. Indeed fluoride was once used medically to suppress thyroid function.
• Deleterious effects on reproductive systems in humans have been plant to be associated with fluoridation: in girls, early onset of menstruation; in men, low sperm counts.
• We now have strong bear witness of the association of osteosarcoma in boys and young developed males with fluoridation. Osteosarcoma is a os cancer which is often fatal.
• The possible incidence of bone fracture with fluoridation has been studied with mixed results. Ane of the strongest studies is presented in a paper by Li et al. published in 2001 which shows a rising prevalence of hip fracture correlated with a rising intake of fluoride starting with concentrations comparable with those used in fluoridation in North America. And this is just one example that suggests that hip fracture is caused by fluoridated water.
• Fluoride adversely affects kidneys.
• Two recent studies accept shown agin effects on the middle and the aorta.

Ironically, this multiplicity of demonstrated and possible toxicities has really been cited by some proponents of fluoridation as discrediting the arguments of opponents. That tactic appears as an assertion that opponents are scaremongers, that nothing would cause then much trouble for so many body systems. Simply these effects of fluoride are non then surprising to anyone who recognizes that the element fluorine is the most reactive chemical element and that it reacts with many components of the human body. For instance, fluoride has been used in thousands of laboratory investigations equally an inhibitor of enzymes, the proteins that catalyze (facilitate) biochemical reactions. It is also well known that fluoride, in combination with other elements such equally aluminum and with components of cell membranes, disrupts the normal signalling across the membanes of hormones and other messengers that activate or moderate cellular functions. Really, the multiple toxicities are to be expected rather than dismissed because there are so many.

All of this is backed upwardly by scientific reports in peer-reviewed journals. I recognize that in that location are well educated proponents of fluoridation including scientists, physicians and dentists, but in my experience they have never offered evidence of safety or efficacy that stands upwardly to conscientious scrutiny.

Then the answer to the second question, "Is it condom?", is clearly no.

Is fluoridation ethical?

Given the show that fluoridation is ineffective and that it is dangerous, the question of ethicality is easily answered in the negative. Merely fifty-fifty if it were constructive, it would non exist acceptable for the following reasons.

It is unethical to administrate a substance or procedure to a person without the consent of that person, consent informed by a qualified professional who must respond questions from that person and who must inform the recipient of the reasons for the assistants and of possible side effects. Such consent has never been sought from, much less given by, those whose tap water is fluoridated.

It is unethical to administer a substance or procedure that has not been approved by a qualified torso. Dosage and/or intensity must exist monitored and controlled and the furnishings on individuals must exist monitored by a qualified professional person (control of concentration in water does not control amount per unit torso weight consumed by an private). The recipient must be able to stop the administration at will. These are simple precepts of medical ideals, precepts clearly non adhered to in the case of fluoridation.

In brusk the substances used to fluoridate drinking water (mostly hexafluorosilicic acid) have not been tested or approved for use in humans; the dosage is not controlled; individual consent has not been obtained; the furnishings on individuals are not monitored; individuals tin non stop the administration.

Fluoridation of public water supplies fails on all these ethical requirements.

For more data on this event, such as which city water supplies are fluoridated and how you can get involved tin be institute at the Fluoride Action Network.

[Update: references for this book can be found here: http://fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride.refs.html, sorry this was non offered initially]

Why Didnã¢â‚¬â„¢t The U.s. Government Or State Governments Provide Social Relief Services At This Time?,

Source: https://cobybeck.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/the-case-against-flouride/comment-page-5/

Posted by: lamontbost1962.blogspot.com

Share this post