Toxic Chemicals In Your Water

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.

Neurotoxic and Lowers IQ

Causes Cancer

Changes Bone Structure and Strength

Banned in Many 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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