NEW YORK, Sept. 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Fluoride avoidance reduced anemia in pregnant women, decreased pre-term births and enhanced babies’ birth-weight, concludes leading fluoride expert, AK Susheela and colleagues, in a study published in Current Science (May 2010). http://www.fluorideandfluorosis.com/Anemia/Current%20Science%20Reprint.pdf

Susheela’s team explains that anemia in pregnancy, which can lead to maternal and infant mortality, continues to plague many countries despite nutritional counseling and maternal iron and folic acid supplementation. This is the first examination of fluoride as an additional risk factor for anemia and low-birth-weight babies.

Anemic pregnant women living in India, whose urine contained 1 mg/L fluoride or more, were separated into two groups.  The experimental group avoided fluoride in water, food and other sources and ate a nutritious diet per instruction.  The control group received no instructions. Both groups supplemented with iron and folic acid.

Results reveal that anemia was reduced and pre-term and low-birth-weight babies were considerably fewer in the fluoride-avoidance group as compared to the control. Two stillbirths occurred in the control group, none in the experimental group.

Susheela et al. writes, “Maternal and child under-nutrition and anemia is not necessarily due to insufficient food intake but because of the derangement of nutrient absorption due to damage caused to GI  (gastrointestinal) mucosa by ingestion of undesired chemical substances, viz. fluoride through food, water and other sources.”

Fluoride avoidance regenerated the intestinal lining which enhanced the absorption of nutrients as evidenced by the reduction in urinary fluoride followed by rise in hemoglobin levels, they report.

Could the same thing be happening in the United States? State University of New York researchers found more premature births in fluoridated than non-fluoridated upstate New York communities, according to a presentation made at the 2009 American Public Health Association’s annual meeting.

Previous published research shows fluoride can interfere with the reproductive system (http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/repro).

Current Science reports that adverse reactions of fluoride consumption are known to occur including reducing red blood cells, reducing blood folic acid activity, inhibiting vitamin B12 production and the nonabsorption of nutrients for hemoglobin biosynthesis.

“Citizens must demand that water fluoridation be stopped,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.  ”It’s disturbing that public-health officials and organized dentistry continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence revealing fluoride to be non-nutritive, unnecessary and unsafe,” says Beeber.

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882, nyscof@aol.com

Click here for the article

William Hirzy, a former U.S. EPA chemist, has a favorite example when discussing the role of science in government policy: fluoride in drinking water. His view — and that of the EPA chapter of the National Treasury Employees Union — is that the chemical can be dangerous, possibly increasing the risk of bone cancer in young boys. But EPA has yet to change its 4-milligrams-per-liter drinking water standard (though a spokesman said the agency is “actively moving ahead” with an assessment).

Hirzy worries that EPA officials are dragging their feet because the U.S. Public Health Service has long touted fluoride as a beneficial additive to drinking water. And to him, that slow response is indicative of the Obama administration’s failure to fulfill its promise of scientific integrity in federal agencies.

President Obama first directed that a scientific integrity directive be released in July 2009. By July 2010, White House officials promised it was forthcoming; almost two months later, there’s no indication of when it will emerge.

“Why this administration has taken so long, I don’t know,” said Hirzy, who is now an adjunct professor at American University. “I don’t know the motives. I just know the effects.”

Government scientists had high hopes when Obama took office. But Hirzy and others say that some are now disillusioned, witnessing less change than they had expected. They point to EPA’s use of dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the recent salmonella outbreak and egg recall, and the revelation that the diabetes drug Avandia increases the risk of heart attacks. In all cases, the concerns of some agency scientists were ignored, they say.

“All these times where something’s gone wrong, it’s pretty clear that someone on the inside knew or had concerns,” said Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “Yet because we have no clear guidance on when and how scientists can speak out, and since we have no clear protection for whistle-blowers, it’s a lot to ask someone to go out on a limb.”

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to try to get to the bottom of the delay, asking for agencies’ feedback on the White House’s directive. Executive Director Jeff Ruch believes the answer for the holdup might be in that paperwork; agencies, he said, may be pushing back on the directive.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy — tasked with writing the directive — did not return requests for comment. But Director John Holdren admitted in a blog post in June that the process was “more laborious and time-consuming than expected at the outset,” primarily because of the difficulty of establishing one set of principles for all federal agencies.

Ruch said agencies have improved little in the meantime.

“It’s different, but they haven’t lived up to the pledge,” he said, though he added that it was “hard to feel nostalgic” for the years under President George W. Bush. “The Obama administration raised our expectations principally through their own words.”

Indeed, Obama outlined a slew of intentions in a March 2009 memo, writing that political officials “should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.” Research, he wrote, should be transparent and available to the public, while agencies should hire scientists solely for their expertise.

The president also directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to create a set of guidelines to ensure agencies met these goals. But Holdren wrote in June that Obama’s memo already bound agencies to improving their policies regarding research and transparency.

“There should not be any doubt that these principles have been in effect — that is, binding on all Executive departments and agencies — from the date of issue of the Memorandum on March 9, 2009,” he wrote.

Advocacy groups are skeptical.

“I’m sure there’s been improvement. The question is how much and how widespread,” said Grifo. “Is it enough? No. We’re still hearing from folks. … Decisions are being made that aren’t with the best science.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists has been closely following the issue for more than two years, keeping track of decisions and news that indicate whether federal agencies are beginning to give scientists more clout. When EPA disclosed the ingredients of the oil dispersant used in the Gulf, the nonprofit marked the move as a step forward. But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration earned a “red light” on UCS’s websitewhen scientists criticized the agency for inaccurately measuring the spill’s size.

Grifo said some agencies have improved under Obama more than others. With changing leadership have come some “great strides,” she said. In her view, EPA has fared the best, thanks to Administrator Lisa Jackson. Indeed, EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan touted the agency’s decisions to declare greenhouse gases a threat, propose stricter smog standards and issue new guidelines on mountaintop-removal mining.

But Grifo said scientists at EPA and elsewhere still need federal guidelines — and that’s where the scientific integrity directive comes in.

“I get that it’s challenging. I get that there are many competing priorities,” she said. “But I think what will serve the American people will be able to sort out the important from the urgent and give it some attention.”

Click here for the article

Medical college of Georgia has been conducting a new research from quite a long time and now they have been successful in knowing that how heavy tea drinkers can come across many of the diseases like the problems of the bone etc.

It has been shown that the concentration of the fluoride in the black tea is much more than it was expected before. The Regents Professor of oral biology in the Dentistry School Dr. Gary Whitford said that normally a person can have 2 to 4 cups of black tea but as we know that excessive of everything is bad, it also has a strong effect on the bones of the individual. In taking of the large amounts of the tea in a single day can lead to various health problems.

Before all this research it has been said that the one liter of the black tea in a day only contains 1 to 5 milligrams of the fluoride concentration but now after this new discovery it has been recorded that the percentage of the fluoride can even be quite higher in 1 liter can also go upto 9 to 10 milligrams depending upon the added flavor.

Previously the researchers found that the intake of the fluoride is good for the teeth as it prevents the dental cavity but now it has been noticed that it is causing a great harm to the individual taking more of the black tea.

Read more: A New Research Conducted Bone Problems for Heavy Tea Drinkers - All India Today

		IMAGE: This is Dr. Gary Whitford of the Medical College of Georgia. Black tea, a Southern staple and the world’s most consumed beverage, may contain higher concentrations of fluoride than previously… Click here for more information.

June 14, 2010

AUGUSTA, Ga. – Black tea, a Southern staple and the world’s most consumed beverage, may contain higher concentrations of fluoride than previously thought, which could pose problems for the heaviest tea drinkers, Medical College of Georgia researchers say.

“The additional fluoride from drinking two to four cups of tea a day won’t harm anyone; it’s the very heavy tea drinkers who could get in trouble,” said Dr. Gary Whitford, Regents Professor of oral biology in the School of Dentistry. He presented his findings today at the 2010 International Association of Dental Research Conference in Barcelona, Spain.

Most published reports show 1 to 5 milligrams of fluoride per liter of black tea, but a new study shows that number could be as high as 9 milligrams.

Fluoride is known to help prevent dental cavities, but long-term ingestion of excessive amounts could cause bone problems. The average person ingests a very safe amount, 2 to 3 milligrams, daily through fluoridated drinking water, toothpaste and food. It would take ingesting about 20 milligrams a day over 10 or more years before posing a significant risk to bone health.

Whitford discovered that the fluoride concentration in black tea had long been underestimated when he began analyzing data from four patients with advanced skeletal fluorosis, a disease caused by excessive fluoride consumption and characterized by joint and bone pain and damage. While it is extremely rare in the United States, the common link between these four patients was their tea consumption – each person drank 1 to 2 gallons of tea daily for the past 10 to 30 years.

“When we tested the patients’ tea brands using a traditional method, we found the fluoride concentrations to be very low, so we wondered if that method was detecting all of the fluoride,” Whitford said, noting that the tea plant, Camellia sinensis, creates a quandary when measuring fluoride. Unique among other plants, it accumulates huge concentrations of fluoride and aluminum in its leaves – each mineral ranges from 600 to more than 1,000 milligrams per kilogram of leaves. When the leaves are brewed for tea, some of the minerals leach into the beverage.

Most published studies about black tea traditionally have used a method of measuring fluoride that doesn’t account for the amount that combines with aluminum to form insoluble aluminum fluoride, which is not detected by the fluoride electrode. Whitford compared that method with a diffusion method, which breaks the aluminum-fluoride bond so that all fluoride in the tea samples can be extracted and measured.

He tested seven brands of store-bought black tea, steeping each for five minutes in deionized water, which contains no fluoride. The amount of fluoride in each sample was 1.4 to 3.3 times higher using the diffusion method than the traditional method.

The new information shouldn’t deter tea drinkers, as the beverage is safe and some teas even have health benefits, Whitford said. “The bottom line is to enjoy your favorite tea, but like everything else, drink it in moderation.”

Including Whitford’s presentation, School of Dentistry faculty and students will make 24 oral and poster presentations at the International Association for Dental Research conference July 14-17.

Faculty and students receiving awards at the conference include:

• Dr. Ulf Wikesjo, interim associate dean for research and enterprise, recipient of the IADR/Straumann Award in Regenerative Periodontal Medicine.
• Students James Yoon, Evan Grodin and Quac Tran, finalists for the IADR Young Investigator Award.
• Students James Yoon, Dhruti Patel, Ashley Smith, Tina Sampat and Shivani Patel, recipients of American Association of Dental Research Bloc Travel Grants.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The controversy over adding sodium fluoride to water supplies in both the U.S. and the UK is intensifying as two separate stories out of India reveal that children are being blinded and crippled partly as a result of the neurotoxin being artificially added to drinking water.

In the Indian village of Gaudiyan, well over half of the population have bone deformities, making them physically handicapped. Children are born normally but after they start drinking the fluoridated water, they begin to develop crippling defects in their hands and feet.

“Due to the excess fluoride content in drinking water, the calcium intake is not absorbed in the body, causing disabilities and deformities,” said Dr Amit Shukla, a neurophysician.

“Sijara, a 35-year-old woman who is also afflicted, said the problem started around 30 years ago and gradually gripped the entire village,” reports Express India. “Now, you hardly find a person without the deformities. People in the village die at a relatively young age,” added Sijara whose three sons also have physical deformities.”

Government doctors have denied that fluoridation of drinking water is to blame, but have refused to test the water, insisting such tests are “not necessary”.

Meanwhile, in the village of Pavagada, 180 km from Bangalore, children are going blind after being diagnosed with Lamellar Congenital cataract — a condition wherein the eye lens are damaged.

“Alarmed by the pattern in eye diseases among children in Pavagada taluk and the increasing cases of blindness, Narayana Netralaya, in collaboration with Narayana Hrudalaya and Shree Sharada Devi Eye hospital and Research Centre in Pavagada, has begun one of the largest studies on eye disorders involving 29,800 children,” reports the Times of India in a piece entitled, Blinded by tradition and fluoride in water.

The doctors attribute the child blindness to two factors – consanguineous marriages and the “fluoride content” of the drinking water.

Christopher Bryson’s widely acclaimed book The Fluoride Deception includes dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing that sodium fluoride is a deadly neurotoxin that attacks the central nervous system and leads to a multitude of serious health problems. This fact has been covered up by a collusion of government and industry who have reaped financial windfalls while illegally mass medicating the public against their will.

Perhaps the most notable study was conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D., a highly respected pharmacologist and toxicologist, who in a 1995 Forsyth Research Institute studyfound that rats who had fluoride added to their diet exhibited abnormal behavioral traits.

A 2008 Scientific American report concluded that “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerged of the poison’s link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

“Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities,” reported Scientific American’s Dan Fagin, an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

The Scientific American study “Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism.”

The report also notes that “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”

“Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin.

The study adds to a growing literature of shocking scientific studies proving fluoride’s link with all manner of health defects, even as governments in the west, including the UK, make plans to mass medicate the population against their will with this deadly toxin. Most Americans already drink artificially fluoridated water.

In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.

“New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – between the ages of 10 and 19,” according to a London Observer article about the study.

Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the US government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.

The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.

An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions.

Growing opposition to fluoridation of water supplies in light of this evidence is contributing to a scaling back of water fluoridation programs, with voters in places like Mount Pleasant calling for the amount added to be reduced.

With awareness about sodium fluoride on the increase, the establishment is now moving to demonize anyone who raises the issue as a dangerous lunatic. In an official press release today,the Fluoride Action Network slams “recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada re-election campaign.”

As we wrote earlier this month, Keith Olbermann sardonically attacked Nevada primary winner Sharron Angle for speaking out against water fluoridation, “because she thinks the fluoride might be poison.”

Amidst his sophomoric jibes, Olbermann failed to explain why, if fluoride isn’t a poison as he claims, the word “toxic” is written on the packaging of bags of sodium fluoride that are dumped into the water supply of many Americans.

Sodium fluoride is a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972. In addition, toothpaste manufacturers are required by law to include the following text on their products, “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

“FAN’s website http://www.FluorideAlert.org has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective,” states the press release. “In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children.” On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Alison Young
Published February 7, 2007

Health officials are recommending that parents who feed formula to their babies consider using bottled water ‹ rather than tap ‹ when mixing it to prevent a dental condition that causes subtle white marks on developing teeth.

While emphasizing the significant benefits of fluoridated tap water in preventing cavities, new recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association say parents need to be aware of how much fluoride babies and young children are exposed to.

“Since the beginning we knew there was a trade off between preventing tooth decay and enamel fluorosis,” said William Maas, director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health. (more…)

by Paul Connett, PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617

1) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.

2) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the US (See data from World Health Organization in Appendix 1, and the time trends presented graphically at http://www.fluoridealert.org/who-dmft.htm ). The reasons given by countries for not fluoridating are presented in Appendix 2.) (more…)

• By Chris Reinolds
  Green Right Now ABC7, June 3, 2009
  Straight to the Source

A new cancer study from India suggests that fluoride is a contributing factor to osteosarcoma, or bone cancer - but just how much fluoride intake causes the uncommon disease is not clear.

Fluoride in Americans’ tap water has spurred controversy since its introduction in 1945. Anti-fluoride activists say the risks are too high to add “medication” to the water, while government officials cite scientific studies that prove fewer cavities and no serious risk.

In Europe, most countries refuse to treat their water with fluoride with the exception of the United Kingdom. According to the British Medical Journal, fluoridation was introduced in 1963, and the Department of Health reports that rates of dental decay have been reduced 70 percent. But experts remain divided over epidemiological research that has suggested that water fluoridation might be linked to osteoporosis, dental fluorosis, irritable bowel syndrome, and other health problems.

The latest cancer study indicates blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups, according to research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009).

Click here for the rest of this article.