Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Pentagon Will "Catapult the Propaganda" Via U.S. Media

Pentagon Will "Catapult the Propaganda" Via U.S. Media

Military, government indoctrination wing formally declares psychological warfare on the American people

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 31 2006

The Pentagon has formally declared psychological warfare on the American people by announcing it will engage in propaganda and indoctrination by using the Internet and media to "set the record straight" on the war on terror. Recent history clearly indicates this is just the latest outreach of an insipid brainwashing agenda that is totally unlawful and anathema to the U.S. Constitution.

In the past, the military or the government did not announce that they were planting surreptitious propaganda to target U.S. audiences, they did it secretly and for a very good reason - because it was and still is illegal.

But since George W. Bush, backed by his renegade legal advisors, officially announced the end of the Republic and the birth of the "decidership," he can arbitrarily create out of thin air, ignore, or amend any law he likes and to all intents and purposes is above the Constitution and has ascribed to himself total dictator power. The only thing that remains is, in his own words, to "catapult the propaganda," in an attempt to legitimize his absolute rule and assure the blind obedience of the American people to his junta's future desecrations of foreign lands and the bill of rights at home.

The new program is simply another wing of the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence, publicly announced after 9/11 but simply the latest incarnation of a PR brainwashing scam that spans back decades. The OSI exploited legal loopholes by planting its propaganda in foreign newspapers that would later be picked up by U.S. newswires. In today's environment even that seems quaint, with the Pentagon openly and proudly shouting from the rooftops that they will knowingly violate the law to indoctrinate the American people.

Perhaps the most alarming case of the military's information tentacles burrowing their influence deep into media circles in recent years was in February 2000, when another branch of the same Pentagon propaganda bureau, Psychological Operations Command (PSYOPS), had placed their operatives "in the news division at CNN's Atlanta headquarters as part of an “internship” program starting in the final days of the Kosovo War."

FAIR speculated that the purpose was twofold, one to directly propagandize the American people via CNN and also potentially to allow the "military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against the network itself," because the "military needed to find ways to "gain control" over commercial news satellites to help bring down an "informational cone of silence" over regions where special operations were taking place."

With the knowledge that government propagandists were utilizing U.S. news network hubs at CNN to run what was described as a "vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory," and that this took place over six years ago - just imagine how infested today's networks and newsrooms are with paid agent provocateur propagandists whose sole job specification is to orchestrate methods of mind control over the population of the United States.

In October 2005 Government Accountability Office investigators concluded that the Bush administration's secret policy to pay off influential journalists to plant fake news and positive spin on Bush's policies was illegal and that the "administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban."

The consequences were not the drafting of new legislation that would clearly outlaw such actions in future, nor any form of criminal proceedings against the protagonists. The upshot of it all was a slap on the wrist for Armstrong Williams and a request that he pay back part of the money that the government had given him - not even all of it.

"Armstrong Williams is going to pay back $34,000 to the government for work he failed to deliver, but who's going to pay the taxpayers for the rest of the quarter million dollars Williams was paid for his propaganda services to the administration?," asked Congressman George Miller, as the Justice Department hurried a settlement and swept the whole sordid affair under the rug.

Impromptu mass e mail circulations and talking points spread around messageboards and social networking websites that triumph the moral virtues of the war on terror have been rife for years and are clearly part of a gargantuan propaganda campaign that has been insipid for years but is only just being announced now.

Here are a couple you'll probably remember from the past few months.

A recent diatribe that was forwarded more times than an annoying "meet the love of your life" chain letter concerned a visit to the White House by a man who was overwhelmed by the intensely warm and gracious personality of George W. Bush, and astounded by the negative media stereotype of his nature. The man just felt the need to share his tear-jerking story of how the President shook him by the hand, looked in his eyes and made him feel like the most important person in the room - and by a miracle it just happened to bypass our spam guards and end up in tens of millions of Americans' inboxes.

Another example that similarly wormed its way through MySpace bulletin boards was an attempt at bolstering the credibility of the flagging war on terror and countering the progress of the 9/11 truth movement by simply listing terror attacks over the last three decades and their alleged perpetrators. A modified version of this was used in a speech by Bush propaganda architect Karl Rove just a week ago where he referenced terror attacks that had occurredbefore the invasion of Iraq, therefore attempting to absolve charges that the Iraq invasion provoked an increase in terrorism. So under that twisted logic, drug dealers shouldn't worry about creating more addicts by selling drugs because there were always drug addicts before them!

In both cases, as soon as you read the first paragraph of these screeds, the big fat stinking rat of covert government propaganda scuttled across the computer screen.

Now the modern day gang of Goebbels wannabees seek to sink their teeth even further into the last outpost of free speech - the Internet - and impose a blackout on any dissent under the auspices of "disseminating enemy propaganda."

The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Bush's own strategy document for "winning the war on terror" identifies "conspiracy theorists," meaning anyone who exposes government corruption and its lies about major domestic and world events, as "terrorists recruiters," and vows to eliminate their influence in society.

In a speech given last Monday, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills."

Chertoff has pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.

A program on behalf of CENTCOM is also underway to infiltrate blogs and message boards to ensure people, "have the opportunity to read positive stories,"presumably about how Iraq is a wonderful liberated democracy and the war on terror really is about protecting Americans from Al-CIAda.

The eminently hypocritical tenet of the Pentagon's justification for the propaganda program - that they need to correct "inaccurate statements" and "set the record straight" is borne out by the fact that they participated in the dissemination of the most lurid and damaging propaganda since Hitler's final speech - a deliberately fomented lie about weapons of mass destruction that killed 655,000 Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers.

How dare this gaggle of criminals lecture us about how the insurgents control the media while equating anyone who even mildly criticizes their bloodlust with being a terrorist?

They are the liars, they are the crooks, they are the propagandists and it is we the alternative media - the fifth estate - that should mobilize like never before to counter their spurious deception.

Large Flattened Ring Found In PA Cornfield

Large Flattened Ring Found In PA Cornfield

Nancy Talbott
BLT Research Team Inc.

Location: NW of Harrisburg, PA
Date Found: October 28, 2006
Date Formed: Unknown
Crop: Field Corn, 8-9 ft. tall
Source: Courtesy, Peter Davenport, UFO Reporting Center

Description: A local turkey hunter, working the edges of a remote corn field NW of Harrisburg, discovered an unusual flattened ring which abutted one edge of the field. The flattened ring was 30 ft. (rough measure) wide, with a 30 ft. standing center, making the overall diameter approximately 90 ft. The hunter also reports a "path" off to one side, which looked to him to be part of the overall event. The corn plants were all laid counter-clockwise and, from the photos provided, the lay of the crop appears to be typical of that seen in many crop circles; multiple corn stalks were also observed to be either cut, or broken off, at the 2nd or 3rd node from the bottom, in spite of the hunter's assertion that he saw no "cut" stems. The photos did not make it possible to examine the "path," but we are told it was perhaps 6-8 ft. long. No high-power electric lines are reported near the field, but a creek does run next to it.

The hunter, who hunts this very remote property with permission from the landowner, stated that the owner generally does not grant access to his property. However, a local MUFON investigator did visit the site and reported that he could find no evidence of radioactivity. No compass work was carried out and no examination of the plant stem nodes was made; no samples were taken.

Without on-site examination, sampling and lab testing it is impossible to know whether this flattened corn ring was man-made; but the height of the corn plants, the fairly typical spiral crop lay, the unusual width of the flattened ring, and the extreme remoteness of the property suggest otherwise.

Nancy Talbott
BLT Research Team Inc.
P.O. Box 400127
Cambridge, MA 02140 (USA)

ph: 617/492-0415
web-site: www.bltresearch.com

Photos: Wayne Gracey

Illuminati goes Public

Born Into Illuminati, Italian Aristocrat Goes Public About Opus Dei, Jesuits and Vatican NWO Connections
Leo Zagami knows his life is in danger, but Illuminati insider who broke away from Satanism wants to warn Americans about the "evil enemy" destroying freedom.

More Satanic Worshipping In Vatican Verified

quote from article...

"The United States is completely controlled and by 2010 it will be completely fascist. That is their plan. Then they want to rebuild Soloman's Temple in Jerusalem and contriol the world with one world religion and government. They say in Monte Carlo that the Illuminati will control America by the stick! What they want to do is bring down the cities by taking control of the electricity and the water and they say if you want these things back, you will have to submit to facsim."

FDA Never Safety - Tested Fluoride Ingestion

This was posted as a response to a fluoride article I posted a few days ago and thought it should be more noticeable.. thank you (nyscof) for posting it...

also before getting to the article I wanted to point out the two links below... the first on was a shocker... but after thinking about it .. it did make sense.. since everything is MADE WITH or IN water ... then everything would have some fluoride in it... sadly my bottled water i drink at work even has 5 ppm in it

the second link talks about the interaction with aspartame.... also very informitive !!!

now on with the show...

The U.S. Department of Agriculture lists the fluoride content of many foods here: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/Fluoride.html

Furthermore, fluoride interacts with aspartame.

FDA Never Safety-Tested Fluoride Ingestion

FDA approval of fluoridated bottled water may be premature

NEW YORK -- Because of a glitch in the law,3 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) never safety-tested fluoride for ingestion.1 Yet, the FDA recently OK'd cavity-preventing claims on fluoridated bottled water labels,2 giving Americans a false sense of security about the safety and effectiveness of drinking bottled water with fluoride added..

Sodium fluoride was sold before FDA safety and effectiveness testing laws were enacted in 1938 and 1962, respectively. So fluoride was exempt from scrutiny, or "grandfathered in," without any FDA human or animal studies.3 "The premise was that all pre-1938 drugs were considered safe," according to FDA correspondence.3

Sodium fluoride was already sold pre-1938 but not as a decay preventive. As strange as it sounds, it commonly sold as a rat poison. The FDA has no information on the medical uses of fluoride before 1938.3

According to the FDA's website: "New products that are designed to treat human conditions or diseases are scrutinized by FDA's reviewers for safety and effectiveness before they can be made available to consumers." 4 But this never occurred for fluoride or fluoridated bottled water.

In fact, the FDA can't assess whether something added to the water is safe because there's no way to know how much people will consume, according to an FDA spokesperson quoted in a Colorado newspaper. 5 "The drug approval process requires specific dosing and conditions to be treated and clinical trials,' [FDA spokesperson] Koontz said," according to the Daily Camera.

The FDA approved fluoridated toothpaste, as a drug, for topical application as in toothpaste; but not for swallowing. In fact, toothpaste tubes are imprinted with FDA "do not swallow" warnings.

However, fluoridated bottled water is meant to be swallowed. Not a nutrient, fluoride is a drug prescribed to treat humans against tooth decay. The FDA never studied fluoride ingestion, in any form, for adverse health effects or to discover if it really reduces tooth decay.6

Adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies (water fluoridation) began in the mid 1900's. It was then believed fluoride worked from the inside, that is to say, ingested fluoride incorporated into children's, and only children's, developing tooth enamel to shield against tooth decay. However, modern science proves fluoride absorbs into enamel by topical means alone or from the outside and it can occur over the lifetime of the tooth..

Unfortunately, science also tells us that ingested fluoride has many health risks, including tooth damage or dental fluorosis ­ white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth ­ a consequence of fluoride over-ingestion which is a growing U.S. problem.7

The following side effects may be early signs of possible chronic fluoride overdose, according to the Mayo Clinic website: 8

Pain and aching of bones; skin rash; sores in the mouth and on the lips; stiffness; white, brown, or black discoloration of teeth.

"Modern studies also link fluoride to arthritis, allergies, kidney and thyroid dysfunction, bone damage and cancer even at the low levels dentists claim is optimal to reduce tooth decay," says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. "Adding fluoride to bottled water implies to the American public that FDA studies give fluoride a clean bill of health ­ and that's not true," says Beeber.

No studies link fluoride-free bottled water to more tooth decay, according to the American Dental Association (ADA).9

"The ADA should lobby for fluoride content labeling on all foods," says Beeber. "Because fluoridated water is used in processing and because of fluoride pesticide residues, virtually all foods and beverages have a fluoride content ­ even soda, candy, french fries, grape juice and some chicken products. Americans are actually over-fluoridated now; and should avoid fluoridated water ­ whether from the tap or the bottle, in our opinion." says Beeber.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture lists the fluoride content of many foods here: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/Fluoride.html

Contact: Paul Beeber
President and General Counsel
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804


Past News Releases: http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu

Paul Connett, PhD, paul@fluoridealert.org
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.


1) U.S. FDA Approved Drug List


2) US FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, October 14, 2006, "Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries


3) E-mail correspondence at bottom of article


4) "FDA's Growing Responsibilities for the Year 2001 and Beyond," Page 2 ­ Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Adminstration


5) Daily Camera, "FDA wants out of 2B dispute - Feds say they didn't expect comments to appear in ad," By Ryan Morgan, October 24, 2006


6) Letter from Assemblyman John V. Kelly to Senator Robert Smith, August 14, 2000 http://www.fluoridealert.org/fda.htm

7) Surveillance for Dental Caries, Dental Sealants, Tooth Retentin, Edentulism, and Enamel Fluorosis --- United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2002


8) Mayo Clinic - Drugs & Supplements ­ Vitamins and Fluoride (Systemic) http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-information/DR202600

9) E-mail correspondence with the American Dental Association

Sweatshops, made in the good, old U.S. A.

Sweatshops, made in the good, old U.S. A.

How an official who tried to help exploited workers ran afoul of powerful Republicans.

By ROBYN E. BLUMNER, Times Perspective Columnist
Published October 29, 2006

If you're one of those independent-minded voters who drifted in recent years to the Republican camp and may be thinking twice about that allegiance come November, there is one more reason to do so: Allen Stayman.

You've probably never heard of Stayman, but indicted former lobbyist and Republican insider Jack Abramoff knew him well. Abramoff and his lobbying team went to great lengths to oust Stayman from his State Department post, even dubbing the expulsion the "Stayman Project." Why? Because years earlier as an official in the Interior Department, Stayman led an effort to help exploited workers toiling in Chinese-owned sweatshops in a U.S. commonwealth.

Since the 1980s, the tiny Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific and particularly the main island of Saipan have attracted numerous Chinese garment manufacturers. The Chinese loved this arrangement because it allowed their clothes to carry the label "Made in the U.S.A.," and shipments from the islands didn't face the import quotas or duties that existed at the time.

Conscientious consumers assumed that the garments were made on the U.S. mainland in conformance with our labor laws. To maintain the ruse and keep workers in penury, the islands' government doled out $7.9-million over six years to Abramoff.

Wendy Doromal, who taught school in the Marianas before becoming a human rights activist, told NPR's Weekend Edition in June that the guest workers, primarily from China, were treated as disposable flotsam. "The barbed wire around the factories face inward so that the mostly women couldn't get out."

Many of the workers were minors who were kept in barracks at night in what was described by our government as "labor camps." The workers were charged by recruiters thousands of dollars for "jobs in the U.S." Then they landed on an island 8,000 miles away. Doromal said the women had quotas that were impossible to reach within a normal workday and they wouldn't be paid for the overtime.

Pam Brown, former federal ombudsman for the Northern Marianas, recently told Moyers On America that workers there were forced to sign contracts agreeing that "if they got pregnant they'd have an abortion."

In the late 1990s, Congress almost put a stop to the worst abuses by forcing the Marianas to adopt U.S. minimum wage and immigration laws. A bill passed the Senate unanimously. But former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whom Abramoff brought to the Marianas over the 1998 New Year, blocked the effort in the House.

DeLay was taped during that trip telling officials and business leaders: "You are a shining light for what is happening in the Republican Party and you represent everything good about what we're trying to do in America, in leading the world in the free market system."

So what about Allen Stayman?

Stayman was opposed by Abramoff due to his work leading the Interior Department's Office of Insular Affairs. In accordance with a congressional dictate, Stayman tried to negotiate with the Marianas to bring the country into line with American labor and immigration standards. According to Stayman, for Abramoff and DeLay, it was "an inconvenient truth that businessmen were horribly abusing workers." They didn't want to know it and they didn't want it known. The dozens of mostly Republican congressional members and staff flown to the Marianas for golf outings and resort stays were given a quick tour through a model factory.

Newly released e-mails suggest that with the election of George W. Bush, Abramoff saw his opportunity to punish Stayman, who had since moved to the State Department and was no longer dealing with the Marianas. Ken Mehlman, now the chairman of the Republican National Committee but who was then the White House political director, was allegedly intricately involved.

"Mehlman said he would get him fired," read one e-mail from an Abramoff associate. Within months of Bush's inauguration, Stayman was denied renewal of his State Department job even though his supervisors had sought to retain him. Mehlman has said he doesn't remember the case.

A report by the House Government Reform Committee documented more than 400 contacts between the White House and members of Abramoff's lobbying team, many apparently with Mehlman.

And while Abramoff and DeLay are facing legal troubles for their unethical and corrupt dealings, Mehlman is still a Republican power broker.

In the world of today's Republican leadership, if enough money changes hands, then young women being held in a form of indentured servitude, cheated out of pay and forced to live in miserable conditions while the U.S. flag flies outside the factory door is not a problem. It's a model of free market capitalism.

Just something else to consider come November.

Canola Oil is a Pesticide !!!!

Pesticides: Regulating Pesticides

Canola Oil (011332) Fact Sheet


Canola oil is an edible vegetable oil that can be used to control insects on a wide variety of crops. Canola oil appears to have no adverse effects on humans or the environment.


Canola oil is an edible refined vegetable oil obtained from the seeds of four species of rape plants, Brassica napus, Brassica juncea, Brassica rapa and B. campestris of the family Cruciferae (mustard family). Canola oil is considered safe for human consumption. Scientists believe that canola oil repels insects by altering the outer layer of the leaf surface or by acting as an insect irritant.


Use Sites: Canola oil can be used on a wide range of plants, including: citrus, corn, fruit trees, nut trees, sugar beets, soybeans, tomatoes, vegetables figs, melon, olives, small fruits, alfalfa, bedding plants, ornamentals, and houseplants.

Target Pests: Many types of insects.

Application Methods: The products are applied either with spray or irrigation systems.


No harmful health effects to humans are expected from the use of canola oil to repel insects. Information available from published studies indicates that canola oil's nutritional and toxicological profiles are similar to those of other vegetable oils that are used as food.


Adverse effects to the environment or to organisms other than insects are not anticipated because of the low toxicity of canola oil and its rapid decomposition in the environment. In addition, canola pesticide products are not allowed to be applied directly to bodies of water; therefore, exposure of aquatic organisms should be extremely limited.


Canola oil was initially registered as an active ingredient on April 28, 1998. As of November, 1999, three pesticide products were registered that contained this active ingredient.


W. Neudorff GmbH KG
c/o Walter G. Talarek
1008 Riva Ridge Drive
Great Falls, VA 22066


Susanne Cerrelli
Regulatory Action Leader
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C)
Phone (703) 308-8077
e-mail: cerrelli.susanne@epa.gov

Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone (703) 308-8712
Fax (703) 308-7026

DISCLAIMER: The information in this Pesticide Fact Sheet is a summary only.

Canola Oil is a Pesticide ???? but appears to have no adverse effects on humans... like Fluoride right... well maybe it is perfectly fine for humans... need more info. i would say....

a govt. for the $$$ and not for the people...

Feds Leapfrog RFID Privacy Study

Feds Leapfrog RFID Privacy Study
By Ryan Singel

The story seems simple enough. An outside privacy and security advisory committee to the Department of Homeland Security penned a tough report concluding the government should not use chips that can be read remotely in identification documents. But the report remains stuck in draft mode, even as new identification cards with the chips are being announced.

Jim Harper, a Cato Institute fellow who serves on the committee and who recently published a book on identification called Identity Crisis, thinks he knows why the Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee report on the use of Radio Frequency Identification devices for human identification (.pdf) never made it out of the draft stage.

"The powers that be took a good run at deep-sixing this report," Harper said. "There's such a strongly held consensus among industry and DHS that RFID is the way to go that getting people off of that and getting them to examine the technology is very hard to do."

RFID chips, which either have a battery or use the radio waves from a reader to send information, are widely used in tracking inventory or for highway toll payment systems.

But critics argue that hackers can skim information off the chips and that the chips can be used to track individuals. Hackers have also been able to clone some chips, such as those used for payment cards and building security, as well as passports.

The draft report concludes that "RFID appears to offer little benefit when compared to the consequences it brings for privacy and data integrity" -- a finding that was widely criticized by RFID industry officials when the committee met in June.

Meanwhile, the RFIDs just keeping coming. Last week, the State Department announced that it would soon be issuing new cards for visitors to Mexico, Canada and the Bermudas containing a chip that could be read from 20 feet away.

Changes in federal law will require Americans to have either a passport or the new "PASS card" to re-enter the country by air in 2007. Currently a driver's license will suffice to get an American back inside the country from these neighboring spots, but starting in 2008 that won't suffice even for quick, cross-border jaunts by car.

RFID chips are being used in the nation's passports, cards used to identify transportation workers and cards for federal employees, and may be features of the Registered Traveler program, the soon-to-be-released standards for all states' driver's licenses under the REAL-ID act, as well as proposed medical cards.

Homeland Security spokesman Larry Orluskie says no one's trying to kill the report. "The committee is still soliciting input and the draft report is on its website, so I guess they are proceeding," Orluskie said.

In early October, the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group known for partnering with industry groups, submitted comments criticizing the draft report, calling for a deeper factual inquiry and analysis, and a broader focus on identification technologies generally.

Jim Dempsey, the policy director for the CDT, says his group doesn't want the report killed -- he just thinks the privacy committee is ignoring the reality that RFID-enabled identification is already here. The report should focus on how secure the cards are, how far they can be read from and the whole backend of how data is stored and shared.

"Basically we were raising a flag on the one hand saying that RFID is already being deployed and we can no longer take the finger-in-the-dike approach," Dempsey said. "And we were saying that RFID is only one facet and not necessarily the most troubling aspect of this broader evolution of the creation and management of identification. The implications are huge, and to focus on RFID is, in that sense, off-target."

For instance, when customs agents begin reading the new PASS cards at the border, the travel data will be stored for up to 50 years, will be shared within Homeland Security and will be made available to law enforcement groups, both domestically and internationally, according to DHS' own privacy assessment (.pdf).

It's unclear whether the new cards will have encryption or other measures to prevent skimming or forgery. That decision was left to the State Department, which will produce the card and has thus far remained mum on the privacy issues.

Harper hopes the committee will vote to finalize the report and that it will have an effect on the design of the PASS card, which currently proposes to let a Customs officer read them from 20 feet away.

"If we don't have a report out before the (PASS card) comment period ends, then we are irrelevant," Harper said.

See Also


You will find here many thousands of unique & mostly intelligent sites on this blog :)

Only the educated are free

Epictetus - "Only the educated are free."

Atheist quotes

Blaise Pascal - Men never commit evil so fully and joyfuly as when they do it for religious convictions

Emo Philips - When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

Bertrand Russell - And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence

Doug McLeod - I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence

Richard Jeni - “You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend”

Ferdinand Magellan - The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church

Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

atheist quotes

Offended by these??? then dont goto the link , sit down and reexamine YOUR faith, and dont take things so seriously... Az


Sunday, October 29, 2006

Hydroponic Kitchen Garden

Patriot Act


As usual click on the image to see a larger version...



Scholars for 9/11 Truth

9-11 the Fairy Tale From Hell

"Any nation that would exchange a few liberties for a few securities deserves neither and will lose both" - Ben Franklin

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." - Abraham Lincoln

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little." - Edmund Burke

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - M. Gandhi

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

"a man who stands for nothing will fall for anything" - Malcolm X

"a man canot ride your back unless its bent" - Martin Luther King Jr.


Deception Dollars

One Deception Dollar

One Billion Deception Dollars

more at:

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

You can choose from it the things that you like

We want you to enjoy the contrasting experience, just like you enjoy the contrasting buffet. And we want you to reach the place (and practicing Virtual Reality will help you to gain this confidence) that whenever you're in front of a buffet that has so much that you do like to eat, as well as some that you don't like to eat, you don't feel frustrated that there are things there you don't want to eat. You don't feel compelled to put them on your plate and eat them; you just pick the things that you like. And the Universe of thought is the same way. You can choose from it the things that you like --- Abraham


Who owns what in the organics industry

click image for larger view or click here : http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/OrganicChartAug06.pdf

Organic Consumers Association

well its easy to see that big corporations DO what the people want.. if they think they can make a buck at it... now lets get ALL the food and water organic and pure.. Az

Monsanto's Global Corporate Terrorism

Join OCA's Campaign to Mobilize
One Million Consumers to End
Monsanto's Global Corporate Terrorism

Putting an end to the biotech bullying of the world's most infamous genetic engineering, pesticide, and seed company.

Monsanto's Agent Orange: The Corporation Continues to Refuse Compensation to Veterans and Families for Exposure to the Toxic Chemical
The negative health effects, due to exposure to Monsanto's Agent Orange, have been well documented over the past three decades. The dioxin in Agent Orange has been accepted internationally as one of the most toxic chemicals on the planet, causing everything from severe birth defects, to cancer, to neurological disorders, to death. But Monsanto has successfully blocked any major movement towards compensating veterans and civilians who were exposed to the company's Agent Orange.
(you also dont hear alot about the location of BIRD FLU cases and WHERE Agent Orange was sprayed in vietnam... +90% overlay... considence or CAUSE!!!... more info to come soon on this subject... Az)
Monsanto's Government Ties
A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
It would be nice to think the FDA can be trusted with these matters, but think again. Monsanto has succeeded in insuring that government regulatory agencies let Monsanto do as it wishes. Take a look:

Clarence Thomas
Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.

Anne Veneman
Former US Secretary of Agriculture Anne Veneman was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.

Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.

Tommy Thompson
Former US Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.

The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the 2000 election were Larry Combest (Former Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Missouri John AshcroftSenate candidate John Ashcroft (later to be named Attorney General). (Source: Dairy Education Board)

More Ties
In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.

Monsanto Takes Ownership of Public Water Resources

Over the past century, global water supplies have been contaminated with the full gamut of Monsanto's chemicals, including PCBs, dioxin and glyophosate (Roundup). So now the company, seeing a profitable market niche, is taking control of the public water resources they polluted, filtering it, and selling it back to the people. In short, Monsanto is making a double profit by polluting the world's scarce freshwater resources, privately taking ownership of that water, filtering it, and selling it back to those who can afford to pay for it.

Monsanto's Roundup Pesticide Killing Wheat

Monsanto also produces the most commonly used broadleaf pesticide in the world, glyphosate--or Roundup. In addition to its inherent toxicity as a chemical pesticide, Roundup has now been found to aid the spread of fusarium head blight in wheat. This disease creates a toxin in the infected wheat, making the crop unsuitable for human or animal consumption. Canada's wheat industry is currently being ravaged by this disease. At the same time, the widespread use of Roundup has resulted in the formation of "super weeds" --- unwanted plants that have developed an immunity to these pesticides.
Read study linking Monsanto's Roundup to Cancer.

How pressure from Monsanto led Fox TV to fire two of its award-winning reporters and sweep under the rug much of what they discovered about rBGH but were never allowed to broadcast.
(Bovine Growth Hormone(rBGH) causes cancer is what the reporters found out and fox covered it up... Az)

Organic Consumers Association

oh and lets also write to PBS and tell them to stop showing comericals for monsanto and taking there $$$$... Az

Boycott Horizon's Bogus 'Organic' Milk


news link

While USDA bureaucrats drag their feet on closing key loopholes in national organic organic standards, retailers, wholesalers and major “organic” brands are continuing to sell milk and dairy products labeled as "USDA Organic, even though most or all of their milk is coming from factory farm feedlots where the animals have been brought in from conventional farms and are kept in intensive confinement, with little or no access to pasture.

The Organic Consumers Association is expanding its boycott of Horizon and Aurora organic dairy products to include five national "private label" organic milk brands supplied by Aurora, as well as two leading organic soy products, Silk and White Wave, owned by Horizon's parent company, Dean Foods. Its time to turn up the heat on the "Shameless Seven.

While thousands of organic consumers and a number of natural food stores and cooperatives have joined the boycott, major national large grocery retailers have ignored the boycott.

Aurora Organic supplies milk for several private label organic milk brands, including Costco's "Kirkland Signature," Safeway’s "O" organics brand, Publix’s “High Meadows,”Giant's "Natures Promise," and Wild Oats’ organic milk. Aurora Organic received a failing grade from the Cornucopia Institute's survey of organic dairies for its practice of intensive confinement of dairy cows. For pictures of Aurora Organic's operations, follow this link. The Cornucopia Institute recently blew the whistle on Aurora Organic's greenwashing and its bogus certification of animal welfare.

Additionally, its been revealed that much of the soy for Dean Food's White Wave tofu and Silk soymilk products are sourced abroad, primarily from Brazil and China. Environmental standards and workers' rights are routinely violated in these two countries.

Take action today! Send a message to the Shameless Sevens' CEOs and let them know you are boycotting their products until they comply with USDA organic standards.

Organic Consumers Association

well if I have to choose between so called "NORMAL" milk and Horizon's 'Organic' Milk I am still going to buy organic... But still nice to know
HOW and WHERE my milk comes from... Az

Poisoning US Troops: Anthrax, Lies and Vaccines

Poisoning US Troops: Anthrax, Lies and Vaccines
By Heather Wokusch
CommonDreams.org, 10/18/06

The US Defense Department quietly announced on Monday that mandatory anthrax vaccinations would resume for military personnel and civilians deploying to 28 countries across the globe and even for some based in the US. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs said, "Time and again (this vaccine) has been looked at by experts, and each time the conclusion is the vaccine is safe and it is effective."

Tell that to the family of Jesse Lusian. The 24-year-old Northern Californian died last month "complications resulting from an anthrax vaccine he received while serving our country as a Merchant Marine on a cargo ship in Diego Garcia, a Navy Support Facility in the Middle East."

And tell it to Senior Airman Tom Colosimo, who suffered from fatigue, headaches and painful cysts after first being vaccinated in February 1998. Colosimo soon lost 50 pounds, had dangerous fainting spells and was diagnosed with anthrax intoxication, yet faced a "retaliatory" military when he tried to get medical care for his increasingly debilitating condition.

Tragic cases such as those of Lusian and Colosimo will become more commonplace when potentially hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians are soon forced to take the anthrax vaccine. There's no excuse.

It's worth noting that mandatory vaccination is a bipartisan outrage, first initiated by the Clinton administration in 1997; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) didn't even rule the vaccine to be safe and effective until December 2003. In October 2004, a court order ended mandatory vaccinations for active-duty personnel, but under the policy adopted this week, affected servicemembers will be forced to begin the anthrax inoculation series in the next few months. Merry Christmas US troops.

The DoD's handling of the anthrax vaccine has been atrocious. As The Daily Press reported in December 2005, "The Pentagon never told Congress about more than 20,000 hospitalizations involving troops who'd taken the anthrax vaccine, despite repeated promises that such cases would be publicly disclosed." Instead, from 1998 through 2000, "a parade of generals and Defense Department officials told Congress and the public that fewer than 100 people were hospitalized or became seriously ill after receiving the shot."

Even worse, there's been no long-term study of the health impact of anthrax inoculations, and quite conveniently, the quarterly analysis of medical care data for vaccinated servicemembers was ended in 2002. Hard to fault the anthrax vaccine for your physical breakdown when pertinent medical records aren't available.

The vaccine scandal is yet another case of well-connected companies cashing in on non-competitive governmental contracts. The firm responsible for producing the military's anthrax vaccine, for example, has continued to receive hundreds of millions of Pentagon dollars despite being racked with mismanagement and production problems. BioPort Corp didn't even have FDA approval for its vaccine plant from 1998-2002, but continued pumping out unusable batches at taxpayer expense regardless. Similarly, VaxGen, the company contracted to produce 75 million doses of anthrax vaccine for civilian use in case of a domestic bioterrorism attack, has faced serious accounting problems and FDA accusations of making "false or misleading statements" about its vaccine's benefits.

Of course, the DoD has also made false and misleading statements by calling the anthrax vaccine "safe," but that's another story.

Service members appropriately point to lack of anthrax risk as further justification for refusing the vaccine. Airman Jessica Horjus, for example, ended her military career in 2004 with a less-than-honorable discharge rather than being inoculated. She wrote the appellate authority at her Air Force base in Goldsboro, North Carolina, "There is no evidence that stockpiles of anthrax exist in Iraq or with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere. As a single mother, I cannot afford to unnecessarily risk my long-term health on a highly-reactive vaccine that supposedly protects against a threat that cannot be found." Horjus noted, "I have a kid to take care of. The Air Force can always fill my slot with someone else, but who's gonna fill the mommy slot"

What a shameful irony that hundreds of thousands of US troops told they're fighting for freedom could soon face court martial for refusing to take a vaccine which has led to disabilities, chronic illnesses and even death in others.

Would you take it?

Action Ideas:

1. To learn more about the anthrax vaccine, read The Daily Press' amazing 16-part series entitled "Special Report: Anthrax Puzzle ." GulfWarVets.com also offers a comprehensive archive of related articles, while The Military and Biodefense Vaccine Project provides news reports and other resources.

2. Active-duty troops and veterans can find support at The Military Vaccine Resource Directory , which covers such topics as "If You Are Refusing A Direct Order To Take A Vaccine" and "If You Are Sick."

Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives' Handbook: Get the Facts and Make a Difference Now and can be reached at www.heatherwokusch.com

EPA Scientists & Workers Call for an End to Water Fluoridation Because of Cancer Risk

Source: organicconsumers.org
From: Environment News Service ens-newswire.com

WASHINGTON, DC, August 30, 2005 –/WORLD-WIRE/– Eleven EPA employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service have called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young boys.

The unions sent letters to key Congressional committees asking Congress to legislate a moratorium pending a review of all the science on the risks and benefits of fluoridation. The letters cited the weight of evidence supporting a classification of fluoride as a likely human carcinogen, which includes other epidemiology results similar to those in the Harvard study, animal studies, and biological reasons why fluoride can reasonably be expected to cause the bone cancer - osteosarcoma - seen in young boys and test animals.

The unions also pointed out recent work by Richard Maas of the Environmental Quality Institute, University of North Carolina that links increases in lead levels in drinking water systems to use of silicofluoride fluoridating agents with chloramines disinfectant.

The letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson asked him to issue a public warning in the form of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking setting the health-based drinking water standard for fluoride at zero, as it is for all known or probable human carcinogens, pending a recommendation from a National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council committee. That committee’s work is not expected to be done before 2006.

The unions also asked Congress and EPA’s enforcement office, or the Department of Justice, to look into reasons why the Harvard study director, Chester Douglass, failed to report the seven-fold increased risk seen in the work he oversaw, and instead wrote to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the federal agency that funded the Harvard study, saying there was no link between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. Douglass sent the same negative report to the National Research Council committee studying possible changes in EPA’s drinking water standards for fluoride.

The unions who signed the letters represent EPA employees from across the nation, including laboratory scientists in Ohio, Oklahoma and Michigan, regulatory support scientists and other workers at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. and science and regulatory workers in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and San Francisco.

They are affiliated with the National Treasury Employees Union, the American Federation of Government Employees, Engineers and Scientists of California/International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and the National Association of Government Employee/Service Employees International Union.

The unions’ letter is online at: http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/fluoridesummary.htm


Dr. William Hirzy Vice-President, NTEU Chapter 280
Phone (cell) 202-285-0498 This is complete notice.

USA Citizens can easily back-up the 7,000 EPA ‘career employees.’ Consider, you and your family need CLEAN & SAFE Drinking Water, every day. This is your opportunity to back those 7000+ EPA union members that care about scientific integrity and exposing the truth about ‘corporate hazardous waste fluorosilicates’ being metered into our drinking waters. Their common sense demand for a ‘moratorium on fluoridation’ along with Congressional Investigation incl. ‘under oath’ hearings is critical!

We, the undersigned, join with members of eleven EPA unions in their call for an immediate Congressional act placing a national moratorium on water fluoridation pending a full Congressional investigation into this public policy, which affects - directly and indirectly - every resident of the United States.

Read & Sign Citizens PETITION at: http://petition.powalliance.org/index.html

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
Updated April 12, 2004


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.)

3) Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth. This result was not shown to be statistically significant. In a review commissioned by the Ontario government, Dr. David Locker concluded:

"The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance" (Locker 1999).

4) Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).

5) There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.

6) Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde, 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized. Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002 and Ekanayake 2002).

7) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged the findings of many leading dental researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride's benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC. Thus, you don't have to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. As the benefits of fluoride (if any exist) are topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense, for those who want to take the risks, to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, there is no reason to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply. This position was recently shared by Dr. Douglas Carnall, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal. His editorial appears in Appendix 3.

8) Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective. Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water (Kelly 2000).

9) The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its mildest form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). A major US survey has found 30% of children in optimally fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller 1997), while smaller studies have found up to 80% of children impacted (Williams 1990; Lalumandier 1995 and Morgan 1998). The York Review estimates that up to 48% of children in optimally fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms and 12.5% with symptoms of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).

10) Dental fluorosis means that a child has been overdosed on fluoride. While the mechanism by which the enamel is damaged is not definitively known, it appears fluorosis may be a result of either inhibited enzymes in the growing teeth (Dan Besten 1999), or through fluoride's interference with G-protein signaling mechanisms (Matsuo 1996). In a study in Mexico, Alarcon-Herrera (2001) has shown a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in children.

11) The level of fluoride put into water (1 ppm) is up to 200 times higher than normally found in mothers' milk (0.005 – 0.01 ppm) (Ekstrand 1981; Institute of Medicine 1997). There are no benefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (this is an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).

12) Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.

13) Fluoride is very biologically active even at low concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding (Emsley 1981) and inhibits numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978).

14) When complexed with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals (Strunecka & Patocka 1999, Li 2003).

15) Fluoride has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in a variety of cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993 and Mihashi 1996). Recent studies have also found a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997 and Joseph 2000).

16) Fluoride forms complexes with a large number of metal ions, which include metals which are needed in the body (like calcium and magnesium) and metals (like lead and aluminum) which are toxic to the body. This can cause a variety of problems. For example, fluoride interferes with enzymes where magnesium is an important co-factor, and it can help facilitate the uptake of aluminum and lead into tissues where these metals wouldn't otherwise go (Mahaffey 1976; Allain 1996; Varner 1998).

17) Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water, using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta amyloid deposits which are characteristic of Alzheimers disease (Varner 1998).

18) Aluminum fluoride was recently nominated by the Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for testing by the National Toxicology Program. According to EPA and NIEHS, aluminum fluoride currently has a "high health research priority" due to its "known neurotoxicity" (BNA, 2000). If fluoride is added to water which contains aluminum, than aluminum fluoride complexes will form.

19) Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and exposure alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent (Mullenix 1995). Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or "couch potato" syndrome). More recent animal experiments have reported that fluoride can damage the brain (Wang 1997; Guan 1998; Varner 1998; Zhao 1998; Zhang 1999; Lu 2000; Shao 2000; Sun 2000; Bhatnagar 2002; Chen 2002, 2003; Long 2002; Shivarajashankara 2002a, b; Shashi 2003 and Zhai 2003) and impact learning and behavior (Paul 1998; Zhang 1999, 2001; Sun 2000; Ekambaram 2001; Bhatnagar 2002).

20) Five studies from China show a lowering of IQ in children associated with fluoride exposure (Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Li 1995; Zhao 1996; Lu 2000; and Xiang 2003a, b). One of these studies (Lin Fa-Fu 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g. 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency.

21) Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) showed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997).

22) In the first half of the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (over active thyroid) (Stecher 1960; Waldbott 1978). With water fluoridation, we are forcing people to drink a thyroid-depressing medication which could, in turn, serve to promote higher levels of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in the population, and all the subsequent problems related to this disorder. Such problems include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.

It bears noting that according to the Department of Health and Human Services (1991) fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated to range from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day, which is a range that actually overlaps the dose (2.3 - 4.5 mg/day) shown to decrease the functioning of the human thyroid (Galletti & Joyet 1958). This is a remarkable fact, particularly considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidism in the United States (in 1999, the second most prescribed drug of the year was Synthroid, which is a hormone replacement drug used to treat an underactive thyroid). In Russia, Bachinskii (1985) found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3 ppm fluoride in water.

23) Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa , mimic the symptoms of arthritis (Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation by Chemical & Engineering News, "Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed" (Hileman 1988). Few if any studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis - CDC, 2002) is related to our growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. The causes of most forms of arthritis (e.g. osteoarthritis) are unknown.

24) In some studies, when high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a HIGHER number of fractures, particularly hip fractures (Inkovaara 1975; Gerster 1983; Dambacher 1986; O’Duffy 1986; Hedlund 1989; Bayley 1990; Gutteridge 1990. 2002; Orcel 1990; Riggs 1990 and Schnitzler 1990). The cumulative doses used in these trials are exceeded by the lifetime cumulative doses being experienced by many people living in fluoridated communities.

25) Nineteen studies (three unpublished, including one abstract) since 1990 have examined the possible relationship of fluoride in water and hip fracture among the elderly. Eleven of these studies found an association, eight did not. One study found a dose-related increase in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8 ppm (Li 2001). Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, as a quarter of those who have a hip fracture die within a year of the operation, while 50 percent never regain an independent existence (All 19 of these studies are referenced as a group in the reference section).

26) The only government-sanctioned animal study to investigate if fluoride causes cancer, found a dose-dependent increase in cancer in the target organ (bone) of the fluoride-treated (male) rats (NTP 1990). The initial review of this study also reported an increase in liver and oral cancers, however, all non-bone cancers were later downgraded – with a questionable rationale - by a government-review panel (Marcus 1990). In light of the importance of this study, EPA Professional Headquarters Union has requested that Congress establish an independent review to examine the study's results (Hirzy 2000).

27) A review of national cancer data in the US by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) revealed a significantly higher rate of bone cancer in young men in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas (Hoover 1991). While the NCI concluded that fluoridation was not the cause, no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey (Cohn 1992) found bone cancer rates to be up to 6 times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. Other epidemiological studies have failed to find this relationship (Mahoney 1991; Freni 1992).

28) Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system - it damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of different species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a, b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002 and Zakrzewska 2002). While studies conducted at the FDA have failed to find reproductive effects in rats (Sprando 1996, 1997, 1998), an epidemiological study from the US has found increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 or more ppm fluoride in the water (Freni 1994), and 2 studies have found a reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Susheela 1996 and Barot 1998).

29) The fluoridation program has been very poorly monitored. There has never been a comprehensive analysis of the fluoride levels in the bones, blood, or urine of the American people or the citizens of other fluoridated countries. Based on the sparse data that has become available, however, it is increasingly evident that some people in the population – particularly people with kidney disease - are accumulating fluoride levels that have been associated with harm to both animals and humans, particularly harm to bone (see Connett 2004).

30) Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives. This is because 1) some people (e.g. manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink more water than others, and 2) we receive fluoride from sources other than the water supply. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996 and Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products (Bentley 1999 and Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), teas (Levy 1999), and pesticide residues on food (Stannard 1991 and Burgstahler 1997).

31) Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are not being asked for their informed consent prior to medication. This is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of western Europe has ruled against fluoridation (see appendix 2).

As one doctor aptly stated, "No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion."

32) While referenda are preferential to imposed policies from central government, it still leaves the problem of individual rights versus majority rule. Put another way -- does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it's against that neighbor's will)?

33) Some individuals appear to be highly sensitive to fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies (Shea 1967, Waldbott 1978 and Moolenburg 1987). In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions. Can we as a society force these people to ingest fluoride?

34) According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993), and other researchers (Juncos & Donadio 1972; Marier & Rose 1977 and Johnson 1979), certain subsets of the population may be particularly vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects; these include: the elderly, diabetics and people with poor kidney function. Again, can we in good conscience force these people to ingest fluoride on a daily basis for their entire lives?

35) Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g. calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodide deficiencies and protein poor diets) (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Chen 1997; Teotia 1998). Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition are the poor, who are precisely the people being targeted by new fluoridation programs. While being at heightened risk, poor families are less able to afford avoidance measures (e.g. bottled water or removal equipment).

36) Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for poor families. The real "Oral Health Crisis" that exists today in the United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.

37) Fluoridation has been found to be ineffective at preventing one of the most serious oral health problems facing poor children, namely, baby bottle tooth decay, otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992 and Shiboski 2003).

38) The early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude." In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could give no fluoridation trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000, see Appendix 3 for commentary).

39) The US Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed (McClure 1970)!

40) Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged (Seholle 1984; Gray 1987; PHS 1993; and Pinkham 1999). This is significant because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987).

41) Despite the fact that we are exposed to far more fluoride today than we were in 1945 (when fluoridation began), the "optimal" fluoridation level is still 1 part per million, the same level deemed optimal in 1945! (Marier & Rose 1977; Levy 1999; Rozier 1999 and Fomon 2000).

42) The chemicals used to fluoridate water in the US are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they come from the wet scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these chemicals are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000).

43) These hazardous wastes have not been tested comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. The assumption being made is that by the time this waste product has been diluted, all the fluorosilicic acid will have been converted into free fluoride ion, and the other toxics and radioactive isotopes will be so dilute that they will not cause any harm, even with lifetime exposure. These assumptions have not been examined carefully by scientists, independent of the fluoridation program.

44) Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children's blood. Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the child’s developing brain, this is a very serious finding yet it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries.

45) Sodium fluoride is an extremely toxic substance -- just 200 mg of fluoride ion is enough to kill a young child, and just 3-5 grams (e.g. a teaspoon) is enough to kill an adult. Both children (swallowing tablets/gels) and adults (accidents involving fluoridation equipment and filters on dialysis machines) have died from excess exposure.

46) Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation (see appendix 4).

47) The recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2000), was one of the leading opponents of fluoridation in Sweden, and part of the panel that recommended that the Swedish government reject the practice, which they did in 1971. According to Carlsson:

"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy" (Carlsson 1978).

48) While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they cannot defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the US Environmental Protection Agency (Bryson 2004). According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, "Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view" (See appendix 5).

In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that "the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues" (Martin 1991).

49) Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991). Most recently, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain; and Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004). Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.

50) The Union representing the scientists at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC is now on record as opposing water fluoridation (Hirzy 1999). According to the Union’s Senior Vice President, Dr. William Hirzy:

"In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all - that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."


When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, invested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a fifty year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it's called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children's teeth have not suffered, while their public's trust has been strengthened.

It is like a question from a Kafka play. Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child's mouth?

For those who would call for further studies, I say fine. Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want. This folly must end without further delay.


Further arguments against fluoridation, can be viewed at http://www.fluoridealert.org. Arguments for fluoridation can be found at http://www.ada.org and a more systematic presentation of fluoride’s toxic effects can be found at http://www.Slweb.org/bibliography.html


I would like to acknowledge the help given to me in the research for this statement to my son Michael Connett and to Naomi Flack for the proofreading of the text. Any remaining mistakes are my own.

APPENDIX 1. World Health Organization Data

DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country
DMFTs Year Status*
Australia 0.8 1998 More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Zurich, Switzerland 0.84 1998 Water is unfluoridated, but salt is fluoridated
Netherlands 0.9 1992-93 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Sweden 0.9 1999 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Denmark 0.9 2001 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
UK (England & Wales) 0.9 1996-97 11% of water supplies are fluoridated
Ireland 1.1 1997 More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Finland 1.1 1997 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Germany 1.2 2000 No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
US 1.4 1988-91 More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Norway 1.5 1998 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
Iceland 1.5 1996 No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation
New Zealand 1.5 1993 More than 50% of water is fluoridated
Belgium 1.6 1998 No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
Austria 1.7 1997 No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
France 1.9 1998 No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common
Data from WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html

APPENDIX 2. Statements on fluoridation by governmental officials from several countries

Germany: "Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/germany.jpeg

France: "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg

Belgium: "This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that 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." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm

Luxembourg: "Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the 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, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg

Finland: "We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm

"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual's right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned.

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.) www.fluoridealert.org/finland.jpeg

Denmark: "We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm

Norway: "In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm

Sweden: "Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

Netherlands: "From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

Northern Ireland: "The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/Northern-Ireland.jpeg

Austria: "Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm

Czech Republic:"Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered as follows:

(a) uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)

(b) unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)

(c) unethical ("forced medication")

(d) toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/czech.jpeg

APPENDIX 3. Statement of Douglas Carnall, Associate Editor of the British Medical Journal, published on the BMJ website (http://www.bmj.com ) on the day that they published the York Review on Fluoridation.

See this review on the web at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/904/a

British Medical Journal, October 7, 2000, Reviews, Website of the week: Water fluoridation

Fluoridation was a controversial topic even before Kubrick's Base Commander Ripper railed against "the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids" in the 1964 film Dr Strangelove. This week's BMJ shouldn't precipitate a global holocaust, but it does seem that Base Commander Ripper may have had a point. The systematic review published this week (p 855) shows that much of the evidence for fluoridation was derived from low quality studies, that its benefits may have been overstated, and that the risk to benefit ratio for the development of the commonest side effect (dental fluorosis, or mottling of the teeth) is rather high.

Supplementary materials are available on the BMJ 's website and on that of the review's authors, enhancing the validity of the conclusions through transparency of process. For example, the "frequently asked questions" page of the site explains who comprised the advisory panel and how they were chosen ("balanced to include those for and against, as well as those who are neutral"), and the site includes the minutes of their meetings. You can also pick up all 279 references in Word97 format, and tables of data in PDF. Such transparency is admirable and can only encourage rationality of debate.

Professionals who propose compulsory preventive measures for a whole population have a different weight of responsibility on their shoulders than those who respond to the requests of individuals for help. Previously neutral on the issue, I am now persuaded by the arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from toothpaste rather than the water supply (see www.derweb.co.uk/bfs/index.html and www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/index.html for the two viewpoints).

Douglas Carnall
Associate Editor
British Medical Journal

APPENDIX 4. List of 14 Noble Prize winners who have opposed or expressed reservations about fluoridation.

1) Adolf Butenandt (Chemistry, 1939)
2) Arvid Carlsson (Medicine, 2000)
3) Hans von Euler-Chelpin (Chemistry, 1929).
4) Walter Rudolf Hess (Medicine, 1949)
5) Corneille Jean-François Heymans (Medicine, 1938)
6) Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood (Chemistry, 1956)
7) Joshua Lederberg (Medicine, 1958)
8) William P. Murphy (Medicine, 1934)
8) Giulio Natta (1963 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)
10) Sir Robert Robinson (Chemistry, 1947)
11) Nikolai Semenov (Chemistry, 1956)
12) James B. Sumner (Chemistry, 1946)
13) Hugo Theorell (Medicine, 1955)
14) Artturi Virtanen (Chemistry, 1945)

APPENDIX 5. Quotes on debating fluoridation from Dr. Michael Easley, Director of the National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research, and one of the most active proponents of fluoridation in the US (Easley 1999). Easley’s quotes typify the historic contempt that proponents have had to scientific debate.

"A favorite tactic of the fluorophobics is to argue for a debate so that 'the people can decide who is right.' Proponents of fluoride are often trapped into consenting to public debates."

"Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view."

"Like parasites, opponents steal undeserved credibility just by sharing the stage with respected scientists who are there to defend fluoridation"; and,

"Unfortunately, a most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs when a physician or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses their professional standing in the community to argue against fluoridation, a clear violation of professional ethics, the principles of science and community standards of practice."


Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1993). Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service. ATSDR/TP-91/17.

Allain P, et al. (1996). Enhancement of aluminum digestive absorption by fluoride in rats. Research Communications in Molecular Pathology and Pharmacology 91: 225-31.

Arnold HA. (1980). Letter to Dr. Ernest Newbrun. May 28, 1980. http://www.fluoridealert.org/uc-davis.htm

Awadia AK, et al. (2002). Caries experience and caries predictors - a study of Tanzanian children consuming drinking water with different fluoride concentrations. Clinical Oral Investigations (2002) 6:98-103.

Bachinskii PP, et al. (1985) Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system. Probl Endokrinol (Mosk) 31: 25-9. http://www.fluoridealert.org/epa-sf/appendix-e.pdf

Barnes GP, et al. (1992). Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of Head Start children. Public Health Reports 107: 167-73.

Barot VV. (1998). Occurrence of endemic fluorosis in human population of North Gujarat, India: human health risk. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 61: 303-10.

Bayley TA, et al. (1990). Fluoride-induced fractures: relation to osteogenic effect. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 5(Suppl 1):S217-22.

Bentley EM, et al. (1999). Fluoride ingestion from toothpaste by young children. British Dental Journal 186: 460-2.

Bhatnagar M, et al. (2002). Neurotoxicity of fluoride: neurodegeneration in hippocampus of female mice. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology 40: 546-54.

Bigay J, et al. (1987). Fluoride complexes of aluminium or beryllium act on G-proteins as reversibly bound analogues of the gamma phosphate of GTP. EMBO Journal 6: 2907-2913.

Bigay J, et al. (1985). Fluoroaluminates activate transducin-GDP by mimicking the gamma-phosphate of GTP in its binding site. FEBS Letters 191: 181-185.

Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. (1990). Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research 69(Special edition): 723-727.

Bryson C. (2004). The Fluoride Deception. Seven Stories Press, New York.

Burgstahler AW, et al. (1997). Fluoride in California wines and raisins. Fluoride 30: 142-146.

Carlsson A. (1978). Current problems relating to the pharmacology and toxicology of fluorides. Journal of the Swedish Medical Association 14: 1388-1392.

Carnow BW, Conibear SA. (1981). Industrial fluorosis. Fluoride 14: 172-181.

Caspary WJ, et al (1987). Mutagenic activity of fluorides in mouse lymphoma cells. Mutation Research 187:165-80.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2002). Prevalence of Self-Reported Arthritis or Chronic Joint Symptoms Among Adults --- United States, 2001. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 51: 948-950.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50(RR14): 1-42.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 48: 933-940.

Chen J, et al. (2003). Selective decreases of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in PC12 cells exposed to fluoride. Toxicology 183: 235-42.

Chen J, et al. (2002). [Studies on DNA damage and apoptosis in rat brain induced by fluoride] Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 36 :222-224.

Chen YC, et al. (1997). Nutrition survey in dental fluorosis-afflicted areas. Fluoride 30(2):77-80.

Chinoy NJ, Narayana MV. (1994). In vitro fluoride toxicity in human spermatozoa. Reproductive Toxicology 8:155-9.

Chinoy NJ, et al. (1991). Microdose vasal injection of sodium fluoride in the rat. Reproductive Toxicology 5: 505-12.

Chinoy NJ, Sequeira E. (1989). Effects of fluoride on the histoarchitecture of reproductive organs of the male mouse. Reproductive Toxicology 3: 261-7.

Cohn PD. (1992). A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. New Jersey Department of Health Environ. Health Service: 1- 17.

Colquhoun J. (1997) Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41: 29-44. http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm

Connett M. (2004). Fluoride & Bone Damage: Published Data. Submission to National Research Council (NRC). http://www.fluoridealert.org/bone-data.pdf

Connett, P. (2000). Fluoride: A Statement of Concern. Waste Not #459. January 2000. Waste Not, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617. http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-statement.htm

Czerwinski E, et al. (1988). Bone and joint pathology in fluoride-exposed workers. Archives of Environmental Health 43: 340-343.

Dambacher MA, et al. (1986). Long-term fluoride therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Bone 7: 199-205.

De Liefde B. (1998). The decline of caries in New Zealand over the past 40 Years. New Zealand Dental Journal 94: 109-113.

Department of Health & Human Services. (U.S. DHHS) (1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride, Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Department of Health and Human Services, USA.

DenBesten, P (1999). Biological mechanism of dental fluorosis relevant to the use of fluoride supplements. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 27: 41-7.

De Stefano TM. (1954). The fluoridation research studies and the general practitioner. Bulletin of Hudson County Dental Society February.

Diesendorf M.(1986). The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature 322: 125-129. http://www.fluoridealert.org/diesendorf.htm

Ditkoff BA, Lo Gerfo P. (2000). The Thyroid Guide. Harper-Collins. New York.

Easley, M. (1999). Community fluoridation in America: the unprincipled opposition. Unpublished.

Ekambaram P, Paul V. (2001). Calcium preventing locomotor behavioral and dental toxicities of fluoride by decreasing serum fluoride level in rats. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 9: 141-146.

Ekanayake L, Van Der Hoek W. (2002). Dental caries and developmental defects of enamel in relation to fluoride levels in drinking water in an arid area of sri lanka. Caries Research 36: 398-404.

Ekstrand J, et al. (1981). No evidence of transfer of fluoride from plasma to breast milk. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed). 283: 761-2.

Elbetieha A, et al. (2000). Fertility effects of sodium fluoride in male mice. Fluoride 33: 128-134.

Emsley J, et al (1981). An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Journal of the American Chemical Society 103: 24-28.

Fein NJ, Cerklewski FL. (2001). Fluoride content of foods made with mechanically separated chicken. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 49: 4284-6.

Feltman R, Kosel G. (1961). Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report. Journal of Dental Medicine 16: 190-99.

Fomon SJ, et al. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.

Franke J, et al. (1975). Industrial fluorosis. Fluoride 8: 61-83.

Freni SC. (1994). Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 42: 109-121.

Freni SC, Gaylor DW. (1992). International trends in the incidence of bone cancer are not related to drinking water fluoridation. Cancer 70: 611-8.

Galletti P, Joyet G. (1958). Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 18: 1102-1110. http://www. fluoridealert.org/galletti.htm

Gerster JC, et al. (1983). Bilateral fractures of femoral neck in patients with moderate renal failure receiving fluoride for spinal osteoporosis. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed) 287(6394):723-5.

Ghosh D, et al. (2002). Testicular toxicity in sodium fluoride treated rats: association with oxidative stress. Reproductive Toxicolology 16(4):385.

Gray, AS. (1987). Fluoridation: time for a new base line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 53: 763-5.

Grobleri SR, et al. (2001). Dental fluorosis and caries experience in relation to three different drinking water fluoride levels in South Africa. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 11(5):372-9.

Guan ZZ, et al (1998). Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20: 537-542.

Gutteridge DH, et al. (2002). A randomized trial of sodium fluoride (60 mg) +/- estrogen in postmenopausal osteoporotic vertebral fractures: increased vertebral fractures and peripheral bone loss with sodium fluoride; concurrent estrogen prevents peripheral loss, but not vertebral fractures. Osteoporosis International 13(2):158-70.

Gutteridge DH, et al. (1990). Spontaneous hip fractures in fluoride-treated patients: potential causative factors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 5 Suppl 1:S205-15.

Hanmer R. (1983). Letter to Leslie A. Russell, D.M.D, from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA. March 30, 1983.

Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. (1989). Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 4: 223-5.

Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 57: 136-143.

Hileman B. (1989). New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits. Chemical and Engineering News May 8. http://www.fluoridealert .org/NIDR.htm

Hileman B. (1988). Fluoridation of water: Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News. August 1: 26-42. http://www.fluoridealert.org/hileman.htm

Hirzy JW. (1999). Why the EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation. Press release from National Treasury Employees Union. May 1. http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

Hoover RN, et al. (1991). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs US Public Health Service. pp F1 -F7.

Inkovaara J, et al. (1975). Prophylactic fluoride treatment and aged bones. British Medical Journal 3: 73-4.

Institute of Medicine. (1997). Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board. National Academy Press.

Johnson W, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal patients. In: Johansen E, Taves DR, Olsen TO, Eds. Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293.

Joseph S, Gadhia PK. (2000). Sister chromatid exchange frequency and chromosome aberrations in residents of fluoride endemic regions of South Gujarat. Fluoride 33: 154-158.

Juncos LI, Donadio JV. (1972). Renal failure and fluorosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 222: 783-5.

Kelly JV. (2000). Letter to Senator Robert Smith, Chairman of Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, August 14, 2000. http://www.fluoridealert .org/fda.htm

Kilborn LG, et al. (1950). Fluorosis with report of an advanced case. Canadian Medical Association Journal 62: 135-141.

Kiritsy MC, et al. (1996). Assessing fluoride concentrations of juices and juice-flavored drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 127: 895-902.

Kishi K, Ishida T. (1993). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells. Mutation Research 301:183-8.

Kour K, Singh J. (1980). Histological finding of mice testes following fluoride ingestion. Fluoride 13: 160-162.

Kumar A, Susheela AK. (1994). Ultrastructural studies of spermiogenesis in rabbit exposed to chronic fluoride toxicity. International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies 39:164-71.

Kumar JV, Green EL. (1998). Recommendations for fluoride use in children. NY State Dental Journal 64: 40-7.

Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5.

Kunzel W, et al. (2000). Decline in caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-389.

Kunzel W, Fischer T. (1997). Rise and fall of caries prevalence in German towns with different F concentrations in drinking water. Caries Research 31: 166-73.

Lalumandier JA, et al. (1995). The prevalence and risk factors of fluorosis among patients in a pediatric dental practice. Pediatric Dentistry 17: 19-25.

Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

Li L. (2003). The biochemistry and physiology of metallic fluoride: action, mechanism, and implications. Critical Reviews of Oral Biology and Medicine 14: 100-14.

Li XS. (1995). Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 28: 189-192.

Lin FF, et al. (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7. No. 3. http://www.fluoridealert.org/IDD.htm

Locker D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

Long YG, et al. (2002). Chronic fluoride toxicity decreases the number of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in rat brain. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24: 751-7.

Lu XH, et al. (2000). Study of the mechanism of neurone apoptosis in rats from the chronic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 19: 96-98.

Luke J. (2001). Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35: 125-128.

Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildord.

Mahaffey KR, Stone CL. (1976). Effect of High Fluorine (F) Intake on Tissue Lead (Pb) Concentrations. Federation Proceedings 35: 256.

Mahoney MC, et al. (1991). Bone cancer incidence rates in New York State: time trends and fluoridated drinking water. American Journal of Public Health 81: 475-9.

Mann J,et al. (1990). Fluorosis and dental caries in 6-8-year-old children in a 5 ppm fluoride area. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 18: 77-9.

Mann J, et al. (1987). Fluorosis and caries prevalence in a community drinking above-optimal fluoridated water. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 15: 293-5.

Marcus W. (1990). Memorandum from Dr. William Marcus, to Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW, US EPA. May 1, 1990. http:// www.fluoridealert.org/marcus.htm

Martin B. (1991). Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate. SUNY Press, Albany NY.

Massler M, Schour I. (1952). Relation of endemic dental fluorosis to malnutrition. Journal of the American Dental Association 44: 156-165.

Masters R, et al. (2000). Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology 21: 1091-1099.

Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. International Journal of Environmental Studies 56: 435-449.

Matsuo S, et al. (1998). Mechanism of toxic action of fluoride in dental fluorosis: whether trimeric G proteins participate in the disturbance of intracellular transport of secretory ameloblast exposed to fluoride. Archives of Toxicology 72: 798-806.

Maupome G, et al. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.

McClure F. (1970). Water fluoridation, the search and the victory. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington DC.

McDonagh M, et al. (2000). A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination,. University of York, September 2000.

Meng Z, Zhang B. (1997). Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lymphocytes of workers at a phosphate fertilizer factory. Mutation Research 393: 283-288.

Mihashi,M. and Tsutsui,T.(1996). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride to rat vertebral body-derived cells in culture. Mutation Research 368: 7-13.

Moolenburgh H. (1987). Fluoride: The Freedom Fight. Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh.

Morgan L, et al. (1998). Investigation of the possible associations between fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and childhood behavior problems. Pediatric Dentistry 20: 244-252.

Mullenix P, et al. (1995). Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17: 169-177.

Narayana MV, et al. (1994). Reversible effects of sodium fluoride ingestion on spermatozoa of the rat. International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies 39: 337-46.

Narayana MV, Chinoy NJ. (1994). Effect of fluoride on rat testicular steroidogenesis. Fluoride 27: 7-12.

National Research Council. (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF). (2000) Letter from Stan Hazan, General Manager, NSF Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, to Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Committee on Science, US House of Representatives. July 7. http://www.keepersofthewell.org/product_pdfs/NSF_response.pdf

National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C. The results of this study are summarized in the Department of Health and Human Services report (DHHS,1991) op cit.

O'Duffy JD, et al. (1986). Mechanism of acute lower extremity pain syndrome in fluoride-treated osteoporotic patients. American Journal of Medicine 80: 561-6.

Olsson B. (1979). Dental findings in high-fluoride areas in Ethiopia. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 7: 51-6.

Orcel P, et al. (1990). Stress fractures of the lower limbs in osteoporotic patients treated with fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 5(Suppl 1): S191-4.

Paul V, et al. (1998). Effects of sodium fluoride on locomotor behavior and a few biochemical parameters in rats. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 6: 187–191.

Pinkham, JR, ed. (1999). Pediatric Dentistry Infancy Through Adolescence. 3rd Edition. WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia.

Public Health Service (PHS). (1993). Toward improving the oral health of Americans: an overview of oral health status, resources, and care delivery. Public Health Reports 108: 657-72.

Retief DH, et al. (1979). Relationships among fluoride concentration in enamel, degree of fluorosis and caries incidence in a community residing in a high fluoride area. Journal of Oral Pathology 8: 224-36.

Riggs BL, et al. (1990). Effect of Fluoride treatment on the Fracture Rates in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine 322: 802-809.

Rozier RG. (1999). The prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis in North American children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 239-46.

Schnitzler CM, et al. (1990). Bone fragility of the peripheral skeleton during fluoride therapy for osteoporosis. Clinical Orthopaedics (261): 268-75.

Seholle RH. (1984). Preserving the perfect tooth (editorial). Journal of the American Dental Association 108: 448.

Seppa L, et al. (2000). Caries trends 1992-98 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoride. Caries Research 34: 462-8.

Shao Q, et al. (2000). [Influence of free radical inducer on the level of oxidative stress in brain of rats with fluorosis]. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 34(6):330-2.

Shashi A. (2003). Histopathological investigation of fluoride-induced neurotoxicity in rabbits. Fluoride 36: 95-105.

Shea JJ, et al. (1967). Allergy to fluoride. Annals of Allergy 25:388-91.

Sheth FJ, et al. (1994). Sister chromatid exchanges: A study in fluorotic individuals of North Gujurat. Fluoride 27: 215-219.

Shiboski CH, et al. (2003). The association of early childhood caries and race/ethnicity among California preschool children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 63:38-46.

Shivarajashankara YM , et al. (2002). Brain lipid peroxidation and antioxidant systems of young rats in chronic fluoride intoxication. Fluoride 35: 197-203.

Shivarajashankara YM , et al. (2002). Histological changes in the brain of young fluoride-intoxicated rats. Fluoride 35: 12-21.

Singh A, Jolly SS. (1970). Fluorides and Human Health. World Health Organization. pp 239-240.

Singh A, et al. (1963). Endemic fluorosis: epidemiological, clinical and biochemical study of chronic fluoride intoxication in Punjab. Medicine 42: 229-246.

Sprando RL, et al. (1998). Testing the potential of sodium fluoride to affect spermatogenesis: a morphometric study. Food and Chemical Toxicology 36: 1117-24.

Sprando RL, et al. (1997). Testing the potential of sodium fluoride to affect spermatogenesis in the rat. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35: 881-90.

Sprando RL, et al. (1996). Effect of intratesticular injection of sodium fluoride on spermatogenesis. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34: 377-84.

Stannard JG, et al. (1991). Fluoride Levels and Fluoride Contamination of Fruit Juices. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 16: 38-40.

Stecher P, et al. (1960). The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs. Merck & Co., Inc, Rathway NJ. p. 952.

Steelink C. (1992). Fluoridation controversy. Chemical & Engineering News (Letter). July 27: 2-3.

Strunecka A, Patocka J. (1999). Pharmacological and toxicological effects of aluminofluoride complexes. Fluoride 32: 230-242.

Sun ZR, et al. (2000). Effects of high fluoride drinking water on the cerebral functions of mice. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 19: 262-263.

Susheela AK. (1993). Prevalence of endemic fluorosis with gastrointestinal manifestations in people living in some North-Indian villages. Fluoride 26: 97-104.

Susheela AK, Kumar A. (1991). A study of the effect of high concentrations of fluoride on the reproductive organs of male rabbits, using light and scanning electron microscopy. Journal of Reproductive Fertility 92: 353-60.

Sutton P. (1996). The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation. Lorne, Australia: Kurunda Pty, Ltd.

Sutton P. (1960) Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press. Second Edition.

Sutton, P. (1959). Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press. First Edition.

Teotia M, et al. (1998). Endemic chronic fluoride toxicity and dietary calcium deficiency interaction syndromes of metabolic bone disease and deformities in India: year 2000. Indian Journal of Pediatrics 65: 371-81.

Teotia SPS, Teotia M. (1994). Dental caries: a disorder of high fluoride and low dietary calcium interactions (30 years of personal research). Fluoride 27: 59-66.

Teotia SPS, et al. (1976). Symposium on the non-skeletal phase of chronic fluorosis: The Joints. Fluoride 9: 19-24.

Tsutsui T, Suzuki N, Ohmori M, Maizumi H. (1984). Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts induced by sodium fluoride. Mutation Research 139:193-8.

Waldbott GL, et al. (1978). Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.

Waldbott GL. (1965). A Battle with Titans. Carlton Press, NY.

Wang C, et al. (2000). Treatment Chemicals contribute to Arsenic Levels. Opflow (a journal of the American Water Works Association). October 2000.

Wang Y, et al. (1997). [Changes of coenzyme Q content in brain tissues of rats with fluorosis]. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 31: 330-3.

WHO (Online). WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme. Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden. http://www.whocollab. od.mah.se/euro.html

Williams JE, et al. (1990). Community water fluoride levels, preschool dietary patterns, and the occurrence of fluoride enamel opacities. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 50: 276-81.

Wu DQ, Wu Y. (1995). Micronucleus and sister chromatid exchange frequency in endemic fluorosis. Fluoride 28: 125-127.

Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94.

Xiang Q. (2003b). Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride 36: 138.

Zakrzewska H, et al. (2002). In vitro influence of sodium fluoride on ram semen quality and enzyme activities. Fluoride 35: 153-160.

Zhai JX, et al. (2003). [Studies on fluoride concentration and cholinesterase activity in rat hippocampus]. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi 21: 102-4.

Zhang Z, et al. (2001). [Effects of selenium on the damage of learning-memory ability of mice induced by fluoride]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 30: 144-6.

Zhang Z, et al. (1999). [Effect of fluoride exposure on synaptic structure of brain areas related to learning-memory in mice] [Article in Chinese]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 28:210-2.

Zhao XL, Wu JH. (1998). Actions of sodium fluoride on acetylcholinesterase activities in rats. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences 11: 1-6.

Zhao LB, et al (1996). Effect of high-fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Fluoride 29: 190-192.

Zhao ZL, et al. (1995). The influence of fluoride on the content of testosterone and cholesterol in rat. Fluoride 28: 128-130.

Ziegelbecker R. (1970). A critical review on the fluorine caries problem. Fluoride 3: 71-79.

The 19 studies on the possible association of hip fracture and fluoridated-water.

a) Studies Reporting an Association between fluoridated water (1 ppm fluoride) & hip fracture.

1 a) Cooper C, et al. (1990). Water fluoride concentration and fracture of the proximal femur. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 44: 17-19.

1 b) Cooper C, et al. (1991). Water fluoridation and hip fracture. JAMA 266: 513-514 (letter, a reanalysis of data presented in 1990 paper).

2) Danielson C, et al. (1992). Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah's elderly population. Journal of the American Medical Association 268: 746-748.

3) Hegmann KT, et al. (2000). The Effects of Fluoridation on Degenerative Joint Disease (DJD) and Hip Fractures. Abstract #71, of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society For Epidemiological research, June 15-17, 2000. Published in a Supplement of American Journal of Epidemiology P. S18.

4) Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1992). The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older; a national ecologic study." Annals of Epidemiology 2: 617-626.

5) Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1990). Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: US white women aged 65 years and olders. JAMA 264(4): 500-2.

6 a) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1995). Fluorine concentration in drinking water and fractures in the elderly. JAMA 273: 775-776 (letter).

6 b) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1998). Risk factors for fractures in the elderly. Epidemiology 9(4): 417-423. (An elaboration of the 1995 study referred to in the JAMA letter).

7) Keller C. (1991) Fluorides in drinking water. Unpublished results. Discussed in Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B,(1992) Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis International 2: 109-117.

8) Kurttio PN, et al. (1999). Exposure to natural fluoride in well water and hip fracture: A cohort analysis in Finland. American Journal of Epidemiology 150(8): 817-824.

9) May DS, Wilson MG. (1992). Hip fractures in relation to water fluoridation: an ecologic analysis. Unpublished data, discussed in Gordon SL, and Corbin SB. (1992). Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis International 2:109-117.

b) Studies reporting an association between water-fluoride levels higher than fluoridated water (4 ppm+) & hip fracture.

Li Y, et al. (2001). Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 16: 932-9.

Sowers M, et al. (1991). A prospective study of bone mineral content and fracture in communities with differential fluoride exposure. American Journal of Epidemiology 133: 649-660.

c) Studies Reporting No Association between water fluoride & hip fracture:

(Note that in 4 of these 8 studies, an association was actually found between fluoride and some form of fracture – e.g. wrist and hip. See notes and quotes below.)

Cauley J. et al. (1995). Effects of fluoridated drinking water on bone mass and fractures: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 10: 1076-86.

Feskanich D, et al. (1998). Use of toenail fluoride levels as an indicator for the risk of hip and forearm fractures in women. Epidemiology 9: 412-6.

While this study didn't find an association between water fluoride and hip fracture, it did find an association - albeit non-significant 1.6 (0.8-3.1) - between fluoride exposure and elevated rates of forearm fracture.

Hillier S, et al. (2000). Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case control study. The Lancet 335: 265-2690.

Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1993). Hip Fracture Incidence Before and After the Fluoridation of the Public Water Supply, Rochester, Minnesota. American Journal of Public Health 83: 743-745.

Karagas MR, et al. (1996). Patterns of Fracture among the United States Elderly: Geographic and Fluoride Effects. Annals of Epidemiology 6: 209-216.

As with Feskanich (1998) this study didn't find an association between fluoridation & hip fracture, but it did find an association between fluoridation and distal forearm fracture, as well as proximal humerus fracture. "Independent of geographic effects, men in fluoridated areas had modestly higher rates of fractures of the distal forearm and proximal humerus than did men in nonfluoridated areas."

Lehmann R, et al. (1998). Drinking Water Fluoridation: Bone Mineral Density and Hip Fracture Incidence. Bone 22: 273-278.

Phipps KR, et al. (2000). Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density and fractures: prospective study of effects in older women. British Medical Journal 321: 860-4.

As with Feskanich (1998) and Karagas (1996), this study didn't find an association between water fluoride & hip fracture, but it did find an association between water fluoride and other types of fracture - in this case, wrist fracture. "There was a non-significant trend toward an increased risk of wrist fracture."

Suarez-Almazor M, et al. (1993). The fluoridation of drinking water and hip fracture hospitalization rates in two Canadian communities. American Journal of Public Health 83: 689-693.

While the authors of this study conclude there is no association between fluoridation and hip fracture, their own data reveals a statistically significant increase in hip fracture for men living in the fluoridated area. According to the authors, "although a statistically significant increase in the risk of hip fracture was observed among Edmonton men, this increase was relatively small (RR=1.12)."

Fluoride Action Network | 802-355-0999 | info@fluoridealert.org