Hamilton Result Confirms Doubts About Fluoridation

Hamilton Result Confirms Doubts About Fluoridation

“How ironic that in the same week that renewed doubts emerge about the safety of Teflon (1), that Hamilton should vote to fluoridate its water supply”, says Fluoride Action Network spokesperson Caren McConnell.

PFOA, per-fluoro-octanoic acid (aka “C8”) from Telfon, is toxic when inhaled and persists in the environment. These compounds (also found in the controversial Scotchguard) have been detected in the blood of children throughout the States as well as in animals at both North and South Poles.

Although PFOAs and the hydrofluosilicic acid (HFA) added to water supplies are different, they illustrate an important point that many Hamiltonians obviously missed: ALL fluoride compounds are toxic. None are ‘nutritious’.

Fluorine is the most electronegative of all the Elements and is extremely reactive - it is not a “passive spectator” of chemical reactions (2). In Nature fluorine is bound safely in rock minerals, but is liberated by heavy industry – particularly aluminium smelting and phosphate fertiliser manufacture. HFA is the concentrated toxic waste product from the latter (3).

“Both Teflon and HFA have sordid histories initiated by corporate greed, but sanctioned by government (4). New Zealanders are urged to read Christopher Bryson’s investigative expose` ‘The Fluoride Deception’ to understand how corporate America gave fluoride’s image the Ultimate Makeover and ‘sold’ it to the world (5). NZ is one of the very few remaining nations that practices fluoridation, and with an official fervour bordering on the obsessive.

When fluoridation was first proposed in the US in the 1940’s, dentists and doctors were amongst the loudest objectors, but most were eventually worn down. This from the Journal of the American Dental Association 1961: "We cannot escape the fact that fluoridation has been wrested from the hands of the scientist and deposited squarely in the middle of the political arena. Fluoridation is now a political problem.”(6)

Certainly the recent Hamilton referendum reeks of political interference.

Says Ms McConnell, “WATCH (Waikato Against Toxic & Chemical Hazards) together with local FANNZ supporters, are obviously disappointed that our water will be deliberately polluted for a while longer yet. We don’t believe the outcome is a true reflection of informed public opinion at all. The cards were largely stacked against us - tens of thousands of ‘official’ dollars have been spent on glossy rhetoric.”

As announced last week, FANNZ is compiling a complaint to the State Services Commission regarding the integrity of Waikato DHBs behaviour and promotional information in this regard.

“Despite the outcome, our campaign has still been successful in many ways - we’re confident that we’ve raised awareness about the issue in Hamilton. Over 10,000 votes against fluoridation can’t be entirely ignored – we will be asking that the city council provide access to non-fluoridated water for those that want to pick it up,” says Ms McConnell

“We also believe its reasonable that the Council formally request that the DHB fulfils the World Health Organisation requirement to monitor background fluoride exposure in the population (7), and carries out the NZ Public Health Commissions 1995 recommendation to identify fluoride-sensitive persons (believed to be 1% of the population).”(8)

Fluoride accumulates in the body, and over-exposure can cause hip/joint problems including fractures, arthritis and osteoporosis, as well as thyroid disorders. People with kidney problems are also susceptible to fluoride poisoning.

New evidence indicates that over-dose occurs at much lower exposure levels than previous thought and may even be related to lowered IQ and ADHD-like symptoms in children (9). Despite the risks, and MoH’s glaring lack of evidence, our politico-health officials insist that once diluted, fluorides from HFA are benign.

As is the case with Teflon (1), scientists from both US Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Working Group have opposed water fluoridation for many years. Dr William Marcus said in 1998 that “Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use” (11) . Research published this year showed 5-fold increased risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in boys living in fluoridated water areas - a Colgate-funded Harvard professor is being investigated for hitherto suppressing the results of this study (12).

Significantly, a class action lawsuit is now being prepared in the US for osteosarcoma victims, against fluoridation promoters(13). Whangarei dentist and fluoridation opponent Lawrie Brett was quoted on National Radio last week as saying that fluoridation promoters in New Zealanders would be wise to plan their ‘exit strategies’ (14).

In the meantime though, FANNZ members nationwide are preparing to face the latest onslaught of taxpayer-funded propaganda as proponents target unsuspecting Northlanders and Cantabrians who currently enjoy the benefits of non-fluoridated water.

REFERENCES

1. Health fears persist over non-stick pots and pans, 12 May 2006
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10381518

2. The Taming Of Fluorine; Royal Society of Chemistry online magazine http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2001/ohagan_sep01.htm

3. Material Safety Data Sheet for Hydrofluosilicic Acid, Orica Chemicals (esp pages 2,4), as attached or see www.watch.org.nz

4. DuPont Hid Teflon Pollution For Decades, 13 December 2002
http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20021113/20021213.php

5. The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson (Seven Stories Press; 2004, 2006)
http://www.fluorideaction.net/fluoride-deception.htm

6. "We cannot escape the fact that fluoridation has been wrested from the hands of the scientist and deposited squarely in the middle of the political arena. Fluoridation is now a political problem.
- Journal of the American Dental Association 1961

7. Fluorides and Oral Health, World Health Organization Technical Report (1994), Series 846: "Dental and Public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries prevention."

8. Prenatal and Postnatal Ingestion of Fluorides – Fourteen Years of Investigation: Final Report. Feltman, R & Kosel, G. Journal of Dental Medicine, 16:190, Oct 1961.

9. Fluoride foes get validation, Portland Tribune 24 March 2006
http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=34527
“The NAS report showed “that you can protect your children’s teeth by brushing them, and you can protect their bones by getting rid of fluoride in tap water,” Tim Kropp, a toxicologist for the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group.”

10. Dr. J. William Hirzy, Senior Vice-President, Headquarters Union, US Environmental Protection Agency, March 26, 2001: "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."

11. Dr. William Marcus, PhD, EPA scientist writing in the Food and Water Journal, Summer, 1998: "Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe the EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects."

12. Fluoride Debate May Surge As Treated Water Linked To Cancer, 6 April 2006
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=133828&format=text

13. US lawfirm Waters & Kraus: preparing a class action lawsuit against fluoridation promoters on behalf of victims of osteosarcoma.
http://www.asbestos-lawyer.com/CM/PracticeAreaDescriptions/Fluoride.asp

14. Whangarei dentist Lawrie Brett, as quoted on National Radio, 12 May 2006
http://www.radionz.co.nz/nr/programmes/morningreport/20060512

Ends

© Scoop Media