by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
from Cassiopaea Website

 

Dear Readers,


We had a discussion in the QFS about Prozac. Someone mentioned the technical name of the compound and it was noted that it was similar to Fluoride. So, several members of the group started looking at this issue and, yes, sure enough, the same poison that is being used to dumb us down in so many other ways, is being given to people as a prescription for any number of psychological problems.

 

I guess that the Powers that Be figure if you are made stupid enough, you won't have brains enough to be depressed. This material was compiled for Signs of the Times by mgt.

[Note: portions of this summary are drawn from a number of more extensive articles at fluoridealert.org]

A lot of attention has been brought forth in recent years by alternative medical researchers and others regarding the issue of fluorine compounds (the most common are fluorides) in drinking water, toothpaste, food and beverage products, household products like Teflon(TM), and as we recently learned, as a component in a number of pharmaceutical drugs as well.

Environmentalists have become increasingly concerned about the widespread effects of fluorides in air pollution, both in gaseous and particulate form. The leading causes of fluoride air pollution today include the manufacture of phosphates for fertilizer and other uses, the manufacture of insecticides, aluminum, plastics and many other products. In addition, in the past, the atomic weapons industry has contributed greatly to the overall levels of toxic fluoride pollution in many communities. These statements and more will be supported in the following article.

 

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), charged with protecting the environment (which I take to also mean the environment people live and work in) has long dragged their heels in addressing the fluoride pollution issues.
 

 

 

Part I

The Wishing Well
 

Since the days of WWII the Federal Government in the US has made a strong push to convince all communities to fluoridate their water, and they drafted assistance the US Department of Public Health and the American Dental Association in this effort. A push which, by the way, still continues today. Thomas Reeves, of the CDC, is a water engineer responsible for overseeing the US fluoridation program (as of May 2001).

Declassified documents obtained by by Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson (1) appear to show that:

"Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents. Massive quantities of fluoride - millions of tons - were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S atomic bomb program - both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal."

They also showed that there was a clear conflict of interest between dealing with the high toxicity of the fluorine by products of production and the wish of the government to give a "clean bill of health to fluoridation projects as the following selection of quotes from "Waste-not#414" (http://www.fluoridealert.org/WN-414.htm) show:

" Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show."

" Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water--conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F," they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel."

" The original secret version - obtained by these reporters - of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) - considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies - for reasons of national security."

" The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester, site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mind-set, in which "national security" was paramount. "

" The U.S. government's conflict of interest--and its motive to prove fluoride "safe" -- has not until now been made clear to the general public in the furious debate over water fluoridation since the 1950's, nor to civilian researchers and health professionals, or journalists."

So it seems the government and their contractors had (and still have) a strong fiscal incentive in "whitewashing" the whole fluoride story.

The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta still maintain that water fluoridation is safe and effective.

Thomas Reeves, CDC water engineer and the man currently responsible for overseeing the US fluoridation program made the following statements in a letter.

 

(And I have to ask why is this a Federal program anyway? Wouldn't this logically be a personal choice or at least decided at the community level? The answer to this becomes clear further down.)

"All of the fluoride chemicals used in the U.S. for water fluoridation, sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid, are byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The manufacturing process produces two byproducts:

(1) a solid, calcium sulfate (sheetrock, CaSo4)

(2) the gases, hydrofluoric acid (HF) and silicon terafluoride (SiF4)

A simplified explanation of this manufacturing process follows: Apatite rock, a calcium mineral found in central Florida, is ground up and treated with sulfuric acid, producing phosphoric acid and the two byproducts, calcium sulfate and the two gas emissions. Those gases are captured by product recovery units (scrubbers) and condensed into 23% fluorosilicic acid. Sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate are made from this acid."

"The question of toxicity, purity, and risk to humans from the addition of fluoride chemicals to the drinking water sometimes arises. Almost all of over 40 water treatment chemicals that may be used at the water plant are toxic to humans in their concentrated form; e.g., chlorine gas and the fluoride chemicals are no exception. Added to the drinking water in very small amounts, the fluoride chemicals dissociate virtually 100% into their various components (ions) and are very stable, safe, and non-toxic."

Here he reverts to what I call the "diversionary" argument, i.e.; he points out the toxicity of other chemicals such as chlorine as a defense for using fluorides. At no point does he actually address the toxicity of fluorine/fluorides per se except to just say it is "safe".

 

I guess we are just supposed to take his word on that. [the full letter from Reeves can be read at http://www.fluoridealert.org/ifin-230.htm]
 

 


"It is an ill wind blows no good"

In 1944 a severe pollution accident occurred at the E.I. du Pont du Nemours Company chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey. This factory was then producing fluoride, in the millions of pounds, for the then Top-Secret Manhattan Project. It also appears they were processing free uranium there, but that was never an issue in this accident.

The farms directly downwind of this factory in two counties were adversely affected, causing blighted crops and "burned up peaches" as one farmer put it. Poultry died. Farmhand who ate the produce sickened quickly and "frequently vomited all night and into the next day." The horses were sick and too stiff to work and the cattle were so weak they had to graze crawling. The humans were reported to have an abnormally high fluoride content in their blood. This account was confirmed by Philip Sadtler of Sadtler Laboratories of Philadelphia, who had personally conducted the initial investigation into the incident.

 

In 1946, after the wars end, the farmers filed the first ever lawsuit to come out of the Atom Bomb project:

From the Philadelphia Record

October 18, 1946

"First Atom Bomb Suit - for Ruined Peaches - Filed by Salem County Growers for $400,000

A dozen orchard owners in Salem County (NJ) blamed the atomic bomb yesterday for their ruined 1944 peach crop. And - they're not fooling.

"For they filed suit in New Jersey Supreme Court for $400,000 to make good for their losses. Named in the suit - first of its kind- are three chemical manufacturers whose products went into the manufacture of atomic bombs. They are E.I. duPont de Nemours Company, which has a plant at Deepwater, Salem County; the Sun Oil Company and the General Chemical Company, both of Marcus Hook, Pa. The bill of complaint made no mention of the atomic bomb but attributed the damage to hydrogen fluoride and hydrofluoric acid."

This got the attention of the government swiftly. Manhattan Project chief Major General Leslie R.Groves convened secret meetings between:

  • U.S War Department

  • the Manhattan Project

  • the Food and Drug Administration

  • the Agriculture and Justice Departments

  • the U.S Army's Chemical Warfare Service and Edgewood Arsenal

  • the Bureau of Standards

  • Du Pont lawyers

Declassified documents reveal that they agreed to mobilize all resources necessary to effect a defeat of the farmers' claims.

27 August 1945

Subject: Investigation of Crop Damage at Lower Penns Neck, New Jersey

To: The Commanding General, Army Service Forces, Pentagon Building, Washington D.C.

"At the request of the Secretary of War the Department of Agriculture has agreed to cooperate in investigating complaints of crop damage attributed... to fumes from a plant operated in connection with the Manhattan Project."

Signed,

L.R. Groves,

Major General U.S.A

Manhattan Project Lieutenant Colonel Cooper B. Rhodes wrote in a memo to General Groves:

[these agencies] "are making scientific investigations to obtain evidence which may be used to protect the interest of the Government at the trial of the suits brought by owners of peach orchards in ... New Jersey"

General Groves wrote,

"The Department of Justice is cooperating in the defense of these suits," to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy, in a Feb. 28, 1946 memo.

So a few farmers apparently generated, in the words of Griffiths and Bryson, "a national-security emergency". Why? Because at this point the US was in full scale production of atomic weapons deemed essential to US post-war domination and leadership and the lawsuits were seen as a potential "roadblock". A favorable ruling for the farmers would set a precedent and potentially derail the whole program, dependant as it was, on the production of fluoride.

Griffiths and Bryson write:

"In a subsequent secret Manhattan project memo, a broader solution to the public relations problem was suggested by chief fluoride toxicologist Harold C. Hodge. He wrote to the Medical Section chief, Col. Warren:

'Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents of Salem and Gloucester counties through lectures on F toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?'

Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War."

This is the origin of the entire national water fluoridation project.

 

Hodge's suggestion was brilliant, if somewhat Machiavellian, in that by creating a large "background" presence of fluorine compounds in the environment, esp. the water supply, any future claims of fluoride damage by civilians would be very hard to document and prove in court.

Evidence that the government was well aware of the toxicity problems associated with fluorides in any form dates to at least 1943. Here is a memo reporting on that discussion:

29 September 1943

SUBJECT: Report on Meeting of 31 August 1943 for discussion of Toxicology Program.

On 31 August a meeting was held to discuss the allocation of a portion of the experimental program involving the study of the toxicological effect of various special materials. Present at the meeting were: Dr. Col. Ruhoff, Major Hadlock, Lt. Sturgie (Special Materials), Dr. Wensel, Dr. Stone, Dr. Tannenbaum (Chicago Project), Dr. Hodge (Rochester Project), Dr. Warren, Major Friedell, Capt. (Medical Section).

It was decided that a conference on the toxicity of fluorine compounds should be held with the view to orienting those concerned with the specific problems which may arise. It was recommended that a program be arranged by the Public Health Service since some of their members have more exhaustive studies into the biological effects of fluorine and its compounds.

 

The tentative arrangements met with approval of Lt. Col. Ruhoff, and it was contemplated that those companies actively engaged in the production of F, F2, and fluorides be invited. The meeting was also to be attended by representatives of the Manhattan District but their association with the District would be concealed by appropriate measures...

(Unsigned)

cc: Lt. Col. Ruhoff

Dr. R.S. Stone

For more information about this meeting see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/1944-conference.htm
 

 


Footnotes to Part 1

(1) Joel Griffiths is a medical writer in New York City, author of a book on radiation hazards and numerous articles for medical and popular publications. Joel can be contacted at 212-662-6695.

Chris Bryson holds a Masters degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and has worked for the British Broadcasting Corporation, The Manchester Guardian, The Christian Science Monitor and Public Television. Chris can be contacted at 212-665-3442.

 

 



Part 2

Fluorides in Water Systems and Dentistry

 

 


Fluoridation of Municipal Water Supplies


France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Northern Ireland, Austria and the Czech Republic do NOT put fluorides in their water supply! If fluoridation is such a boon to mankind, why on earth would so many European nations refuse to do it? According to statements from these governments, the main reason is that they consider it unethical medication of persons without prior consent.

In the case of the Netherlands, their water was fluorinated until their Supreme Court threw it out. (June 22, 1973)

The Czech Republic said this:

"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:

  • 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)

  • Unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)

  • Unethical ("forced medication")

  • Toxicologically and physiologically debatable (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).

According to data from the World Health Organization these countries have about the same level of tooth decay as the United States which is 60% fluoridated. In addition to the US, the UK, the former USSR and Australia do or did until recently use fluoridation. http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html

A more extensive list of countries who do NOT fluoridate their water can be seen at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/hileman.htm

We have already seen why the United States and it's prime defense contractors and manufacturers such as DuPont) was so interested in this "forced medication" program and went to great lengths to promote and implement it. Now lets take a look at the consequences.

Fluorosis (over-fluoridation of teeth resulting in white spots later becoming brownish spots and extreme brittleness) is becoming an epidemic problem. http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluorosis-pics.htm

Vulnerable population segments include the elderly, people with diabetes, deficiencies of calcium, vitamin C, cardiovascular problems, kidney problems, underactive thyroids or those with hypersensitivity to fluoride.

Aluminum uptake to the brain has been shown to be facilitated by fluoride.

"Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride (either as sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride) in doubly distilled and de-ionized water, were found to have increased levels of aluminum in their brain and amyloid deposits (11). Amyloid deposits in the brain are associated with Alzheimer's disease." http://www.fluoridealert.org/varner.htm

In addition, other studies have suggested fluoride also facilitates aluminum uptake in bone tissue resulting in increased osteoporosis and other bone weaknesses causing proneness to fracture.

 

The fact that kids nowadays seem to get broken bones much easier is surely no coincidence.

  • Accumulation in bones, pineal gland and other tissues.
     

  • Suppression of normal thyroid function (may be useful in treating hyperthyroid condition). In fact the amount of fluoride ingested daily by most Americans is in excess of that used to treat hyperthyroidism. http://www.fluoridealert.org/galletti.htm
     

  • Hazardous Wastes - because all fluorides used for municipal treatment are derived from industrial waste (as stated above by Reeves, CDC), arsenic, lead and other highly toxic metals and compounds including radioactive isotopes can easily be brought along with it.
     

  • Fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate (silicofluorides) are used in 90% of water treatment programs and A study published in the journal Neurotoxicology (27) found that blood lead levels in children were consistently and significantly higher in New York communities where silicofluorides were used to fluoridate the water http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/mar01/fluoride.html

     

  • Other studies have found an association between fluorides and Down's Syndrome http://www.fluoridealert.org/downs-syndrome.htm

This is just a sampling of the increasing number of findings about the health consequences of fluorides. For more information on this subject try these links:



Fluorides and the Dental Industry


The primary justification for fluoridation has always been that it prevents Caries in children's teeth. Let's take closer look at the history of dentistry and fluoridation.

According to Dr. Paul Connet, PHD, the very claims of dental benefit are dubious are best.

 

He states:

"The benefits to teeth are questionable."

 

3. The key initial studies which purported to show that fluoride was a benefit to teeth, conducted in Grand Rapids, Michigan (1945), Newburgh, New York (1945), Evanston, Illinois (1947), and Brantford, Ontario, Canada (1945), were of a very dubious scientific quality.

 

This is fully and thoroughly documented by Dr. Philip Sutton in his book, "The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation"

  1. While the science was dubious, the confidence of the US Public Health Service (PHS) was enormous. In April 1951, before any single fluoridation trial had been completed, the US Surgeon General, Leonard Scheele, was telling a Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, "During the past year our studies progressed to the point where we could announce an unqualified endorsement of the fluoridation of the public water supplies as a mass procedure for reducing tooth decay by two thirds"
     

  2. Subsequent Surgeon Generals have continued to act as cheerleaders for this procedure. Their passionate promotion bears little relation to the quality of the science involved in fluoridation, either to its efficacy or to its safety. Another Surgeon General, Thomas Parran, stated, "I consider water fluoridation to be the greatest single advance in dental health made in our generation"
     

  3. Such an opinion sharply contrasts with that of former US EPA scientist, Dr. Robert Carton, who after he examined the evidence declared, "Fluoridation is a scientific fraud, probably the greatest fraud of the century"
     

  4. The early studies upon which the entire program was built are now shown to be seriously flawed. In fact there never was a truly scientific double-blind study done on fluoridation in those days! Dr. Connet is kind in his assessment that these scientists were simply over-enthusiastic in their efforts.

From Part 1 above, we already know the real reasons these tests were set up to achieve the results they did.


Dr. Connet goes on to talk about not only a lack of evident benefit, but actually severe tooth damage as the result of fluoridation:

Meanwhile, considerable evidence has accumulated that the state of children's permanent teeth in non-fluoridated communities, as measured by their DMFT (decayed, missing and filled teeth) values, is just as good as (if not better than) those in fluoridated communities. For example, in 1995 the teeth of the children in fluoridated Newburgh were again compared to those in still unfluoridated Kingston (this study started in 1945) and there was little difference in the DMFT values across the 7-14 years age range.

If an average is taken the children in unfluoridated Kingston had slightly better DMFT values. However, there was one big difference: the average levels of dental fluorosis were about twice as high in fluoridated Newburgh as it was in unfluoridated Kingston (7). Dental fluorosis is a mottling of the teeth. In its mildest form it consists of white patches or streaks.

 

As the severity increases the color of the patches changes from white to yellow, to orange and then to brown. In its severest form dental fluorosis results in loss of tooth enamel and extreme brittleness. The only known cause of dental fluorosis is exposure to fluoride and the rates are increasing.

The argument used by the pro-fluoride authors of the Newburgh-Kingston study is that the improvement in DMFTs in non-fluoridated Kingston is due to exposure to fluoride from other sources: fluoridated toothpaste, beverages and processed food. If we accept this argument at face value then it completely undermines the need to add fluoride to the drinking water since a better result (i.e. slightly better DMFTs and less dental fluorosis) was achieved in Kingston without fluoridation."

There is not space here to go into the all the more recent studies and tests, which clearly implicate Fluorides in a whole host of dental, medical and mental problems. A search of the web will easily turn up hundreds of pages on these topics for those who will like to pursue it more.

OK, we know the government and big industry did this to us to protect their pocketbooks. Why the dentists went along with it can only be speculated, but I suspect in the beginning there was considerable pressure put on the dentists by the agencies that regulate them, and of course they were presented with the same flawed studies that everyone else was.

 

And dentists, like many doctors, frequently fail to continue their education after they have left medical/dental school. But there may be an ulterior motive as well - given the kind of damage fluorides produce in the teeth of a significant portion of the population, fluoridation may have actually resulted in more work and profits for dentists rather than the opposite which would be expected if the claims of fluoride benefits were actually true.

Despite the current awareness among the public that there may be serious problems with fluoridation, many dentists continue to promote and sell fluoride treatments (the same one who continue to promote and use mercury-amalgam fillings I would suppose, but that is for another article!). And the CDC and the government continue to promote and expand the fluoridation program.

 

The EPA has carefully sidestepped the question and steadfastly refused to take any action, however, the union of scientists representing EPA research scientists has come out and demanded a moratorium on fluoridation until better study and analysis of the problem can be done.

 

This should be a wakeup call to the public and to the communities still administering fluorides to their constituents.
 

 

 


Part 3

Chemicals/Drugs containing Fluorine Compounds

 


HF (hydrogen fluoride or hydrofluoric acid)


Today hundreds of industrial and manufacturing processes use hydrofluoric acid, much of which escapes in gas form into the atmosphere as pollution. It is the 6th most emitted air pollutant in the US.

 

Some of the suspected medical indications from exposure include the following:

  • Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicant

  • Developmental Toxicant

  • Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant

  • Musculoskeletal Toxicant

  • Neurotoxicant

  • Reproductive Toxicant

  • Respiratory Toxicant

  • Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant

The MSDS sheet for HF can be seen here : http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/h3994.htm 


See also: ToxFAQs for Fluoride, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (a CDC website)

Because fluorides assist in the uptake of aluminum, there is an extensive literature now available on musculoskeletal disease among aluminum workers. The main problem seems not to be the aluminum per se, but the presence of fluorides acting as a catalyst. (http://www.fluoridealert.org/i-fluorosis.htm)

Hydrogen Fluoride is used extensively in manufacturing phosphates, aluminum, steel mills, oil refineries, power plants, pesticides and plastics.
 

 


Hydrogen Fluoride in Pharmaceutical Drugs


Fluorides have been used in many prescription drugs including some of the SSRIDs or Seratonin-uptake Inhibitors such as Prozac(TM). The Fluoride Action Network has put up a list of currently common prescription drugs which contain Fluorine and can be seen here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pharm.htm

From the Fluoride Action Network:

  • "Prozac" (Fluoxetine Hydrochloride)

    The Danger of Taking Prozac The Guardian September 4, 1999

  • Book: Talking Back to Prozac Peter R. Breggin, M.D.

    Prozac Backlash: Long-Term Consequences for Taking Antidepressants Are Virtually Unknown

  • ABC News April 10, 2000

    Antidepressants linked to sexual side effects CNN.com Health with WebMD February 9, 2000

  • Fluoextine: Drug Monograph MentalHealth.com, Phillip Long, MD, 1999

    Manufacturer's Report (pdf) Eli Lilly, June 1998

Note on Prozac: One impact of prozac which is of particular concern is it's impact on the thyroid. Eli Lilly, the company that produces Prozac, reports that hypothyroidism can result from taking prozac, although the company states that such cases are infrequent (see Manufacturer's Report listed above). According to

Henry Ford Health System,

"The product information of Prozac reveals that infrequently Prozac may cause or worsen preexisting hypothyroidism. As hypothyroidism is known to cause depression, it is important to have your thyroid function checked."

According to Mary Shomon, author of Living Well With Hypothyroidism,

"Taking thyroid hormone replacement while taking the popular antidepressant sertraline -- brand name Zoloft -- can cause a decrease in the effectiveness of the thyroid hormone replacement, and make your TSH rise. This same effect has also been seen in patients receiving other selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors such as Paxil (paroxetine) and Prozac (fluoxetine). If you are on an antidepressant or thyroid hormone and your doctor wants to prescribe the other, be sure to discuss these issues."

 

Since hypothyroidism is a common cause of depression, there is concern that patients with hypothyroidism may be prescribed prozac to treat their depression, which could in turn make their hypothyroidism worse. "

 

 

Cipro - The controversial anthrax drug, Cipro is also a fluorinated drug

 

For an in depth look at this try this link: http://www.penweb.org/fluoride/ciproinfo.html

At this point there is simply not enough research available on the use of fluorine compounds in drugs to justify such widespread use and distribution. Much more investigation is urgently needed.
 

 


References: