Fluoride and Fluoridation
Fluoride damages teeth!
Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program.1 Further studies by the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males.2 Earlier studies had found a 5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities.3
Drinking fluoridated water will double the number of hip fractures for both older men and women.4 5
Extremely
low levels of water fluoridation 0.1 ppm still produced statistically
significant increased hip fractures. (Bordeaux Study JAMA 1994)
Infertility in women was found to increase with water fluoridation.
Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists reported a close correlation
between decreasing total fertility rates in women between ages of 10 and
49, and increasing fluoride levels.
They
also reported that a review of all of the animal studies done to date
shows that fluoride adversely affects fertility in most animal species.6
Opaque white spots and brown ugly teeth caused by fluoride is called Fluorosis.
Fluorosis currently affects one out of five or more children in the US although it is rarely seen in California. California is the least fluoridated state with less than 16% of the population drinking artificially fluoridated water.
Fluoride is not effective in reducing tooth decay.
No correlation was found between the level of fluoride in water and dental caries.7 8 9 10 11
There
appears to be a genetically related increase in tooth decay for
Hispanics, Indians, Native Americans and Asians. Decay is related to the
educational and economic level of the parents.12 13 14
In Dr. A. K. Susheela’s affidavit (Dr
Susheela is a histocytochemist and a Doctor of Medical Science with 25
years experience in fluoride research and more than 100 published
scientific papers on the adverse effects of fluoride on human health to
her credit.) in the case of the “Safe Water Association Inc. versus the City of Pond Du Lac” in United States District Court, she states that fluoride:
· Destroys bones, teeth, blood vessels, and stomach lining;
· Causes infertility;
· Causes poisoning with symptoms of headache or nausea;
· Adversely effects membrane bound enzymes and the transfer of Calcium and Magnesium ions;
· Inhibits protein & DNA synthesis;
· Impairs cortisol production and;
· Alters bone matrix constitution (Susheela p.1-6).
Fluoride does not protect children's teeth; it is "children's teeth" in particular, which are damaged by fluoride.
Dental
fluorosis occurs exclusively in children, during enamel formation of
the teeth. It is a permanent condition for which there is no cure.
Fluorine
is a general protoplasmic poison, but the most important symptoms of
chronic fluorine poisoning known at present are mottling of the teeth
[fluorosis] and interference with bone.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, (Eighth edition, 1993) defines Fluorosis as poisoning by fluorine or its compounds.
Therefore,
drinking water fluoridation, however well-intentioned, is the
indiscriminate poisoning of children, evidence for which, dental fluorosis, is the biomarker.
The
harmful effects of dental fluorosis extend beyond tooth disfigurement
and possible loss of dental function. A body of scientific evidence
shows that dental fluorosis can affect the psychological well being of
both children and adults.
Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government:
"We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. . . "
- (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158.).
It
is estimated that between 48% - 54% of children living in fluoridated
areas develop dental fluorosis, the visible sign of fluoride poisoning.
Gerard F. Judd, Ph.D., chemist, says:
Fluoride severs the protein molecules that adhere gums to the teeth.
Scientists at Drug Company Admit That Fluoride Causes Gum/Mouth Disease
From
Patent #5,807,541 "NSAID/fluoride periodontal compositions and methods"
(15 Sept 1998), filed by the pharmaceutical company Sepracor:
We
have found that fluoride, in the concentration range in which it is
employed for the prevention of dental caries [cavities], stimulates the
production of prostaglandins and thereby exacerbates the inflammatory
response in gingivitis and periodontitis.
...
Thus,
the inclusion of fluoride in toothpastes and mouthwashes for the
purpose of inhibiting the development of caries [cavities] does, at the
same time, accelerate the process of chronic, destructive periodontitis
For 60 years we have been lied to about the effects of fluoride
on our health
The British Dental Journal
"Perhaps
the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists
in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread
assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of
the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of
water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not . . .. as
soon as dentists recognise their responsibility in the politics of
fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding. In politics, the
emphasis is on propagandising rather than education."
Although
fluoride is scientifically classed as more toxic than lead, the
Government allows 40 times as much fluoride as lead in drinking water.
Meanwhile,
while few people seem to know, most would be horrified to learn that
the fluoride added to drinking water isn’t the pharmaceutical grade
stuff added to toothpaste.
The
fluoride that the Prime Minister wants to put in everyone’s drinking
water is a hazardous industrial waste (H2SiF6) that is illegal to dump
at sea.
One may wonder how it ever managed to pass any safety test.
The simple – if unbelievable – answer is that it didn’t. In Britain,
the National Pure Water Association has repeatedly challenged the
Government to produce the safety testing data for the product.
The Government never has, because the data doesn’t exist.
It
is a wonder that any part of the medical profession could be in favour
of fluoridation, in breach of both the European Convention on Human
Rights and Medicine and standard medical practice.
99.5%
of drinking water is not drunk but goes straight down the drain being
used for washing flushing and industrial processes with no pollution
investigation ongoing.
In the NRC report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's standards"
published in March 2006, there appears the level of fluoride which is
present in mothers milk in nonfluoridated areas. It is 0.004 ppm (the
same table gives the level in fluoridated areas (1 ppm) as ranging from
0.007 to 0.01 ppm).
This means that babies bottle fed in communities with fluoride at 1 ppm get 250 times more fluoride than nature intended and it means that babies bottle fed in communities with the EPA's current (established in 1985) Safe Drinking Water Standard of 4ppm, are getting 1000 times more fluoride than nature intended.
Was this very low level (0.004 ppm) forced upon nature by the surroundings? No, there was plenty of fluoride around when life was evolving. For example, the average level in the oceans is 1.4 ppm.
This means that babies bottle fed in communities with fluoride at 1 ppm get 250 times more fluoride than nature intended and it means that babies bottle fed in communities with the EPA's current (established in 1985) Safe Drinking Water Standard of 4ppm, are getting 1000 times more fluoride than nature intended.
Was this very low level (0.004 ppm) forced upon nature by the surroundings? No, there was plenty of fluoride around when life was evolving. For example, the average level in the oceans is 1.4 ppm.
Fluoridation chemicals are Part II poisons under the UK
Poisons Act 1972. Fluorides are medically categorised as protoplasmic
poisons, which is why they are used in commercial rat poisons.
When
impure H2SiF6 is added to drinking water it will probably still comply
with the drinking water directive 98/83/EC but the directive should not
be used as a justification to pollute up to the levels specified.
Drinking water should be as pure as possible
Water fluoridation contravenes UK law, EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. (Please see in next blogg, The implication of the European Community legislation….by Doug Cross, Forensic Ecologist)
Fluoride
causes thyroid malfunction, e.g. hypothyroid causing late eruption of
0-5 year olds teeth which gives misleading DMFT statistics, these in
addition do not take account of the actual number of teeth in the
child's mouth, this would be corrected if this variable was included. I
would suggest DMFT/E where E is erupted teeth.
Birmingham fluoridated over 40 years has the highest infant mortality rate in England.
America is 62% fluoridated and has a much worse dental health
than Europe 2% fluoridated. America has spiralling health problems
which have been forecast for the U.K if fluoridation goes ahead.
The
British Government, PCT's and the DoH have no clue what our fluoride
intakes are or the levels of fluoride retained. Private testing in the U.K. has shown that some people are ingesting unacceptably high concentrations.
The
DoH refuse to replicate these tests ( there is no NHS facility to test
for fluoride in blood or urine not even in fluoridated communities) or follow advice from The World Health Organisation, they say:
No new fluoridation schemes should be started until total fluoride intake
has
been measured. People receive fluoride from industrial pollution,
pesticides, tranquillisers and other drugs. Many people’s body
levels of fluoride are above WHO safety limits.
Authorities will and do, mass medicate populations with fluoride with the perceived medical advice being, "Take as much as you like whenever you like, for the rest of your life. This is preposterous; any physician prescribing medicines in this way would be grossly negligent. A physician should assess the individual need of a patient and prescribe medicine to meet that need - and nothing else.
"Fluoridation
... it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has
been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has." Professor
Albert Schatz, Ph.D. (Microbiology), Discoverer of streptomycin
& Nobel Prize Winner.
As a result of Dr Schatz’s work, fluoridation was stopped in Chile.
98% Of Western Europe Has Rejected Water Fluoridation.
This includes Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. The predominant reason for Europe's
rejection is the belief that public drinking water is NOT the
appropriate vehicle with which to deliver medication to a population.
Switzerland, India, and Japan have either rejected or banned its use in recent years.
New Report
Sam
Epstein, the chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and professor
emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of
Illinois, pointed to the epidemiological studies linking fluoride and
bone cancer, and said that “the imposition of fluoridation on the UK
public [would] present a significant public health hazard”.
Other studies have linked fluoride with higher incidences of miscarriages and Down’s syndrome births, and decreased IQ levels.
Study shows an increased rate of osteosarcoma:
The new evidence was contained in a Harvard dissertation by Dr Elise Bassin at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The dissertation, completed in April 2001, obviously had merit because Bassin was awarded her doctorate.
This
American research ( suppressed until 2005) suggests that boys exposed
to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased
rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - between the ages of 10 and 19.
Letter from Dr Alasdair Philips
Scientific Projects Advisor
CHILDREN with LEUKAEMIA (UK Registered Charity)
51 Great Ormond Street, London:
Dear Pinellas County Comissioners,
Re: Fluoridation of your water supply.
We
are often asked about these environmental issues by parents of children
with cancer. We do not recommend forcing them to drink an industrial
highly toxic waste product.
I
do not take my family on vacation to any place where communities add
"fluoride" to their water supply. It would be in our breakfast, lunch,
dinner and every cup of coffee and tea that we drink - and even in our
shower water. It would be impossible for us to avoid it.
Only 2 per cent of the global population drink artificially fluoridated drinking water -and most of them live in the United States. If Pinellas County fluoridates, we will put it on our list of vacation places to avoid - and share it with our friends and colleagues worldwide.
Yours sincerely, Alasdair Philips
A
main route of exposure to toxicants in municipal water for children is
the skin. Studies done in the early 1980s showed that an average of 64%
of the total dose of waterborne contaminants is absorbed through the
skin.
Also, studies by Dr. Julian Andelman, Professor of Water Chemistry, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School
of Public Health, found less chemical exposure from drinking
contaminated water than using it to wash clothes or take a shower
(American Journal of Public Health, May 1984).
In his book: Health & Nutrition Secrets to Save Your Life.
Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D. says:
“Only
the light of truth can halt this process.” If after reading my book you
can still approve water fluoridation expect horrendous medical problems
and suffering of the people. Keep in mind that fluoride will interact
with aspartame, which is also causing heinous symptoms and diseases in
the UK. What has happened here in the U.S, WILL happen in the UK.
You must stop the fluoridation of the UK or it will destroy the health
of the people and cause disability and death as recorded in this book
which contains in-depth information on fluoride information that has
been kept from the public e.g. Fluoridated communities PAY MORE FOR
DENTAL CARE.
The York Review
Funded by U.K Government and described by them as “The Final Word on Fluoride” has
been criticised by many scientists and others for its biased inclusion
criteria and misrepresentation of its findings. (Also please see
accompanying document, DoH Guidelines on New Fluoridation Schemes…)
Professor Phillipe Grandjean, Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Odense, Denmark, wrote to the US Environmental Agency about a WHO study on fluorine and fluoride. In 1985 He pointed out:
“Information
which could cast any doubt on the advantage of fluoride supplements was
left out by the Task Group. Unless I had been present myself, I would
have found it hard to believe”.
The same can be said of this review (The York
Review). One is now left to wonder why the review was conducted. If
this review was worth a year’s work by many highly paid scientists and
government officials; if it was worth spending scarce NHS money on; if
it were really to be a once and for all, unchallengeable, examination of
the benefits and adverse effects of fluoridation, why were the
inclusion criteria manipulated to exclude data that might show
fluoridation in a bad light.
The title the NHSCRD dreamed up for their press release was “The Final Word on Fluoride”. It isn’t.
The
Government’s White Paper on health specifically stated that this Review
would examine the effects of fluoride on health. It didn’t.
In December 2002, four members of the government’s last major study of the effects of water fluoridation (The York
Review, published September 2000) wrote to Hazel Blears, the public
health minister, about the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing
caries: “We could discover no reliable, good quality evidence in the
fluoridation literature worldwide. What we found suggested that
fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but in fact the
range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight
disbenefit to children’s teeth.”
Medical Advisor to Thyroid UK
9-9-4
There
is a daunting amount of research studies showing that the widely
acclaimed benefits of fluoride on dental health are more imagined than
real. My main concern however, is the effect of sustained fluoride
intake on general health. Again, there is a huge body of research literature on this subject, freely available and in the public domain.
But this body of work was not considered by the York
Review when their remit was changed from “Studies of the effects of
fluoride on health” to “Studies on the effects of fluoridated water on
health.” It is clearly evident that it was not considered by the BMA
(British Medical Association), British Dental Association (BDA), BFS
(British Fluoridation Society) and FPHM, (Faculty for Public Health and
Medicine) since they all insist, as in the briefing paper to Members of
Parliament - that fluoridation is safe and non-injurious to health. This
is a public disgrace; I will now show by reviewing the damaging effects
of fluoridation, with special reference to thyroid illness.
( Dr. Durrant-Peatfield continues for three pages plus references)
From Namaste
email to: info@namastepublishing.co.uk
Louis Ronsivalli, for many years Laboratory Director at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and recipient of four US Government Awards commented on The York Review’s exclusion of relevant studies:
“Because it is ignoring fluoride exposure from all sources, the UK
study is absolutely and without question, being conducted as if by
unsupervised schoolchildren. The danger imposed on human health by
purposely adding fluoride to public water supplies cannot be
scientifically assessed by evaluating only the effect of the fluoride in
drinking water supplies. The exclusion of the effects of fluoride from
other sources represents the exclusion of relevant variables which must
be considered under the scientific rules that must be followed in the
conduct of scientific experiments, as well as in the conduct of
scientific analyses. Anyone who contends that these variables do not
have to be considered, should get into a different line of work.
Scientific work is far too important to be conducted by incompetent or
careless individuals.”
Paul Connett, PhD, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, Canton, New York.
“The
York Review’s finding that none of these epidemiological studies is
worthy of an A grade, underlines the fact that not only is fluoridation a
human experiment, the powers that be haven’t even done a good job of
collecting the data.
“The danger of such a review as conducted by the York
team is to make everything appear extremely complicated for the
ordinary citizen. Let’s simplify the picture. No risk is acceptable if
it is avoidable. Why take these risks when based upon the largest study
of teeth done in the US
the benefit of fluoridation at most represents half a tooth surface
saved per child? Why protect the teeth on the outside with a method
which has a high chance of damaging them from the inside (dental
fluorosis)? Why take these risks when all but three countries in Western Europe
do not fluoridate their water and there is no evidence to suggest that
their teeth are worse than countries that do? . . . The toxic properties
of fluoride are not in dispute.
“The York
Review has provided enough information for reasonable citizens,
scientists and governments to act now. The time has come to end the
practice of putting fluoride into drinking water.”
Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
“In
considering these objectives and the guidelines laid out for addressing
them, one must bear in mind that the DoH is a long-time advocate of
fluoridation and is unlikely to retreat from that position.
“From
a scientific standpoint, the exclusion of animal and laboratory data
from the review . . . places undue reliance on admittedly deficient
epidemiological investigations that can only be as valid as the adequacy
and completeness of the data included in them, no matter how
sophisticated the statistical analyses might be. In terms of human
population studies, the omission of all reference to unrefuted
peer-reviewed reports of reversible adverse health effects of
fluoridation points up a major defect in the review. By not citing
pertinent experimental and clinical case-study data on the toxic
properties and biomedical hazards of fluoridation, the review clearly
has a serious major shortcoming.
“Moreover,
by not allowing examination of other admittedly important aspects of
fluoridation, the DoH has been able to tailor the report to its own
restricted views of the subject, thereby making the review very
inadequate and misleading in its presentation.
“Both
fluoride and lead are persistent environmental pollutants and, like
lead, fluoride accumulates in the human body with disastrous
consequences to health. Only by acknowledging and dealing honestly with
this fact and its implications can this or any other review of
fluoridation ever be considered an acceptable scientific document.”
Dr
Bruce Spittle MB ChB DPM FRANZCP, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New
Zealand
“I
have experienced some difficulty in interpreting some of the results . .
. After finding some errors I have had doubts about what is accurate
and what is not.
“I
have major reservations about the credibility of the review because of
the narrowness of the inclusion criteria and the associated difficulties
at looking at the effects of fluoride irrespective of its source using
the full range of information available including biochemical and animal
studies.”
Professor Rudolf Ziegelbecker, PhD. Institute of Environmental Health, Graz, Austria
“Professor
Kleijnen, I respect the hard and useful work of your team in the
systematic review. This systematic review of many papers of water
fluoridation showed that there is not any paper with evidence of highest
level A after 55 years of fluoridation. The level B (evidence of
moderate quality) of caries studies, however, is also untenable in view
of statistics and natural sciences. I hope that you correct the results
of your systematic review and also inform the Department of Health and
the public that there is no evidence for ‘benefits’ of water
fluoridation.”
George Glasser, US investigative journalist specialising in pollution
“While
almost every credible governmental and international health agency
specifically states that dermal and inhalation exposures are significant
in determining the overall potential lifetime exposure of the
individual, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York
University failed to acknowledge the present criteria for research
methodology in the fluoridation review.
“Many observers, including this writer, who investigate current scientific review criteria will dismiss the York
review on the basis that the panels did not address all modes of
exposure, and most importantly, the special children’s issues.”
E.M. Vaughan, on behalf of the Directors, National Pure Water Association Limited.
“The
National Pure Water Association Ltd expresses its deep disappointment
that the criteria for selection of research papers were seriously
restrictive.
“We
are particularly critical of the exclusion of all existing animal
studies, exposure via dermal absorption and the biochemistry of fluoride
exposure from sources other than drinking water. Nor did the Review
consider the total exposure of human populations to toxic fluorides,
which essentially determines the severity of adverse health effects.
“NPWA
Ltd regrets that this Review represents a missed opportunity to explore
the breadth of fluoride research. Whatever the Final Report may
conclude, the self-evident deficiencies of this Review compromise the
security of the NHS CRD’s findings.”
The Green Party of England and Wales
“The
Review closed its eyes to all animal studies, all biochemical studies,
all mathematical models - and even key research on the effects of
fluoride on the thyroid.
“The
Review has looked at fluoride in drinking water. But fluoride is a
cumulative poison, and it’s the overall dose which counts. . . . The
methods by which the Review has conducted its work, together with the
narrowing of the Protocols from the original intention to look at
fluoride and health, is wholly unacceptable - there should be an inquiry
into the procedures of the Review.” . . . “Tooth decay is about poor
dental hygiene and high-sugar diet. Mass medication with fluoride
doesn’t address this problem, and doesn’t respect individual choice, but
does have a cumulative toxic effect on the human body.”
The
Green Party supports the National Pure Water Association’s stance -
calling for the repeal of all existing legislation permitting water
fluoridation.
Conclusion
The
British government’s Review, indeed all research conducted on drinking
water fluoridation, is concerned only with direct oral ingestion from
water, using either calcium or sodium fluoride. No research has ever
been carried out on the chronic effects of exposure to fluorosilicates,
whether they be in water, food or air, and none seems likely while
‘reviews’ restrict their examinations to the effects produced by the
addition of sodium fluoride to water alone. Any claims that these
substances are safe or efficacious are specious.
This
review was about ‘Water fluoridation’ to 1ppm specifically, as stated
in the criteria reiterated by Matthew Bradley to Andreas Schuld. It was
not about the biochemistry, and/or the cumulative nature of fluoride; or
of existing levels in people, despite a warning by MoH Mission in 1953;
or total ingestion from all sources (WHO 1994). Neither did it consider
the crucial differences between calcium fluoride and fluorosilicic
acid. Even Dr Peter Mansfields’s West Midlands urine tests were about determining total ingestion levels - so the criteria of this review specifically ruled them out.
In 1998-Dr Peter Mansfield, Director of the Templegarth Trust, tested more than 200 volunteers from the fluoridated West Midlands.
He found that 60% of them are ingesting up to FOUR TIMES the amount of
fluoride considered to be "safe". He sent these deeply worrying results
to the very highest levels at the DoH. No-one wants to know. Instead, Dr
Mansfield has been denigrated by leading fluoride-promoters. Dr
Mansfield said: "They have no results of their own and are not willing
to replicate my tests. It is obvious that the symptoms of joint pain and
stiffness suffered by many of these volunteers are misdiagnosed. This
is most serious negligence."
Those
involved in setting the various guidelines and protocols of the York
Review—and then changing them to ensure the result they want—should
consider these words of Professor Petr Beckman:
No
scientist is infallible and every scientist is entitled to his errors.
But when he omits crucial facts in order to influence laymen, he does
not become a dishonest scientist; he ceases to be a scientist.
On 26 October 1998, The
National Pure Water Association (NPWA) brought Professor Dr A.K.
Susheela to meet with Ms Tessa Jowell, the present Minister for Public
Health. Dr Susheela is a histocytochemist and a Doctor of Medical
Science with 25 years experience in fluoride research and more than 100
published scientific papers on the adverse effects of fluoride on human
health to her credit. She is a senior consultant to the Indian
Government on the subject of fluoride toxicity.
Dr
Susheela showed Ms Jowell and three of her advisers - Dr Michael
Waring, Mr Ian Cooper and Mr Jerry Read - electron-micrographs of cells -
how fluoride kills erythrocytes (red blood cells) and causes
devastating damage to gastric mucosa, resulting in a collection of
symptoms which we westerners describe as "Irritable Bowel Syndrome".
This condition, if shown to be caused by fluoride, can be completely
cured in 10-15 days by eliminating fluoride from the diet and drinking
pure water with no fluoride contamination. She showed how calcium levels
in the body decrease as fluoride levels rise. She showed photographs of
how fluoride induces pitting and cavity formation on the surface of
tooth enamel and that these cavities are distinctly different from those
formed as a result of dental caries. She showed how blood fluoride
levels rise continuously with prolonged use of fluoridated toothpaste.
She showed how, in those who ingest fluoride-contaminated water and who
use fluoridated toothpaste, mouth rinses, etc., the muscles, connective
tissue elements (particularly the collagen fibres) and bone tissue
undergo degenerative changes.
The
government's advisers uttered not a word of comment, nor did they ask
the Professor a single question. These are the "experts" on whom
Ministers rely. Ms Jowell asked why we are not seeing these effects in
our own fluoridated areas. Susheela replied: "You do not have a NHS
facility for testing fluoride levels in blood and urine. If you do not
look for adverse effects, how can you hope to find them?"
References
1. Maurer, et. al., Fluoride an equivocal carcinogen J. National Cancer Institute 82, 1118-26, 1990
3.
Yiamouyiannis, J.A. and Dean Burk, “Fluoridation and Cancer: Age
Dependence of Cancer Mortality Related to Artificial Fluoridation,”
Fluoride, Vol. 10 #3 (102-123) 1977
4. Hip Fracture rates related to Fluoridated water Journal of the American Medical Association 264(4):500-502 1990
5.
J. C. Robins and J. L. Ambrus, “Studies on Osteoporosis IX. Effect of
Fluoride on Steroid Induced Osteoporosis,” Research Communications in
Chemical Pathology and Pharmacology, Volume 37, No. 3, pp. 453-461
(1982)
6. Freni SC, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 42:109-121, 1994
7. Diesendorf M. Tooth Decay not related to fluoride intake from water Nature Vol. 322 10 July 1986
8. Colquhoun J. Tooth Decay related to economics of family American Laboratory 17:98-109 1985
9. Colquhoun J. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41 1985
10. Dr. John Yiamouyiannis statement both in his book (Fluoride the Ageing Factor” pub Health Action Press 2nd ed. 1986 )and during debates has not been challenged by the ADA or others.
11. Ziegelbecker D. Fluoride 14; 123-128 1981
12. Steelink and Jones Fluoride in the Municipal Water of Tucson related to diet and ethnic origin International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology March 95
13. Colquhoun J. Fluoride Vol. 23 #3 July 90
14. Colquhoun J. Community Health Studies 11:85-90 1987
