Study proves water fluoridation causes harm to pregnant women and fetus


GENRE: Email THREAD (4 x email responses)

TO: Cr. Diane Woods; Cr. Sol Ibrahim
Cc: Cr. Rose Wanchap; Cr. Paul Spooner; Cr. Sol Ibrahim; Cr. Alan Hunter; Cr. Duncan Dey; Cr. Chris Cubis; Cr. Basil Cameron; Cr. Simon Richardson;
Bcc: Various email Bcc listAUTHOR: John T; Cr. Sol IbrahimDATE SENT:  Correspondence between 23 October 2013  to  Nov 15, 2013
TITLE: Study proves water fluoridation causes harm to pregnant women and fetus
STATUS:  Three responses to original email
UPDATES:  Please post all updates and comments in the LEAVE A REPLY section below.
# 1.
From: John T
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013 4:06 AM
To: Cr. Diane Woods
Cc: Cr. Rose Wanchap; Cr. Paul Spooner; Cr. Sol Ibrahim; Cr. Alan Hunter; Cr. Duncan Dey; Cr. Chris Cubis; Cr. Basil Cameron; Cr. Simon Richardson
Subject: Study proves water fluoridation causes harm to pregnant women and fetus

Dear Mayor and Councilors

EVIDENCE OF FLUORIDE LINK TO ANAEMIA IN PREGNANT WOMEN

Anaemia in pregnancy: easily rectifiable problem

Anaemia in pregnancy is a serious public health problem. It leads to maternal mortality unless the women with low haemoglobin (< 5.0 g/dl) are given blood transfusion. The Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) is in the range of 63–75 per 1000 live births.   A. K. Susheela et al. (page 1320) report an effective interventional approach to control anaemia in pregnant women; the procedure is simple and easily implementable in health delivery outlets. The focus is on withdrawing fluoride from ingestion. If urine fluoride is more than 1.0 mg/l, one need to take adequate care that fluoride-containing items are not consumed; fluoridated tooth- paste is substituted with Ayurvedic pastes with less fluoride content.   A series of adverse reactions of fluoride consumption are known to occur in cells and tissues: (I) Production of less number of erythrocytes (RBCs)/abnormal erythrocytes by the bone marrow and other haemopoetic tissues due to inadequate thyroid hormonal stimulus; (ii) Reduced blood folic acid activity; (iii) Reduced microbial growth in the gut and inhibits vitamin B12 production by the probiotics; (iv) Loss of micro- villi (brush border) in the intestinal lining, resulting in non-absorption of nutrients for haemoglobin biosynthesis. The merit of the procedure lies in reversing the damages caused, and within a few days upon withdrawal of fluoride.

THE RELEVANT RESEARCH ARTICLE IN THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 98, NO. 10, 25 MAY 2010 1320

*For correspondence. (e-mail: susheela@bol.net.in)

Effective interventional approach to control anaemia in pregnant women

Authors:

A. K. Susheela1,*, N. K. Mondal1, Rashmi Gupta1, Kamla Ganesh1,  Shashikant Brahmankar1, Shammi Bhasin2 and G. Gupta2 1Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation, 34, I.P. Extension, Delhi 110 092, India 2Department of OBGY, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi 110 064, India

Anaemia in pregnancy and low birth weight babies, a serious public health problem, troubles India and  several other nations. This article reports the results of a approach to address the issue. Women up to 20 week pregnancy with haemoglobin (Hb) 9.0 g/dl or less, those with urinary fluoride beyond 1.0 mg/l and not suffering from any other ailments, were selected. Out of the 205 pregnant women attending antenatal clinics (ANCs) during 1st and 2nd trimesters, the Sample and control groups were selected through computerized random sampling procedure. Ninety pregnant women formed the sample group and 115 formed the control group. The sample group was introduced to two interventions, viz.: (1) removal of fluoride from ingestion through drinking water, food and other sources, (2) counselling based intake of essential nutrients, viz. Calcium, iron, folic acid, vitamins C, E and other antioxidants through dairy products, vegetables and fruits. No intervention was introduced for the control group. Sample and control groups were monitored for urinary fluoride and Hb until delivery during their visits to ANC. Birth weight of the babies were re- corded from the labour room register. Results reveal that (1) the urine fluoride levels decreased in 67% and 53% of the pregnant women respectively, who attended ANCs during 1st and 2nd trimester of pregnancy. (2) An increase in Hb upon withdrawal of fluoride fol- lowed by nutritional intervention in 73% and 83% respectively has also been recorded. (3) Body mass index (BMI) also enhanced. (4) The percentage of pre-term deliveries was decreased in sample group compared to control. (5) Birth weight of babies enhanced in 80% and 77% in sample group women who attended ANC in 1st and 2nd trimester respectively as opposed to 49% and 47% respectively in the control group. (6) The number of low birth weight babies was reduced to 20% and 23% respectively in sample as opposed to 51% and 53% in control groups. 

Keywords: Anaemia, haemoglobin, low birth weight, pregnancy, urine fluoride.

INDIA and many other nations face a serious problem of anaemia in pregnancy, resulting in low birth weight.

The CONCLUDING REMARKS IN THIS PAPER (on page 1330)

“In conclusion, a novel and effective intervention approach therefore has scope for reducing anaemia in pregnancy and improve birth weight of babies. Fluoride toxicity, as a risk factor was never considered even in the highly endemic regions for fluoride and fluorosis in India and around the globe. This is the first report dealing with fluoride, pregnancy, anaemia, low birth weight babies and the linkages to act upon for the benefit of maternal and reproductive child health programmes.”

This study may be one of the reasons why the Therapeutic Goods Administration has a warning on its Website that pregnant women should not take fluoride supplements as follows:

Fluoride supplements

Fluoride supplements (drops, tablets) should not be taken during pregnancy.

The labelling of fluoride supplement products should include advice consistent with the following:

  • *This product should only be used on the advice of a dentist.
  • *Do not use if pregnant.
This warning may be viewed at:

http://www.tga.gov.au/industry/otc-argom-app5-03-efgh.htm#fluoride

These types of tablets and drops contain fluoride concentrate levels similar to that contained in artificial fluoridated water. In fact, the level of fluoride contained in fluoride tablets is less than the amount contained in drinking water.

Please consider seriously the implications of adding artificial fluoride to the Council’s reticulated water supply when making your decision.

The NSW Health Department has no doubt assured you that fluoride is safe and effective.

I have repeatedly requested the evidence from NSW Health to prove this assertion and it has not been forthcoming.

The only evidence based on peer review science proves it is harmful to consumers and their environment.

Yours faithfully

John T

ATTACHMENTS:

HD water treatment

NHMRC _1991_REVIEW

NSWHealth consent of patient

SodiumFluoride Picture

————-

# 2.

Date: 10/23/2013 10:27:36 AM
To: John T;  Cr. Diane Woods
Cc: Cr. Rose Wanchap;  Cr. Paul Spooner;  Cr. Alan Hunter;  Cr. Duncan Dey;  Cr. Chris Cubis;  Cr. Basil Cameron;  Cr. Simon Richardson
Subject: RE: Study proves water fluoridation causes harm to pregnant women and fetus

Dear Mr Teagle,

I refer to the source document you quote in your email. Page 1321 states;
Upon reviewing the data on fluoride content in drinking water and if fluoride was beyond normal limits (more than 1.1 mg/l, the national guideline for fluoride in drinking water is 1.0 mg/l, as the upper limit, less the better),
the subjects were shifted to an existing safe source of water in their neighbourhood for collecting water for drinking and cooking purposes. In the event that drinking water fluoride was below 1.0 mg/l and therefore safe but urinary fluoride was high (reference range 0.1–1.0 mg/l), the source(s) of fluoride was traced through retrieving information on diet and dietary habits to find the food items consumed and the sources known to contain high fluoride.

Consumption of all items including food enriched with fluoride was withdrawn. Items leading to high fluoride intake are (i) use of black rock salt (CaF2 ) with 157 ppm fluoride (analytical data 2007 – unpublished) in cooking – black rock salt is toxic and harmful to health; (ii) all items including Indian street food (junk food) enriched with black rock salt to enhance the aroma and tangy taste; (iii) black tea without milk, churans , and toothpaste with high fluoride and (4) salted snacks and spices smeared with rock salt.

This key points in this excerpt are – the urinary concentrations can not simply be equated to water concentrations. test patients had very high fluoride intakes from black rock salts, not from water at the safe standard accepted by the research authors.

Page 1322 states:

Various sources of fluoride starting from drinking water (naturally contaminated with fluoride), food, food products and beverages like black tea (without milk) were identified and withdrawn.

The last paragraph states that the research considered a novel approach where;

Fluoride toxicity as a risk factor was never considered even in the highly endemic regions for fluoride and fluorosis in India and around the globe.

That is, this research deals with women suffering from fluoride toxicity as a result of ingesting high doses of fluoride from various sources, NOT safe levels approved by the Indian health authority. The anemia was caused by the reduced capacity to absorb nutrients from the fluoride toxicity. the research says that within 2 weeks of reduced fluoride intake, absorption capacity rises sharply.

The dangers of fluoride in high doses is well known and not in debate. Fluoride occurs naturally in ground water and other ingested sources. It is misleading to relate research that deals with high fluoride intake from these sources, with consumption of fluoride in controlled doses in Australian drinking water.

Kind regards
Cr Sol Ibrahim

————-

# 3.

Dear Councilor Ibrahim
Thank you for your reply to my email in which you maintain I have provided you with misleading information.
With respect, your reasons for maintaining that artificial fluoridate is safe at the level of 1mg per litre is not supported by any scientific evidence.
When responding to my email you have failed to addressed the fact  the Therapeutic Goods Administration is warning pregnant women must not take fluoride supplements as I previously informed the Council viz:

This study may be one of the reasons why the Therapeutic Goods Administration has a warning on its Website that pregnant women should not take fluoride supplements as follows:

Fluoride supplements

Fluoride supplements (drops, tablets) should not be taken during pregnancy.

The labelling of fluoride supplement products should include advice consistent with the following:

  • *This product should only be used on the advice of a dentist.
  • *Do not use if pregnant.
This warning may be viewed at:

http://www.tga.gov.au/industry/otc-argom-app5-03-efgh.htm#fluoride

These types of tablets and drops contain fluoride concentrate levels similar to that contained in artificial fluoridated water. In fact, the level of fluoride contained in fluoride tablets is less than the amount contained in drinking water.

I also referred to the fluoride to be added to the Council’s reticulated water supply as “artificial fluoride”, not naturally occurring fluoride. As you should know, artificial fluorides such as Sodium Fluoride are up to 85 times more toxic than naturally occurring Calcium Fluoride.  

As you must be aware,  the fluoride in the study is naturally occurring Calcium Fluoride while the fluoride the Council will add to the drinking water is artificial fluoride which is far more toxic than the natural fluoride found in nature. Clearly this means that the concentration level must necessarily be much lower than that in the study to ensure there is no harm to pregnant women and their fetus.
The attached picture graphically demonstrates that the artificial fluoride added to drinking, cooking and bathing water in this country is not natural fluoride.
Councils add industrial grade Sodium Fluoride or other fluorides resulting from the production of aluminium and phosphate fertilisers when fluoridating reticulated water supplies.
When making your assertion that the study has no relevance because the amount of fluoride contained in the pregnant women’s urine is greater than 1mg per litre and the Council will be adding 1mg per litre, please justify these comments in view of the TGA warning.
Fluoride tablets and drops contain much smaller or not greater amounts of fluoride than that to be added to the Council’s water supply. This view is consistent with the information provided on the following Government Website about fluoride supplements:

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=6e7a7e17-7538-4763-810c-7e56bd630494

This link clearly states: THIS DRUG HAS NOT BEEN FOUND BY FDA TO BE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, AND THIS LABELING HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY FDA. For further information about unapproved drugs, click here.

The TGA has also provided me with written advise that it has never tested fluoride for safety and efficacy and consequently has not found fluoride to be safe and effective.

As artificial fluoride has never been tested by the proper authorities (FDA or TGA) for safety and efficacy at 1 mg per litre, please provide the authorities you consider has tested artificial fluoride and proven it to be safe and effective at 1mg per litre.

Furthermore your comment that artificial fluoride is safe at the level of 1 mg per litre is not consistent with the Fluoride Code as the legislation allows fluoride at a concentration of 1.5mgs per litre and does not take into account the amount of fluoride being ingested by consumers through other sources.
Section 10.1.3 of the Fluoridation Code states:

10.3.1 Consumers should not receive fluoride concentrations over 1.5 mg/L. Any over or under dosing incidents are quickly identified and effectively managed to minimise any impact on consumers (Appendix C – Form 5 & 6)

10.3.1.1 The water utility shall develop an emergency response plan to minimise (or preferably prevent) fluoride concentrations over 1.5 mg/L reaching consumers in the event of an overdosing incident. The response plan should form part of the water utility’s overall emergency management strategy and plans, and must include liaison with the local Public Health Unit (refer to Fluoride Communication Protocol flow diagram). In approaching emergency response planning it is suggested that emergency risk management principles be followed. These can be summarised as a cyclic process involving hazard analysis, prevention, preparation, response, and recovery. The options to respond effectively to an overdosing incident are often related to how the distribution system is designed and operated, in particular the location and size of service reservoirs that can dilute small events. The ability to quickly remove water from the system can be affected by environmental considerations such as quantity of water involved and chlorine residual levels. In many cases the most important element is the speed with which an incident is identified. A small amount of careful planning in the design of both the plant and routine operational duties can significantly reduce the impact of an overdosing incident. NSW Health requires that the water utility liaise with the local Public Health Unit in developing the emergency response plan, and where appropriate in its execution. The responsibility to respond in an emergency lies primarily with the water utility.

Furthermore, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has serious concerns about overdoing on artificial fluoride.  This view is consistent with the comments in the attached 1991 review that states in part:

A small series of case reports from overseas have, however, appeared in the literature, indicating that in some circumstances skeletal fluorosis can occur in people who have been exposed to fluoride levels in water as low as 0.7 ppm, (Singh, 1961; Misra, 1988).

The Working Party has expressed concern that in some individuals skeletal fluorosis ( a serious disability) has been shown to occur in fluoridated water with levels of 0.7mgs per litre. How do you justify your assertion that artificial fluoride is safe and effective at 1mg per litre in view of these comments?

The review then goes on to state:

Other factors besides fluoridated water supplies, can of course contribute to this syndrome including excessive tea drinking, ingestion of vegetables grown in fluorotic soil, and excessive ingestion of water either as a consequence of high temperatures, heavy manual work and/or pathological levels of thirst.”

8.3 Total fluoride intake and public health

There are no Australian reports which permits the Working Group to precisely estimate, with confidence, the current intake of fluoride which various aged individuals are ingesting, nor the differential amount of fluoride which is being stored in Australian skeletons, in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. Australia is reliant on overseas studies for assumption that these amounts are likely to be small enough to present no risk to long term health.

The evidence arising from the NTP studies which have led the NHMRC Committee on toxicity to classify fluoride as an “equivocal” carcinogen in high dosage in rats makes it imperative that public health recommendations in the future be based on accurate knowledge of the total fluoride intake of Australians. Accordingly, the Working Group believes that proposals to monitor this load should be developed for various indicator populations within Australia and that these studies should take account of the range of deliberative and involuntary intakes which are occurring in both normal and susceptible individuals, in both fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. The proposals should be developed by a multidisciplinary group comprising epidemiologists, toxicologists and statisticians, and the research.”

“It is a matter for concern that the Working Group cannot point to a single ongoing Australian study which monitors adequately the impact and possible adverse  consequences of this policy.”

“Research is required within the Australian environment.”

“There is a need to develop collaborative links between researchers in dental public health and public health researchers in epidemiology, biostatistics, toxicology, health economic and public health policy.”

“7.6 Rationale and strategies for maintaining an acceptable margin of safety

There are two entirely distinct reasons why, in principle, a reduction in exposure to fluoride vehicles might be contemplated. The first reason refers to the possibility that the intake of fluoride from all sources is excessive, either on average or for a minority of high consuming or high-susceptibility individuals. The second reason refers to the notion that, notwithstanding any demonstrated dental public health benefit, the addition of fluoride to the drinking water supply is a form of imposed, involuntary, exposure that infringes civil liberties.

It is interesting to note here the Working Party is aware of consumers rights to informed consent. As water fluoridation is a medical dental treatment it is in contravention of the NSW Health policy directive on Informed Consent. A copy of this policy is attached and I draw your attention to the following:

A: HOW TO OBTAIN CONSENT

1.Why is it necessary to obtain patient consent?

As a general rule, no operation, procedure or treatment may be undertaken without the consent of the patient, if the patient is a competent adult. Adequately informing patients and obtaining consent in regard to an operation, procedure or treatment is both a specific legal requirement and an accepted part of good medical practice. The NSW Health Patient Charter also contains a commitment to patients that public health organisations will clearly explain proposed treatment including significant risks and alternatives in a way patients can understand and obtain patient  consent before treatment, except in an emergency or where the law says patients must have treatment.

Consent to the general nature of a proposed operation, procedure, or treatment must be obtained from a patient. Failure to do this could result in legal action for assault and battery against a practitioner who performs the procedure. The obligation to obtain consent is distinct from the obligation disclose information to a patient and warn a patient of material risks.

2. Why is it necessary to warn a patient about material risks?

As a general rule, all patients have a choice as to whether or not to undergo a proposed Procedure, operation or treatment. Whilst a patient might consent to a procedure once he or she has been informed in broad terms of the nature of the procedure, this consent will not amount to the exercise of choice unless it is made on the basis of relevant information and advice.

Patients must also be provided with sufficient information about the condition, investigation options, treatment options, benefits, possible adverse effects or complications, and the likely result if treatment is not undertaken, in order to be able to make their own decision about undergoing an operation, procedure or treatment.

A medical practitioner has a legal duty to warn a patient of a material risk inherent in the proposed treatment. What amounts to a material risk is explained in section 7. Failure to do this may be a breach of the practitioner’s duty of care to the patient and could give rise to legal action for negligence. Patients have a legal right to refuse treatment. This is discussed in section 6. Consent of the patient Is therefore required to be obtained in nearly all cases.

These comments by the Working Party make it clear that the artificial fluoride added to drinking water is an accumulative poison and the risk is not about the concentration level per litre but the amount of this concentration level being ingested on a daily, monthly, yearly and lifetime basis.

For you to assert that fluoride (AND I AM REFERRING TO THE ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDE NOT THE NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE) is safe and effective at a concentration of 1mg per litre requires scientific proof.

It is clear the NHMRC did not have the evidence supporting your assertion when compiling the 1991 review and if you are aware of ANY AUSTRALIAN STUDIES SUBSEQUENT TO THIS REPORT PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH THE EVIDENCE. I am talking about the type of study undertaken by Professor Susheela and her colleagues which you are trying to discredit. Clearly any creditable study would involve urinary testing of those consumers this artificial fluoride.

Section 8 of theFluoridation Code does not stipulate natural fluoride but artificial fluoride containing heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, mercury, aluminium. This consistent with the law that states:

8.1 Procurement of Fluoridating Agent

8.1.1 Any impurities in the fluoridating agent shall not cause health problems for consumers or result in non-compliance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. Physical characteristics and variations in strength should not significantly increase risk of reliably maintaining the required fluoride concentration in the treated water.

8.1.1 The water utility shall develop and use a suitable chemical specification for purchasing the required fluoridating agent. The latest American Waterworks Association standard specifications for the various fluoridating agents are to be treated as a minimum requirement. Metals are the main impurities of health significance to be found in fluoride chemicals, particularly with hydrofluosilicic acid where the levels of various metals can vary significantly. The presence of moisture in powdered chemicals can lead to unreliable feeder operation. The level of insoluble matter can increase turbidity levels in the final water.
If you still consider that artificial fluoride is safe and effective at a concentration of 1 mg per litre, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DOSAGE INGESTED, please provide me with the peer review scientific evidence to support this.
If you are unable to provide any scientific evidence to support your attempt to discredit the important study undertaken by toxicologists and brought to your Council’s attention, it is clear you will be in breach of your Public Trust and Duty of Care obligations to the residents in the Shire by proceeding with water fluoridation.
Furthermore, please advise what monitoring to ensure that the fluoridating agent shall not cause health problems for consumers will be put in place if artificial fluoride is added to the water supply.
When the Council makes it final decision, please seriously take these matters into consideration.
Otherwise the Council be subjected to a class action by residents in the future.
Yours sincerely
John Teagle

————-

# 4.

from:  John T
to:  sol.ibrahim@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au
cc:  diane.woods@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
rose.wanchap@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
paul.spooner@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
sol.ibrahim@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
alan.hunter@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
duncan.dey@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
chris.cubis@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
basil.cameron@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
simon.richardson@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au
date:  Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Dear Councilor Ibrahim
Further to my recent email, I now draw your attention to a recent study on the harm caused by fluoride to the environment.
The attached scientific review, Racehorses and fluoride  discusses the dangers of quarter racehorses ingesting fluoride at 1mg/L or 1ppm.
This scientific paper concerns the increased breakdowns in racing quarter thoroughbreds in two specific areas since the introduction of artificial fluoride.
Some of the evidence for the harm caused by artificial fluoride is based on monitoring blood samples of racehorses forced to ingest this poison. For example on page 3,  the author concludes:
Fluoride assimilation from drinking water is substantial in horses but depends on water hardness. Throughout India, where the maximum permissible water fluoride concentration is 1.2 ppm, the blood fluoride in thoroughbred horses ranged from 0.096 ppm to 0.3 ppm. Horses, weighing 1,000 pounds, drinking 1 ppm treated water consume 0.26 mg of F per kg body weight daily (120 mg/455 kg). This is nine times higher than the intake able to cause acute gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in humans of 0.028 mg/kg bw. Racehorses consume 25–30 gallons of water daily with more in hot weather. Horse temperatures range from 99–102ºF and water loss through sweat is significant during racing. Most horses were stabled for long periods without access to pasture grazing, which would restrict fluoride assimilation from the GI tract, and may have had higher blood fluoride levels as a result. Almost all retained fluoride, 95%, resides in bone and this magnitude of uptake should not be assumed to simply exert no adverse biochemical effect.

The close agreement in the horse fatality trends for the two racetracks indicate a correlation between artificially fluoridated water and horse breakdowns but does not prove causation. This would require having control horses that consumed only hauled non-fluoridated water for comparison. However, the biphasic trend at both tracks that correlated with the biphasic fluoride levels would be unlikely to be due to causes other than the water supply. The correlations from the age-matched, 2–6-year-old, horses under strict dietary management and in prime health are consistent for both thoroughbreds and quarter horses.

The study on page 4 then goes on to state:

The FDA ruled fluoride does not strengthen bone from studies commissioned in 1989.

 Bone fluoride at 3,000 mg/kg from consumption of 1 ppm fluoride water for decades weakens human bone making it more subject to fracture.6 Fluoride is an EPA regulated water contaminant with a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 2 ppm assessed for natural calcium fluoride (CaF2 LD50 3,000–5,000 mg/kg).There is no maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the more toxic fluoride compounds made by industrial reaction used to treat water that lack Calcium (LD50~ 60 mg/kg).It would be unethical to administer sodium fluoride versus fluorosilicic acid treated waters to horses to clarify which substances may Be involved since these compounds are calcium chelators. Such controlled human studies have also not been done as required for FDA approved drugs. Systemic fluoride abnormally alters bone hydroxyapatite6 by ion exchange. Normal bone is a repository for blood calcium during dietary insufficiency18 but parathyroid hormone is not designed to mobilize fluoride which has a 20 year halflife in bone.6,19,20 Horse blood ionized calcium ranges from 2.6–3.5 mM (10–14Mg/dL)and is crucial for normal heart function. Systemic low level fluoride can cause hormonal mobilization of normal bone regions to prevent hypocalcemia, but this can eventually cause bone mineral depletion affecting performance. Thoracic leg cannon bone fluoride levels in horses consuming soft water infused With 0.35–1.3 ppm fluoride from diluted H2SiF6 over a 19 year period were 587–936 mg/kg. This is 4–6 times higher than that in control horses without fluoridated water. Quarter horses exhibited effects on bone-resorbing and bone-forming cells with osteomegaly and osteopenia. Bone bulged deep into the internal marrow and the bones exhibited extra, low-density growths along their shafts. Noticeable structural abnormalities occurred with fluoride levels as low as 500 mg/kg. Since fluoride during continuous ingestion typically accumulates in bone,6 the more years a horse consumes soluble fluoride the more bone must be synthesized to maintain blood calcium homeostasis. Chemically altered bone will break with smaller forces. Bone breaks in California were accompanied with a pathologic bone structure of unknown cause which was observed on X-rays before the breaks.

This recently published scientific paper is of great concern for residents who have animals and pets. The author has irrefutably demonstrated that the long term ingestion of artificial fluoride causes serious harm to both humans and animals. The conclusions reached by the author are substantiated by scientific studies of those monitoring animals exposed to fluoride concentrates of 1mg/l. Furthermore, the paper states the Federal Drug Administration commissioned a study in 1989 that proved scientifically that fluoride does not strengthen bones and those drinking 1mg/l for decades will have weakened bones that are more likely to fracture.

This FDA study is supported by the evidence provided by the Osteoporosis organisation explains Osteoporosis as follows:

Osteoporosis is a common condition affecting over 1 million Australians in which bones become fragile and brittle leading to a higher risk of fractures, than in normal bone. Osteoporosis occurs when bones lose minerals, such as calcium, more quickly than the body can replace them, leading to a loss of bone thickness (bone density or mass).

The Society attributes bone fractures to a loss of minerals such as calcium. This view is consistent with the scientific paper and is not surprising as Australians have been forced to ingest artificial fluoride for more than 5 decades in this country. The relevant link is at:

http://www.osteoporosis.org.au/about/about-osteoporosis/what-is-it/

In my previous email, I provided you with evidence that fluoride at 1mg/l is dangerous to pregnant women.

I also discussed the fact that the harm caused by artificial fluoride is mainly due to long term consumption, rather than the concentration level (although this is clearly a factor).

While you asserted in your previous response that fluoride is not harmful at 1mg/l, I did request you provide me with the scientific evidence supporting this contention.

You have not provided me with any scientific monitoring that proves artificial fluoride is safe and does not cause harm to the environment.

Furthermore, if you still assert water fluoridation is safe, please provide answers to the following questions:

1. Would you let your wife use infant formula containing fluoridated water for your baby in view of the following link:

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/infant01/

If you consider the fluoridated infant formula safe, then please provide the scientific evidence.

2. Are you aware that fluoridated water is considered extremely harmful for patients on dialysis and they must receive distilled water?

The attached article explains why and the following comments are clear evidence of the harm caused by fluoridated water to those with impaired kidney function:

Similarly fluoride intoxication has also led to significant clinical catastrophes.

This article also demonstrates again that it is not the concentration of artificial fluoride but the amount of fluoride taken into the body.

To assert that 1mg/l of artificial fluoride is safe for all, including those with impaired kidneys, is not supported by the medical evidence.

Otherwise there would be no need to use distilled water for dialysis to prevent fluoride from causing clinical catastrophes.

I have now provided you with 2 examples of the peer review science, proving artificial fluoride is harmful to those consumers (humans and animals) ingesting it.

If you cannot provide me with the scientific evidence you purport to have by stating that artificial fluoride is safe at 1mg/l, please advise why the council should add this unsafe poison to the water supply of the residents it has a Public Trust and Duty of Care obligation to protect.

I look forward to hearing from you once you have had an opportunity to study the report.

Yours sincerely

John T

——-

# 5.

Date: 11/15/2013 5:30:23 AM
To: John T
Subject: RE: RE: Study proves water fluoridation causes harm to pregnant women and fetus

Dear Mr Teagle,

Thank you for providing me with additional information to consider. My comments are as follows;

Regarding the horse study. The report notes that horses fluoride assimilation in drinking water is ‘substantial in horses. this is demonstrated by the observation that absorption from fluoridated water at 1 ppm results in .26 mg/kb of body weight, which is 9 times the level which causes acute gastrointestinal symptoms in humans, a level that obviously is not caused by consumption by 1 ppm (otherwise the vast majority of the Australian population would be suffering acute gastro).

The report goes on to state that this high absorption in horses occurs at last in part because a horse of 1000 pounds (453 kg) consumes 25-30 gallons (95-113 litres) of water per day. If this rate was to be applied to a man weighing 90 kg, he would have to drink between 19 and 22.6 litres of water per day. this would be fatal, no matter how pure the water was.

These simple observations demonstrate why it is critical in this debate to thoroughly read and test the findings and assumptions in research reports.

Regarding the NHRMC 1991 paper, I note that this PDF was sources from the site www.aswla.wordpress.com going to this website, I note that it is dedicated to the anti-fluoride debate, and is largely a repository of information posted by members of the public. i searched the site for the 1991 report, but it is no longer held on the site. I have also searched the NHMRC website, and could not locate this document.

however, I did find the NHMRC Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation 2007. Key findings were;

  • The existing body of evidence strongly suggests that water fluoridation is beneficial at reducing dental caries.
  • The authors of the three existing systematic review concur that water fluoridation at levels aimed at preventing dental caries has little effect on fracture risk – either protective or deleterious. Optimal fluoridation levels of 1 ppm may indeed result in a lower risk of fracture when compared to excessively high levels (well beyond those experienced in Australia).
  • The existing systematic review by McDonagh et al (2000a) concluded that there is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence or mortality (for ‘all cause’ cancer, and specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma).

    Regarding the paper on Hemodialysis. We have received a presentation based on this subject suggesting that because fluoridated water may be a risk factor for people requiring dialysis, this should be extrapolated to the general public. however, the article starts with the statement that;

    1) Hemodialysis (HD) patients are

    exposed to more than 400 L of water per week. Contrast

    this with a person with normal kidney drinking only less

    than 15 L of water per week. 

    2) The stomach acid and

    intestinal barrier protect from the ills of contaminated

    water more effectively than the barrier imposed by the

    dialyzer membrane.

    3) The functioning kidney can further

    protect the normal individual from the contaminants of

    water by eliminating these, this protection being absent for

    the HD patient.

    The importance of distilled water in dialysis is to remove not only fluoride, but ALL other contaminants fro the reasons given above. Residents of Byron Shire cannot use undistilled water for dialysis despite the fact that it is not fluoridated. These simple observations demonstrate why it is critical in this debate to thoroughly read and test the findings and assumptions in research reports.

    I have also studied the research you refer to conducted in India which looked at causes of anaemia in pregnant women with high urine fluoride concentrations. These concentrations were found to be caused by the consumption of a cheap black salt very high in naturally occurring fluoride, and high consumption of tea, also naturally high in fluoride. It was not caused by fluoridated water. After removing all fluoride sources, the iron absorption barrier caused by fluoride was gone within a few weeks. After the administration of mineral supplements, the anaemia was corrected. This research article actually states that fluoride at 1 ppm is safe for human consumption, in accordance with the Indian health authority’s recommendations. The conclusion you and others draw from this research are simply not supported by its authors.

    Concern about the addition of fluoride in drinking water has been heightened by the ‘demonising’ of the compound Fluorosilicic Acid. Yes it does sound nasty, but its chemical notation is H2SiF6. That is two atoms of hydrogen, one atom of Silicon (sand) and six atoms of Fluroine (one of the most abundant elements in the earth’s crust) per molecule. An acid is not in itself nasty. Our stomachs contain highly concentrated hydrochloric acid, essential for life.

    You have asked me for evidence of safety. I submit the results of the work of the National Health and Medical research Council of Australia, the most eminent body of its type in our Country. I am not prepared to adopt the position that this organisation, and the highly qualified scientists that work for it, are participating in what could only be a criminal conspiracy to knowingly poison the population by ignoring credible research findings. I put it to you that the onus is on you to prove to the NHMRC  that it is not safe. In conducting my civil responsibilities, surely i am expected to put the conclusions of our most esteemed medical authorities first, particularly since almost without exception, I have found claims to scientific evidence against fluoride to be very unreliable.

    Kind regards
Cr Sol Ibrahim
—–
# 6.
john t Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:52 PM
To: sol.ibrahim@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au
Cc: diane.woods@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au, rose.wanchap@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au, paul.spooner@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au, sol.ibrahim@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au, alan.hunter@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au, duncan.dey@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au, chris.cubis@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au, basil.cameron@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au, simon.richardson@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au

Dear Councilor Ibrahim

Thank you for your quick response to my recent email.

As you are aware I have raised a number of concerns about the safety of water fluoridation, relying on scientific evidence.

Initially you have attempted to discredit this evidence by maintaining that water fluoridation is safe at 1mg/L, irrespective of the amount consumed.

You now claim that the racehorse study is irrelevant because of the amount of water ingested by quarter horses containing a concentrate of 1mg/L. This clearly contradicts your earlier assertions that artificial fluoride is safe at this level.

You cannot have it both ways. If the concentrate amount of artificial fluoride at 1mg/L is safe as you assert, then your attempts to discredit this study are seriously flawed.

Your reasons for discrediting the pregnant women study are based on the concentration levels these women were exposed to. You argue that the concentration is well above the purported safe level of 1mg/L as the women were exposed to fluoride from other sources as well as naturally fluoridated water.

Now your reasons for discrediting the racehorse study, whose only source of fluoride is from fluoridated water at 1mg/L, is the amount of consumption. The amount of water consumed by these horses is their normal intake and has resulted in serious bone fractures.

I find your comment about the validity of the 1991 NHMRC review intriguing.

You maintain that because this review is displayed on the AWSLA website, a site dedicated to revealing the truth about water fluoridation, it must be a fake.

You further imply this review does not exist because you cannot find it on the NHMRC website.

This type of argument for supporting water fluoridation is bordering on paranoia. Instead of making unfounded allegations, the obvious way to determine the validity of the report is for you to send a copy to the NMHRC, seeking clarification.

Instead of attacking those who are concerned about the harmful consequences of water fluoridation, please provide the peer review evidence I have repeatedly requested to support your contention that artificial fluoride is safe for ingestion at 1mg/L in uncontrolled amounts.

I have reviewed your further attempts to discredit the scientific evidence I have provide. Again it is apparent you do not understand the dangers of ingesting poison without any control of the amount consumed.

Furthermore, you assert that the NHMRC Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation 2007 proves artificial fluoride is safe for ingestion.

As you should be aware the NHMRC constitutes part of the NSW Health department and this department is responsible for the implementation of water fluoridation.

Consequently, on the basis of your absurd statement about the 1991 NHMRC review being nothing more than a fabrication by ASWLA, I am entitled to maintain the NHMRC reviews are published by those in favour of fluoridation and therefore have no credibility.

The authors of the review are paid employees and are hardly in a position to determine whether artificial fluoride is harmful. To do so, would make a mockery of the government policy on water fluoridation and could result in law suits.

These types of semantics fail to address the real issues. The only consideration here is whether there is the possibility of harm to consumers (sic humans and animals).

The 2 studies I have provided raise serious concerns about the safety of artificial fluoride when consumed by humans and animals.

It is apparent from your attempts to discredit the scientific evidence you have no understanding of the dangerous accumulative effects of ingesting artificial fluoridate.

This must be a serious concern for your colleagues and the residents of Byron Bay.

Despite all of your assertions in attempting to discredit the real science the only “evidence” you can provide is reliance on selected sections of the 2007 NHMRC review.

In fact, I have repeatedly requested from you peer review scientific evidence and it now appears the only “evidence” you can provide is based on reviews, NOT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, undertaken by the NMHRC that is part of the NSW Health department that promotes water fluoridation.

The NHMRC does not conduct scientific studies, it only purports that water fluoridation is safe at 1mg/L in support of the NSW Health policy.

While failing to recognise the validity of the 1991 NHMRC review, you refer to selected comments from the 2007 NHMRC review of water fluoridation.

You are clearly unable to refute the concerns raised in the 1991 review and therefore your only response is to claim it did not come from the NHMRC.

You are obviously threatened by the review highlighting the following:

“7.6 Rationale and strategies for maintaining an acceptable margin of safety

There are two entirely distinct reasons why, in principle, a reduction in exposure to fluoride vehicles might be contemplated. The first reason refers to the possibility that the intake of fluoride from all sources is excessive, either on average or for a minority of high consuming or high-susceptibility individuals. The second reason refers to the notion that,

Notwithstanding any demonstrated dental public health benefit, the addition of fluoride to the drinking water supply is a form of imposed, involuntary, exposure that infringes civil Liberties.

” Amongst the Recommendations:

“6. In children, there is a need for effective control over discretionary sources of Supplementary fluoride, to avoid excessive intake in some individuals. Avoidance of  high individual intake of fluoride in childhood can best be achieved by control of discretionary sources of fluoride. This includes: the introduction of controls directed at reducing the ingestion of discretionary fluoride in fluoridated toothpaste; reductions in the fluoride concentration of some infant formula powders; and discouraging the inappropriate use of fluoride tablets and drops.

7. If, in the light of future health surveillance, there were any future need for a community-wide reduction in long-term exposure to fluoride in adults, this would be best achieved by reduction in the concentration of fluoride in drinking water.

8. There is an urgent need to upgrade substantially our monitoring of dental health to include older children and adults, and to monitor the levels of fluoride exposure and the occurrence of dental fluorosis in Australia.

These comments are concerned with the amount of fluoride, being ingested by consumers and flaws your contention that artificial water fluoridation is safe at 1mg/L

As these concerns about overdosing do not support your attempts to discredit scientists who are genuinely testing artificial fluoride for safety when ingested by humans and animals you make the ludicrous assertion that the comments did not come from the NHMRC.

While referring to the 2007 NHMRC review you must be aware there has been an Australian Drinking Water Guidelines review conducted in 2011 that is current.

A copy of the 2011 ADWG is enclosed and your attention is drawn to the disclaimer on page 3 of this 1126 page:

Disclaimer
The contents of this document have been compiled using a range of source material and while due care has been taken in its compilation, the Commonwealth, member Governments of NHMRC and NRMMC and the organisations and individuals involved with the compilation of this document shall not be liable for any consequences which may result from using the contents of this document.
You should therefore make independent inquiries, and obtain appropriate advice, before relying on the information in any important matter

The Australian Concise Oxford dictionary defines “disclaimer” as a noun: an act of disclaiming, renunciation, disavowal. The same dictionary defines renunciation as a noun: renouncing, document expressing it, self-denial, giving up of things. Disavow is defined as a verb: say one does not know or have responsibility for or approve of; disclaim, repudiate.

The NHMRC disclaimer attempts to make the Guidelines null and void, as the authors have renounced the contents. The disclaimer clearly places the responsibility on the Councils who implement the Guidelines. This view is consistent with the disclaimer statement: You should therefore make independent inquiries, and obtain appropriate advice, before relying on the information in any important matter.

The NHMRC disclaimer in the Guidelines irrefutably states water authorities cannot rely on the Guidelines but must undertake their own research to ensure that the artificial fluoride added to water supplies is safe for ingestion by consumers (humans and animals).

Your claim that the NHMRC is a reliable source of scientific evidence is flawed when considering the disclaimer. You should therefore make independent inquiries, and obtain appropriate advice, before relying on the information in any important matter.

As a water authority considering adding artificial fluoride to the residents drinking, bathing and cooking water, please provide me with the independent inquiries undertaken by Council that proves scientifically that the uncontrolled ingestion of this poison at 1mg/L is not harmful.

Your comments about the professional integrity of the NHMRC are contradicted by the scientific reality.

You have cited the 2007 review as evidence of this integrity. You are no doubt aware that this review contains the following disclaimer:

Disclaimer

Disclaimer information for users of the National Health and Medical Research Council website.

Information provided for education and research information only

The information on this website is presented by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council for the purpose of disseminating health information free of charge for the benefit of the public. While the Commonwealth has exercised due care in ensuring the accuracy of the material contained on this website, the information on the site is made available on the basis that the Department is not providing professional advice on a particular matter.

This website is not a substitute for independent professional advice. Nothing contained in this site is intended to be used as medical advice and it is not intended to be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, nor should it be used for therapeutic purposes or as a substitute for your own health professional’s advice.

The Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council does not accept any liability for any injury, loss or damage incurred by use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.

This disclaimer is hardly reassuring when considering the addition of a listed poison to reticulated water supplies. The disclaimer can be viewed at the following link:

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about/disclaimer

If this review purports to claim that artificial fluoride has been tested for safety and efficacy why is it necessary to have this disclaimers?

Furthermore, who has conducted this testing?

The Federal Drug Administration and the Therapeutic Goods Administration have never tested fluoride for safety and efficacy.

This is the document you claim as a reliable source for adding artificial fluoride to resident’s water supplies. It is apparent you have more faith in the contents contained in this document than the NHMRC authors who will not take responsibility for harm caused by adding artificial fluoride to the water supplies of consumers.

I now draw your attention to FOI documents obtained from the NHMRC about the concerns of fluoride in infant formula and those with kidney impairments. These matters of concern where raised by those involved in the compilation of 2007 review you have referred to. These documents are attached for your reference.

The information in these documents clearly proves that the NHMRC is aware of the harm done by adding 1mg/L to drinking water in the case of infants and those with kidney disease.

The documents also contain information advising not to include these warnings in the final 2007 review as they might cause concern for consumers.

Consequently this scientific evidence was watered down for infant formula and omitted for those with kidney impairment when the NHMRC released this review. As follows:

A recent media article suggests that babies from six months to a year should only have 600ml of fluoridated water. NHMRC has three publications that refer to fluoride intake, none of which make this suggestion:


Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2004)

Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand (2006)

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation (2007)
In November 2007 our review into the safety of fluoridation said:
“Recent Australian research does not show an association between use of infant formulae and dental fluorosis. The critical period for development of dental fluorosis is after the first twelve months of life, by which time the majority of Australian children have ceased exclusive formula consumption. Measurements were made of 49 samples of formula available at supermarkets, finding that the fluoride concentrations have fallen considerably to allow reconstitution with fluoridated water.”

Fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the dental caries prevention effects of fluoride.

These comments are astounding as the NHMRC refers to own documents when trying to discredit this report. Furthermore, there is nothing scientific about the purported supermarket study. IT IS NOT THE FORMULAE THAT NEEDED TO BE TESTED IT IS THE CONSUMERS. THIS CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AT BEST AS PSUEDO SCIENCE.

This is how the NHMRC conducts itself when publishing documents about the purported safety of water fluoridation. IT SIMPLY LOOKS AT THE ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDE ADVERSE FINDINGS OF INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS AND TRIES TO DISCREDIT THEM.

You also assert that while proposing to add an industrial grade highly hazardous chemical waste generated from the production of aluminium and phosphate fertilisers, classed as a Schedule 6 (one of the highest levels) poison in the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons (SUSMP), you are not required to prove it is safe.

You maintain that it is my responsibility to prove that it is unsafe. This is an interesting proposition.

The SUSMP lists artificial fluorides as poisons and that is sufficient evidence to demonstrate it is harmful to humans and animals.

As you will be responsible for adding poison to reticulated water supplies, the onus is on you to prove it is safe for uncontrolled ingestion. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

The NHMRC reviews are hardly sufficient evidence as the latest review has disclaimers refusing to take responsibility for its findings and requiring water authorities to undertake their own research.

Furthermore, as advised earlier, the NHMRC is part of the NSW Health Department, engaged in actively promoting this systematic poisoning of Australians without their informed consent.

As water fluoridation is a dental medical treatment, it contravenes the NSW Health department policy directive on informed consent. A copy of this policy is attached and your attention is drawn to the following:

2. Why is it necessary to warn a patient about material risks?

As a general rule, all patients have a choice as to whether or not to undergo a proposed procedure, operation or treatment. Whilst a patient might consent to a procedure once he or she has been informed in broad terms of the nature of the procedure, this consent will not amount to the exercise of choice unless it is made on the basis of relevant information and advice.

Patients must also be provided with sufficient information about the condition, investigation options, treatment options, benefits, possible adverse effects or complications, and the likely result if treatment is not undertaken, in order to be able to make their own decision about undergoing an operation, procedure or treatment. A medical practitioner has a legal duty to warn a patient of a material risk inherent in the proposed treatment. What amounts to a material risk is explained in section 7. Failure to do this may be a breach of the practitioner’s duty of care to the patient and could give rise to legal action for negligence. Patients have a legal right to refuse treatment. This is discussed in section 6. Consent of the patient is therefore required to be obtained in nearly all cases.

This policy conflicts with the NSW Health policy directive on water fluoridation and with regard to the concerns I have raised you have failed to provide me with a shred of scientific evidence that uncontrolled doses of artificial fluoride ingested by consumers is safe.

You have again failed to address the matter of the Therapeutic Goods Administration warning pregnant women not to use fluoride supplements containing less fluoride than a litre of water.

You have also conveniently ignored the fact that Australians are receiving artificial fluoride from a number of sources because it is in tap water. It is also contained in phosphate fertilisers used to spray fruit and vegetables.  It is present in all processed food and drinks.

Because this poison is now being consumed by Australians from a number of sources it is inconceivable to argue the further addition of 1-1.5mgs per litre to tap water will not result in overdosing.

It has become apparent you do not have understanding of the difference between artificial fluoride concentrates and overdosing. The danger with artificial fluoride is that it accumulates in the body and this is conceded by the NHMRC on page 652 of the 2012 ADWG as follows:

Inorganic fluorine compounds are used in aluminium production, as a flux in the steel and glass fibre industries, and in phosphate fertilisers, bricks, tiles and ceramics. Virtually all foodstuffs contain traces of fluoride. In particular, high amounts can be found in dried tea leaves because of natural concentration by the tea plant. Total daily intake from all sources varies considerably, but has been estimated at 0.46 mg to 5.4 mg, with about 10% coming from unfluoridated drinking water.

Fluoride is used to protect teeth against dental caries. It is present in most brands of toothpaste, and it is often added to drinking water supplies.

TYPICAL VALUES IN AUSTRALIAN DRINKING WATER

In unfluoridated supplies, fluoride concentrations are typically less than 0.1 mg/L, but can range from less than 0.05 mg/L up to 1.5 mg/L, with the higher values reported from groundwater sources. In fluoridated supplies, the target fluoride concentration is between 0.7 and 1 mg/L, with the lower concentrations applying where the climate is hot, to allow for a higher average consumption of water.

HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS

Because fluoride is widely dispersed in the environment, all living organisms are exposed to it and all tolerate modest amounts. It has been claimed that fluoride is an essential trace element for humans, but this is difficult to establish conclusively, and no data are available on the minimum amount needed. Fluoride is absorbed quickly following ingestion. It is not metabolised, but diffuses passively into all body compartments. About 40% is excreted in urine within 9 hours, and about 50% over 24 hours. Fluoride has an affinity for mineralising tissues of the body: in young people, bone and teeth; in older people, bone. Thus excretion is somewhat greater in adults because they have proportionately less mineralising tissue than children.

The authors of the ADWG know that the amount of fluoride ingested by consumers is not based on concentration levels. Rather it is based on the quantity of fluoridated water ingested: In fluoridated supplies, the target fluoride concentration is between 0.7 and 1 mg/L, with the lower concentrations applying where the climate is hot, to allow for a higher average consumption of water.

The NHMRC is aware from these comments about the dangers of fluoride accumulation has more to do with consumption rather than the concentration level. This view is consistent with the concerns raised in the 1991 NHMRC review extract about uncontrolled amounts of fluoride being ingested by consumers.

The comments are also consistent with the findings in the racehorse study in that artificial fluoride is taken up by the teeth and bones. This is no doubt the reason for the racehorse breakdowns.

This accumulative effect is no different to the ingestion of arsenic. In small amounts the consumer will not drop dead immediately. However, repeated small doses will result in serious illness and finally a painful death. Both fluorides and arsenic are listed in the SUSMP.

In view of the above, it is not surprising the NHMRC reviews contain disclaimers, seeking to protect the authors from any legal obligations and prosecution.

Please do not refer me to the NHMRC when providing the scientific evidence you claim purports artificial fluoride is safe and effective at 1mg/L.

I require peer review scientific evidence based on actual monitoring of consumers, not a review paper authored by those responsible for promoting water fluoridation.

Your comments that hydrochloric acid secreted in the stomach, is comparable to the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to drinking water are reprehensible. To imply an industrial grade highly hazardous chemical is no more harmful than the acid secreted by humans for digestive purposes is similar to a drowning man clutching at a straw.

If your contention were to be taken seriously, then the toxic waste could be sold as a stomach acid. Perhaps you could bring this matter to the attention of the aluminium and phosphate industries as they are constantly looking for new ways to dump their toxic waste into humans and their environment.

To gain some understanding of the dangers of ingesting fluorosilicic and hydrofluorosilicic acids, I have attached a document: Dementia caused by fluoride written by a world-famous neurotoxicologist: who came to realise the harm caused by this poison when working for the National Research Council.

As dementia is a serious and growing issue in this country since the introduction of water fluoridation, I suggest you and colleagues study this scientific paper seriously before deciding whether to add poison to the water supplies of unsuspecting residents. See:

http://www.health.gov.au/dementia

I again look forward to hearing from you once you have had an opportunity to examine information provided.

Yours sincerely

John T

ATTACHMENTS x 6:

FOI_NHMRC_2007_INFANT_FORMULA_NSW_HEALTH

FOI_NHMRC_2007_REVIEW_FLYER_REVIEW

NHMRC _1991_REVIEW

NHMRC_aust_drinking_water_guidelines

NSWHealth consent of patient

Dementia caused by Fluoride

——

# 7.

Date: 11/18/2013 4:09:59 AM
To: John T
Subject: RE: RE: Study proves water fluoridation causes harm to pregnant women and fetus

Dear Mr Teagle,

As I understand it, the concentration of 1ppm is deemed safe on the basis of how much water a human could safely ingest. Whilst this does vary from person to person, it is not 10 times the average level. If humans consumed a pro-rata amount similar to horses, then the 1ppm would of course be too high.

As for the NHMRC report, yes I do prefer their latest findings, which are unequivocal. I see no problem with relying on the latest research, rather than work that is now a quarter of a century old.

I clearly stated that the fluorine intake of the Indian women came from a naturally occurring black salt and high intake of tea and other foods. I did not say it came from fluoridated water. It is quite clear in the paper.

There is no dispute by health authorities that the safety and efficacy of fluorine is dose dependent. Drinking 15 litres of water per day will kill you before the fluorine has time to cause damage. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I do not believe that just because something is harmful at very high doses, that it must be harmful at lower doses. I do support concentrations in Australia be lowered to .07 ppm. However, I have not seen any comparative data of the health of millions of residents in Sydney and Melbourne versus similar populations in Queensland for example. Surely after 60 years, it would be very obvious by now. If the effects are so minor as not to appear in comparative health data, then it is reasonable for the dental benefits to take precedent, as a public health initiative for those least able to afford dental treatment. I have received data from dental and medical authorities showing marked improvements in dental outcomes. I know that you do not accept the validity of this data, and you clearly have a deep distrust of Government and related authorities. That is your right. However, I do not share in your distrust of these authorities. Sorry John, we will have to agree to disagree.

Kind regards

Cr Sol Ibrahim
—–
#8.
from: John T
to:  sol.ibrahim@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au
cc:  diane.woods@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
rose.wanchap@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
paul.spooner@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
sol.ibrahim@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
alan.hunter@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
duncan.dey@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
chris.cubis@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
basil.cameron@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au,
simon.richardson@cr.byron.nsw.gov.au
date:  Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Dear Councilor Sol

I was surprised with your quick response to may latest concerns about Byron Bay adding artificial fluoride.

Considering the amount of information I provided, you are either a speed reader or have failed to seriously consider the evidence.

I will now address the responses you have made:

As I understand it, the concentration of 1ppm is deemed safe on the basis of how much water a human could safely ingest. Whilst this does vary from person to person, it is not 10 times the average level. If humans consumed a pro-rata amount similar to horses, then the 1ppm would of course be too high.

Firstly, I again require from you the peer review scientific evidence that artificial fluoridate is not “deemed” safe BUT IS SAFE at 1ppm for humans and animals in uncontrolled doses.

The only “evidence” you have provided is based on the flawed 2007 NHMRC report,  a report containing a disclaimer that seeks to absolve the authors and government from any liability or prosecution.

Your latest attempt to discredit the racehorse study is presumably based on the following:

Horses, weighing 1,000 pounds, drinking 1 ppm treated water consume 0.26 mg of F per kg body weight daily (120 mg/455 kg). This is nine times higher than the intake able to cause acute gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in humans of 0.028 mg/kg bw.14

You have distorted these comments to imply that humans would need to drink large quantities of water, equivalent to around 12.5 litres at 1ppm daily to experience the same harm as racehorses, bone fractures and acute gastrointestinal problems.

Again it demonstrates your inability to understand the real issue. It is not so much the concentrated level of artificial fluoride but the accumulative affects that are harmful. This is discussed in the study as follows:

Consumption of 1 ppm artificially fluoridated water in man for one year disrupts iron-assimilating intestinal cells causing anemia and reduced hemoglobin levels that return to normal after the withdrawal of fluoridated water.7 Any possible anemia in racehorses could be dangerous during bouts of exercise with full cardiac output. Heart rates increase 10-fold, from 24 to 240 beats per minute (bpm) during racing.

The author does not state man consumes the same amount of fluoride as racehorses, on a pro-rata basis. But he does state that at 1ppm humans will develop anemia over time and this is consistent with the pregnant women study. Also as stated in the pregnant women study, once fluoridated water and other fluoridated products are withdrawn the health improves.

The author then goes on to scientifically discredit your ludicrous claim that artificial fluorides have been “demonised” and act in the same way as the hydrochloric acid  naturally produced to digest food as follows:

Fluoride is converted to hydrofluoric acid, HF, in the acidic stomach. Most fluoride in the horse stomach pyloric region, where the pH of is 2.6,18 is protonated to HF6, the fully assimilated form.23 Stomach ulcers have been diagnosed by video endoscopy in 80–90% of racehorses.18 Poor racing performance is the chief resulting complaint but veterinarians often certify racing soundness, believing the condition to be mild in most cases.24 Ulcers are absent during natural pasture foraging but are enhanced by stress.21 Sodium fluoride at 1ppm in plain drinking water causes GI discomfort from HF in 7% of humans in the absence of ulcers.25-27 At low concentrations, HF can aggravate ulcerated tissue and in horses could conceivably cause heartburn during racing and possible missteps.

The scientific fact is that water fluoridation at 1ppm can cause ulcers and gastrointestinal discomfort in both humans and racehorses. You then go on to state:

As for the NHMRC report, yes I do prefer their latest findings, which are unequivocal. I see no problem with relying on the latest research, rather than work that is now a quarter of a century old.

This rhetoric is reprehensible. You have again demonstrated your inability to provide me with any scientific research that proves artificial water fluoridation is safe at 1ppm when ingested by humans and animals. You are no doubt referring to the 2007 NHMRC review that precedes the research I have provided, as your only reason for considering artificial fluoride to be safe at 1ppm. Your comment about research conducted a quarter of a century ago presumably refers to the NHMRC 1991 review that raises concerns about the uncontrolled ingestion of artificial fluoride at 1ppm. This is like having your cake and eating. Both these reviews, NOT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, are from the same source, the NHMRC. You have dismissed the earlier review because it does not suit your purposes and exposes the risks of long term ingestion of artificial fluoride in uncontrolled doses. WHY HAVE THE RISKS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM LATER REVIEWS?

The only logical explanation for the comments included in the 1991 review being excluded in the 2007 review is because the recommendations about the dangers of overdoes have never been implemented. It is an absolute disgrace that no testing has been done in the past 22 years to ensure there is no overdosing, or monitoring of the long term accumulative harm caused by these artificial fluorides as strongly recommended by the committee. You then go on:

I clearly stated that the fluorine intake of the Indian women came from a naturally occurring black salt and high intake of tea and other foods. I did not say it came from fluoridated water. It is quite clear in the paper. 

This is another distortion of the study on pregnant women.

While it is true that a large portion of the naturally occurring Calcium Fluoride (Not the industrial grade Sodium Fluoride used in artificial fluoride that is much more toxic) ingested came from other sources, it was also contained in the water ingested by these women. As the study clearly states it was necessary to ensure the women ceased exposure all fluoridated sources, INCLUDING FLUORIDATED WATER containing around 1ppm of natural fluoride.

Consumption of all items including food enriched with fluoride was withdrawn. Items leading to high fluoride intake are (I) use of black rock salt (CaF2) with 157 ppm fluoride (analytical data 2007 – unpublished) in cooking – black rock salt is toxic and harmful to health; (ii) all items including Indian street food (junk food) enriched with black rock salt to enhance the aroma and tangy taste; (iii) black tea without milk, churans, and toothpaste with high fluoride and (4) salted snacks and spices smeared with rock salt. Counselling to avoid drinking water and food containing fluoride is an intervention that the pregnant women in sample group were introduced to for rectifying the damage caused to the GI mucosa23. The mucous is known to regenerate within a short interval of 10–15 days upon withdrawal of fluoride and absorption of nutrients including orally administered iron and folic acid tablets.

It is clear in the paper that the women were required to stop ingesting naturally fluoridated water containing 1mg/L. Artificial water fluoridation is banned in India as the government is aware of its harmful effects.

Furthermore, pregnant women in Australia are ingesting artificial fluoride from sources other than water and this report clearly demonstrates the absurdity of exposing these consumers to even higher levels of fluoride. As stated previously all processed foods and drinks contain fluoride from tap water. Whether this fluoride is natural or artificial depends on whether artificial fluoride is being added to the reticulated water supply. You then go on:

There is no dispute by health authorities that the safety and efficacy of fluorine is dose dependent. Drinking 15 litres of water per day will kill you before the fluorine has time to cause damage. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I do not believe that just because something is harmful at very high doses, that it must be harmful at lower doses. I do support concentrations in Australia be lowered to .07 ppm. However, I have not seen any comparative data of the health of millions of residents in Sydney and Melbourne versus similar populations in Queensland for example. Surely after 60 years, it would be very obvious by now. If the effects are so minor as not to appear in comparative health data, then it is reasonable for the dental benefits to take precedent, as a public health initiative for those least able to afford dental treatment. I have received data from dental and medical authorities showing marked improvements in dental outcomes. I know that you do not accept the validity of this data, and you clearly have a deep distrust of Government and related authorities. That is your right. However, I do not share in your distrust of these authorities. Sorry John, we will have to agree to disagree.

These comments again demonstrate your lack of understanding of the accumulative effects of artificial fluoride. It is no different to the accumulative effects of arsenic. A large dose will kill you outright and a small dose will kill you gradually. Fluoride, you have conceded will kill a people outright in large diluted doses and it therefore, like arsenic,  acts in the same way in small doses, taking longer to kill the unsuspecting consumer.

Furthermore, the health authorities are responsible for the promotion of water fluoridation and are hardly a reliable source when it comes to determining it safety and efficacy. The proper authorities for testing this poison are the FDA in America and the TGA in Australia. They have never conducted any tests. I have written to the NHMRC and NSW Health seeking the evidence supporting their contention that artificial fluoride is safe. They did not respond until threatened with the NSW Ombudsman and then the response came from Minister Humphries who could only provide the usual unfounded mantra that “fluoride is safe and effective”. I then challenged the Minister to provide the scientific evidence to support his claim. He never responded.

You also contradict your opening comments that you consider artificial fluoride to be “deemed” safe at 1mg/L. Now you support lowering the concentration level to 0.7 ppm (mg/L). The Therapeutic Goods Administration has informed me about the dangers of children ingesting artificial fluoride at 0.7mg/L as follows:

 In 2007, the then National Drugs and Poisons Committee (NDPSC) decided to establish a Fluorides Working Party (FWP) to address the issues of concern in relation to contemporary human exposure to fluoride (acute toxicity in children and adults and fluorosis in children and adolescents). The acute oral toxicity of fluoride is generally recognised as 5mg/kg and the acceptable daily intake for fluoride in children 1 to 3 years of age, in relation to the incidence of dental fluorosis, is 0.7mg.

According to the Fluoride Working Party Study young children will develop dental fluorosis at concentrates of 0.7ppm. Dental fluorosis is disease that not only affects the teeth but also the bones skeletal fluorosis. Hence any children between the ages of 1 to 3 will develop this disease by ingesting less than 1 litre of water daily. This does not take into account the other fluoride ingested by these children, contained in processed food and drink.

If you really believe the concentration level should be 0.7pmm, then you have no alternative but to reject water fluoridation at 1pmm. Otherwise you will be in breach of your Public Trust and Duty of Care obligations.

The comments about artificial fluoride being safe as it has been in the water for 60 years is a standard propaganda ploy used by the health authorities. It is nonsense to suggest there have been no harmful effects caused by adding artificial fluoride to water supplies. For example, 50 years ago I in 10000 contracted cancer in this country. The Cancer Council now advises it is 1 in 2 Australians who will contract cancer during their lifetime. Water fluoridation may not be the only cause for the horrific increase in cancers, but it is a contributing factor, see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqK7XvfLg0

This short video proves scientifically that there are a greater number of deaths from cancer in areas that are artificially fluoridated.

Your comments about my distrust of government authorities is not only of no consequence when considering the dangers of artificial fluoride, but also offensive.

As a former Commonwealth Auditor I have always been objective when considering the way authorities and officials conduct themselves.

However, when investigating any matter that affects my health as well as that of my loved ones, I expect those authorities and officials to conduct themselves in a professional manner. After many years experience, I know when I am being mislead, and when officials are unable to provide the evidence supporting their contentious assertions a poison is not harmful, I will do all I can to bring them to account.

From our correspondence, I have to conclude that you are unable to even consider the fact that water fluoridation is harmful. You cannot provide me with any evidence except a reliance on the flawed reviews undertaken by the NHMRC whose brief is to ensure that water fluoridation is safe and effective in accordance with the NSW Government policy. An NHMRC official who publicly contradicted this policy by raising doubts about its safety and efficacy would probably be sacked.

The 3 scientific papers and other information I have provide you and the other Councilors is to draw attention to the dangers of this poison. I trust you and your colleagues understand that it will not only be the residents and their environment. But it will have a personal impact on you and your loved ones. You and your colleagues should give this serious consideration.

The only response has been from you, attempting to discredit the professional scientists who have undertaken the studies. Not once have you expressed any concern about the possible harm resulting from the uncontrolled ingestion of this poison by humans and animals.

Your comments about the poor being disadvantage, failing to have access to water fluoridation is inconceivable. Again, it is one used by the health authorities as an emotive tool. The fact is people like me are able to reduce the amount of fluoride intake by purchasing a water tank and avoiding processed foods and drinks as much as possible. Poor people do not have that choice. They can only afford to drink tap water containing the poison and are more likely to eat cheap processed foods and drinks, containing unknown amounts of this artificial fluoride.

As a former Commonwealth Auditor I can only conclude you are biased when it comes to adding this poison to the water supply.

Furthermore, I would recommend you abstain from the vote as you have not taken seriously into account the issues of concern raised in the studies. You clearly have not done your own independent research, relying blindly on the NHMRC who has a vested interest in maintaining the assertion that fluoride is safe and effective.

It is patently obvious you have absolute put your faith in the 2007 NHMRC review. This is despite the fact the NHMRC advises those implementing the 2011 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines must undertaken their own research before adding artificial fluoride to the reticulated water supply. This document also expresses concerns about overdosing.

Alternatively, you have conceded you would prefer the concentration level to be 0.07pmm. The logical conclusive therefore is that you cannot support a concentration level of 1ppm because of the potential harm it may cause to the residents and their environment and must vote against it. Otherwise you will have breached your Public Trust and Duty of Care obligations.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my emails.

Yours sincerely

John T

4 comments on “Study proves water fluoridation causes harm to pregnant women and fetus

  1. I have added a bit more information on Byron Bay Councillors but have again inserted some previous posted information to keep everything together:-

    Sue Meehan joined Ballina Shire Council representing A Ward in September 2008, and re-elected in 2012. She is again the Deputy Mayor, Chair of Arts Northern Rivers, Chair of Ballina Gallery Advisory Committee, a director of Rous Water and has served as a representative on Richmond/Tweed Regional Library and as a Director of BDCSA.
    Sue’s career has been focussed on Early Education and Special Education. She has been a teacher at Ballina Public School for 18 years.
    http://www.ballina.nsw.gov.au/cp_themes/default/page.asp?p=DOC-WOT-06-11-23

    +
    On her messages she quotes ‘ The environment thanks you for not printing this message …’ what a pity they don’t care about human life, all life and our environment and are quite happy to sit back and be a part of the dumping/disposal of hazardous waste pollutants and co-contaminants known as ‘water fluoridation’.

    +
    Councillor Meehan says:-
    Independent
    I REMAIN dedicated to the promotion and development of Ballina Shire as a great place to live, work and raise a family.
    Personally, I work hard and listen to my community. (Really ???? !!!!)
    As mayor I can have the skills to ensure a functional, well run council ensuring good governance, responsible spending, ethical standards and Aussie family values. http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/sue-meehan/1504394/

    You say’Talk to your councillors – The Councillors are here to represent your views.‘
    Really????? !!!! http://www.ballina.nsw.gov.au/cp_content/resources/Publication%20Guide%202012%2013.pdf
    = A Ballina Shire councillor Paul Worth, failed in a bid for council itself to seek outstanding legal costs from an anti-fluoride activist and ‘make him bankrupt’. The region’s water authority Rous Water, supported by council, recently won a court case in which environmentalist Al Oshlack challenged the proposed installation of dosing plants to add fluoride to Ballina and other local government areas in the region……………

    Cr Sue Meehan, who sits on the board of Rous Water, told councillors last Thursday that it appeared the professional costs of the case could ‘be met through the interest payment on the money that has been given to us from the NSW Health Department for the fluoride dosing plants’. Cr Paul Worth had asked Cr Meehan to confirm council would not be out of pocket for any legal expenses from the case. Cr Worth said ‘let’s get the money out of the guy and send him bankrupt.’

    But councillors instead backed a move by Cr Meehan for council to write to Rous Water seeking reimbursement of the monies originally paid by council from the interest generated on the fluoridation project’s capital grant.

    **** In April 2010, just before Rous councillors voted on fluoridation, Rous Water general manager Kyme Lavelle controversially tabled legal advice warning that councillors would be personally liable for fines until fluoridation was approved.

    **** The vote as a result dramatically swung from against fluoridation, to supporting it.
    http://www.echo.net.au/2013/10/councillor-wants-to-bankrupt-anti-fluoride-activist/
    ~~~~~~

    A Mayor with integrity, honor and care and concern for the population, environment and all life. Byron Shire Mayor Simon Richardson said it was “no surprise” the state had stepped in.
    “It’s disappointing that those who have reservations to fluoride have been labelled some sort of extremist hysterical fringe,” he said.
    “I think they are as informed; they’re just not supported by large companies whose interest it is to dump their fluoride in our water system.”

    http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/legislation-could-force-fluoridation-on-byron/2019082/
    Byron Bay Councillor Sol Ibrahim http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/councillors will not listen to one word against water fluoridation/pollution
    https://aswla.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/study-proves-water-fluoridation-causes-harm-to-pregnant-women-and-fetus/

    Councillor Sol Ibrahim extract:- ‘I completed my studies in early childhood & primary teaching in Sydney’s eastern suburbs where I grew up. I initially lived in Byron Bay in 1982/83, and then left to travel abroad for several years.  I returned to Sydney to work as a Childcare Director and completed a degree in Social Science majoring in Industrial Relations and Statistics.
    I am the CEO of Northern Rivers Childcare Services Inc, which is a non-profit Association providing a range of childcare and community services to around 2,000 throughout the northern rivers.

    =
    Lismore District Family Day Care Association / Tweed Shire Family Day Care CEO Sol Ibrahim http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/another-tragic-blow-for-travis-mccarrons-parents/50322/

    +
    Sol Ibrahim says:
    September 11, 2013 at 6:26 pm
    Visit the St Lawrence University website and you will read that it is ranked as a ‘liberal arts college’, and is described as an “A-plus School for B Students.” – Of the few chemistry faculty staff, Dr Paul Connett is not listed. Rather than quoting the claims of one academic who’s qualifications and area of expertise are not known, I suggest going to the World Health Organisation, or published works from prestigious medical journals and research Universities. http://www.echo.net.au/2013/09/fluoride-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/
    +
    Diane Woods says she would like to consult pro-fluoride ‘experts’ who are ‘more than willing’ to work with her as she feels that Council’s decision to reject fluoridation was biased. http://www.echo.net.au/2013/09/fluoride-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/
    She was part of mainstream medicine who force the dumping/disposal hazardous waste pollutants known as water fluoridation:- Diane had 10 years in finance for South Eastern Area Health Service and was responsible for capital works budget management of approx $600m.  http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/councillors/diane-woods

    =

    It is a further disgrace that these Councillors are promoting/a part of the dumping/disposal of hazardous waste pollutants and co-contaminants known as ‘water fluoridation’ particularly when some of them are involved in early childhood and primary teaching – Childcare CEO’s etc..
    They should be the first in line waving the red flags.
    Now all thinking people should be asking a lot of questions and doing a lot of independent unbiased research.

  2. Further correspondence:

    #####

    From: Wayne & Cathy Justus
    Date: Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:39 PM
    Subject: Racehorse Breakdowns & artificially fluoridated water in Los Angeles 201

    Attached is a new editorial in the journal FLUORIDE The Quarterly Journal of The International Society For Fluoride Research on what artificially fluoridated water consumption is doing to race horses. Very good information and parallels what fluoridated water consumption is doing to humans and other animals.

    Cathy


    Dear Richard and Cathy,

    This from a pro-fluoridation Byron Bay Councillor Sol Ibrahim who bucks like a bucking bronco when anyone says anything against his precious water fluoridation. He appears to be completely brainwashed ?? or other; and will not hear one word against WF.

    This is he:- http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/councillors/sol-ibrahim

    He has also recently commented on Professor Susheela’s work here:-
    https://aswla.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/study-proves-water-fluoridation-causes-harm-to-pregnant-women-and-fetus/

    Please note the Mayor of Byron Bay against WF:-

    Byron Shire Mayor Simon Richardson said it was “no surprise” the state had stepped in. “It’s disappointing that those who have reservations to fluoride have been labelled some sort of extremist hysterical fringe,” he said.

    “I think they are as informed; they’re just not supported by large companies whose interest it is to dump their fluoride in our water system.”

    http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/legislation-could-force-fluoridation-on-byron/2019082/

    Here are my notes on Ballina and Byron Bay two of the numerous areas in New South Wales (currently 96% fluoridated/polluted) who are served and hazardous waste polluted (wf) by Rous Water. http://www.rouswater.nsw.gov.au/cp_themes/default/page.asp?p=DOC-ZRU-17-00-70

    The photo of the woman here on Rous Water page is the Deputy Mayor of Ballina Council. (elected Chair of Rous Water). http://www.rouswater.nsw.gov.au/cp_themes/default/home.asp

    Kind regards to you both,
    Diane

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Cr. Sol Ibrahim
    Date: 18 November 2013 15:03
    Subject: RE: Racehorse Breakdowns & artificially fluoridated water in Los Angeles 2013
    To: Diane DB

    Hello Diane,

    I read this particular research report with interest.

    The report notes that horse fluoride assimilation in drinking water is ‘substantial’. This is demonstrated by the observation that absorption from fluoridated water at 1 ppm results in .26 mg/kb of body weight, which is 9 times the level which causes acute gastrointestinal symptoms in humans, a level that obviously is not caused by human consumption of 1 ppm (otherwise the vast majority of the Australian population would be suffering acute gastro).
    The report goes on to state that this high absorption in horses occurs at least in part because a horse of 1000 pounds (453 kg) consumes 25-30 gallons (95-113 litres) of water per day. It is noted that these horses are racing horses who have an intense training regime, in high temperatures, and who do not graze on grass (they eat dry foods). If this rate was to be applied to a man weighing 90 kg, he or she would have to drink between 19 and 22.6 litres of water per day. This would be fatal, no matter how pure the water was. As I understand it, the safe level of 1ppm is based on the amount of water a human can ingest. Whilst this does vary of course, 19 to 22 litres per day is around 15 times the average 2 litres per day for humans. For this reason, it is not in my opinion appropriate to apply the results of this research on racing horses to humans.
    Kind regards

    Cr Sol Ibrahim

  3. I wish to add a little more to my posting previously:-

    Ballina Deputy Mayor Susan Meehan told council they have been subject to a “powerful and persistent lobby group” against fluoridation.
    http://fluoridealert.org/news/the-daily-telegraph-campaign-for-fluoridation-councillors-in-ballina-decide-to-keep-teeth/
    >
    Comment on above by DDB: Isn’t that shocking, how dare any ordinary people at all have any independent knowledge or free speech and rights and have the audacity to object to being chronically poisoned by the Australian Government with hazardous waste pollutants aka ‘water fluoridation’ – just who do these ordinary people think they are to demand any rights or freedom at all ??

    +
    On her messages she quotes ‘ The environment thanks you for not printing this message …’ what a pity they don’t care about human life, all life and our environment and are quite happy to sit back and be a part of the dumping/disposal of hazardous waste pollutants and co-contaminants known as ‘water fluoridation’.

    +
    Councillor Meehan says:-
    Independent
    I REMAIN dedicated to the promotion and development of Ballina Shire as a great place to live, work and raise a family.
    Personally, I work hard and listen to my community. (Really ???? !!!!)
    As mayor I can have the skills to ensure a functional, well run council ensuring good governance, responsible spending, ethical standards and Aussie family values. http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/sue-meehan/1504394/

    You say’Talk to your councillors – The Councillors are here to represent your views.‘
    Really????? !!!! http://www.ballina.nsw.gov.au/cp_content/resources/Publication%20Guide%202012%2013.pdf

    A Ballina Shire councillor Paul Worth, failed in a bid for council itself to seek outstanding legal costs from an anti-fluoride activist and ‘make him bankrupt’. The region’s water authority Rous Water, supported by council, recently won a court case in which  environmentalist Al Oshlack challenged the proposed installation of dosing plants to add fluoride to Ballina and other local government areas in the region……………

    Cr Sue Meehan, who sits on the board of Rous Water, told councillors last Thursday that it appeared the professional costs of the case could ‘be met through the interest payment on the money that has been given to us from the NSW Health Department for the fluoride dosing plants’. Cr Paul Worth had asked Cr Meehan to confirm council would not be out of pocket for any legal expenses from the case. Cr Worth said ‘let’s get the money out of the guy and send him bankrupt.’
    But councillors instead backed a move by Cr Meehan for council to write to Rous Water seeking reimbursement of the monies originally paid by council from the interest generated on the fluoridation project’s capital grant.

    **** In April 2010, just before Rous councillors voted on fluoridation, Rous Water general manager Kyme Lavelle controversially tabled legal advice warning that councillors would be personally liable for fines until fluoridation was approved.

    **** The vote as a result dramatically swung from against fluoridation, to supporting it.
    http://www.echo.net.au/2013/10/councillor-wants-to-bankrupt-anti-fluoride-activist/
    ~~~~~~

    I repeat !!!!
    A Mayor with integrity, honor and care and concern for the population, environment and all life. Byron Shire Mayor Simon Richardson said it was “no surprise” the state had stepped in.
    “It’s disappointing that those who have reservations to fluoride have been labelled some sort of extremist hysterical fringe,” he said.
    “I think they are as informed; they’re just not supported by large companies whose interest it is to dump their fluoride in our water system.”

    http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/legislation-could-force-fluoridation-on-byron/2019082/
    +

    Say NO to the dumping/disposal of these hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, etc., known as ‘water fluoridation’ polluting our water and also polluting our food chain, us, our animals, our environment and all life.

    The Australian people have to demand much better from all those in these positions of power and control over us all. The old saying ‘give them an inch they’ll take a mile’ rings true.

    Australia wide in dental crisis after widespread fluoridation in every State, first commencing Beaconsfield, Tasmania in 1953 = likewise USA in dental crisis after widespread ‘fluoridation’ first beginning in 1945 Grand Rapids Michigan

    The only answer EVER was to provide access to affordable dental health care services for all the population, not the disposal of hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium etc., (known as water fluoridation); into our drinking water supplies and hence also the contamination of our food chain and using the populations’ kidneys as hazardous waste disposal/filtration units.

    STOP WATER FLUORIDATION/POLLUTION AUSTRALIA WIDE URGENTLY AND IRREVOCABLY FOR ALL TIME

    If it stinks like a rotten egg – it is a rotten egg.

  4. What are the Long-Term effects of ingesting fluoride on our bones?

    Fluoride is a bioaccumulator and is toxic to bones

    How much evidence must accumulate before authorities here acknowledge what many foreign scientists have already done years ago — fluoride is one of the most bone-seeking elements known to man and long-term ingestion is toxic to bones even in the so-called “low” doses.

    Extensive information: http://fluoridation.com/bones.htm

    ~~
    Articles by Dr. John R. Lee, M.D.
    Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case-control study
    Fluoridation and Osteoporosis 1992
    Slow-Release Sodium Fluoride in the Management of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis
    Fluoridation and Hip Fracture
    Proponent and Opponent discussing fluoride supplements.
    Fluoride Exposure and Childhood Osteosarcoma: A case-control study

    Extensive Information: http://fluoridation.com/lee-jr.htm#Fluoridation%20and%20Hip%20FractureNRC

    ~~

    SPORTS INJURIES AUSTRALIA WIDE EPIDEMIC

    SPORTS injuries caused from overuse are becoming more common among children
    and adolescents, Adelaide orthopedic surgeons have warned.
    South Australia fluoridated since 1971.
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sturt-football-club-chief-medical-officer-david-martin-treating-more-injuries-in-children/story-e6frea83-1226658079572

    Fluoride magnifies impact of repetitive stress on joints
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/arthritis04/

    More here:  http://www.fluoridealert.org/?s=joint+and+bone+fluoride

    ~~

    And then this information below is from Robert Gammal’s website,
    he is a practicing dentist.

    1. Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to
    the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs,
    kidney and trachea.

        A.K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, “Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous
    Bone Composition”, IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol 9, No.11,
    pp.1021-1022 (1981);

        Y.D. Sharma, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Collagen Cross-Link Precursors”,
    Toxocological Letters, Vol.10, pp97-100 (1982);

        A.K. Susheela and D. Mukerjee, “Fluoride poisoning and the Effect of
    Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Nonosseous Tissue”, Toxocologiocal European
    Research, Vol 3, No.2, pp. 99-104 (1981);

        Y.D. Sharma,”Variations in the Metabolism and Maturation of Collagen
    after Fluoride Ingestion”, Biochemica et Bioiphysica Acta, Vol 715, pp.137-141
    (1982);

        Marian Drozdz et al.,”Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds
    upon Connective Tissue metabolism inGrowing Rats” and “Effect of Sodium Fluoride
    With and Without Simultaneous Exposure to Hydrogen Fluoride on Collagen Metabolism”,
    Journal of Toxological Medicine, Vol. 4, pp.151-157 (1984).

    http://www.robertgammal.com/Fluoride/SciFactsFl.html

    +

    FLUORIDE:  THE AGING FACTOR’
    Extract:
    Dr. John Yiamouyiannis was, until his death in the fall of 2000, the world’s leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride. His formal education included a B.S. in biochemistry from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D in biochemistry from the University of Rhode Island. After a year of postdoctoral research at Western Reserve University Medical School, Yiamouyiannis went on to become biochemical editor at Chemical Abstracts Service, the world’s largest chemical information center. It was at Chemical Abstracts Service, where Yiamouyiannis became interested in the damaging effects of fluoride.

    Chapter 4 – Breaking Down the Body’s Glue                                                                                                         All animals, including humans, are made up of cells. The cell, the basic unit of life, can be identified under a microscope by its outer membrane and a nucleus within the membrane.

Some cells are able to produce a protein called collagen. In this book, the term “collagen” refers to collagen as well as collagen-like proteins. This process occurs inside the cell. Little globules called vesicles carry the collagen from the inside of the cell to the cell membrane where it is released to the outside of the cell. There, the collagen thickens into fibers.

The five different types of cells capable of producing and releasing collagen in this way are:
    fibroblasts, which produce collagen for the structural support of skin, tendons, ligaments and muscle;
    chondroblasts, which produce collagen for the structual support of cartilage;
    osteoblasts, which produce collagen for the structual foundation and framework upon which calcium and phosphate are deposited, giving rise to bone;
    ameloblasts, which produce collagen for the structural foundation and framework upon which calcium and phosphate are deposited, giving rise to tooth enamel.
    odontoblasts, which produce collagen for the structual foundation and framework upon which calcium and phosphate are deposited, giving rise to the inner part of the tooth. This material is called dentin.

    Like other proteins, collagen is composed of amino acids linked together in a chain. However, collagen contains two additional amino acids, hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine, not found in other proteins. Thus when collagen breaks down, the hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine levels in the blood and urine increase.

Researchers from Harvard University and the National Institutes of Health knew in the 1960s that fluoride disrupted collagen synthesis. It was not until 1979-1981, however, that a new flurry of research activity in this area began.   End Extract http://www.fluoridealert.org/aging-factor.htm
     
    ~~

    Reference:
    THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE    HOW HAZARDOUS WASTE ENDED UP IN OUR DRINKING WATER AND THE BAD SCIENCE AND POWERFUL POLITICS THAT KEEP IT THERE  by Paul Connett, PhD,  James Beck, MD, PhD,  H.S. Micklem, DPhil

    Extracted from Page 124   The Evidence of Harm      
    Heading  ANIMAL STUDIES

    There are many animal studies of fluoride’s impact on the bone and brain, as well as on the endocrine and reproductive systems.  These are discussed in subsequent chapters along with some important human studies.

    FARM AND DOMESTIC ANIMAL STUDIES
    Normally, when we talk about animal studies, we are thinking about animals used in lab studies, like rats, mice and guinea pigs.  However, in the history of fluoride pollution (see chapter 9) the fluoride poisoning of farmyard animals has been of great concern.  Grazing cows have literally been brought to their knees by fluoride emissions from aluminum smelters.

    One of the pioneers in researching the IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE on farmyard animals was DR. LENNART KROOK, A VETERINARY PATHOLOGIST at Cornell University.  Dr. Krook passed away in April, 2010.  One of his last studies involved investigating the mysterious illnesses affecting a number of quarter horses on Cathy and Wayne Justus’ farm in Pagosa Springs, Colorado.  Some of the horses died.  It was only when Cathy and Wayne Justus changed the horses’ water supply that the symptoms of the remaining animals began to clear up.  Dr. Krook was able to show that the likely cause of the horses’ ailments was fluoride.  This event led to the halting of fluoridation in Pagosa Springs.  A very disturbing videotape of these horses can be viewed online.  The Justus and Krook study was published in the journal Fluoride in 2006. 

    The problem for both cows and horses is that they drink very large quantities of water, so should they be exposed to fluoridated water, their fluoride exposure can be very high indeed.

    ANOTHER ANIMAL THAT MIGHT BE VERY SENSITIVE TO FLUORIDE IS THE DOG.
    The dog is one of the few animals that succumbs to osteosarcoma, and larger dogs commonly lose strength in their rear legs.

    Fluoride is known to cause arthritic-like  symptoms and is suspected of causing osteosarcoma in both rats and humans (see chapter l8.  With the possibility that dogs are getting high levels of fluoride in pet food, especially pet food that contains bonemeal, there is a very real chance that fluoride may be the causative agent for these conditions.  These speculations need to be investigated.

    SUMMARY
    The chemistry and biochemistry of fluoride and its kinetics in the body, are such that fluoride can function as a cumulative poison when small amounts are ingested over a long period by drinking fluoridated water.  Fluoride circulates in the blood and accumulates in calcifying tissues, which include the bone, the teeth, and the pineal gland.  It can inhibit the function of a variety of enzymes in vitro (‘in vitro’ literally means ‘in glass’ and is used to indicate an experiment performed outside the whole body).  Also in vitro, in combination with traces of aluminum, fluoride can interfere with G proteins, used by many water-soluble messengers, such as hormones and growth factors, to deliver their messages to the inside of the cells of tissues they help regulate.  Although more difficult to prove, it is reasonable to assume that many of the effects seen in vitro can occur in the whole body.   END EXTRACT

    ~~

    Dr. Robert Gammal BDS
    To Fluoridate or Not
    an ethical and health issue which affects everyone’s health

    A Submission to Councils, Health Departments and People

    October, 2013
    http://www.robertgammal.com/PDFs/To%20Fluoridate%20or%20Not%207.pdf

    ~~

    These hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, etc., known as ‘water fluoridation’ polluting our water and also polluting our food chain, us, our animals, our environment and all life.

    CHEMICALS: http://afamildura.wordpress.com/fluoridation-chemicals/

    INFORMATION: Fluoride Information Australia wordpress http://fluorideinformationaustralia.wordpress.com/
    Co-contaminants in the fluorosilicic acid mix (water fluoridation chemicals) : http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com.au/

    ~~~

    Councils and Water suppliers get praised ‘for saving water’ yet they are allowed free and unfettered reign to continue dumping/disposing corrosive hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, etc., and also added to the hazardous waste soup is aluminium sulphate http://www.rouswater.nsw.gov.au/cp_themes/default/page.asp?p=DOC-LXN-13-64-37

    http://www.rouswater.nsw.gov.au/cp_themes/default/page.asp?p=DOC-RNB-12-33-74

    +
    Ballina Pro-fluoridation (pollution) Councillor tells me:-
    Good afternoon,
    Please remove my email address from your list.

    Councillor Susan Meehan
    Ballina Shire Council
    Chair, Rous County Council
    Chair, Arts Northern Rivers
    +

    Deputy Mayor Susan Meehan told council they have been subject to a “powerful and persistent lobby group” against fluoridation.
    http://fluoridealert.org/news/the-daily-telegraph-campaign-for-fluoridation-councillors-in-ballina-decide-to-keep-teeth/

    On her messages she quotes ‘ The environment thanks you for not printing this message …’ what a pity she/they don’t care about human life, all life and our environment and are quite happy to sit back and be a part of the dumping/disposal of hazardous waste pollutants and co-contaminants known as ‘water fluoridation’.

    +
    A Mayor with integrity, honor and care and concern for the population, environment and all life. Byron Shire Mayor Simon Richardson said it was “no surprise” the state had stepped in.
    “It’s disappointing that those who have reservations to fluoride have been labelled some sort of extremist hysterical fringe,” he said.
    “I think they are as informed; they’re just not supported by large companies whose interest it is to dump their fluoride in our water system.”
    http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/legislation-could-force-fluoridation-on-byron/2019082/

    +

    Say NO to the dumping/disposal of these hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, etc., known as ‘water fluoridation’ polluting our water and also polluting our food chain, us, our animals, our environment and all life.

    The Australian people have to demand much better from all those in these positions of power and control over us all. The old saying ‘give them an inch they’ll take a mile’ rings true.

    Australia wide in dental crisis after widespread fluoridation in every State, first commencing Beaconsfield, Tasmania in 1953 = likewise USA in dental crisis after widespread ‘fluoridation’ first beginning in 1945 Grand Rapids Michigan

    The only answer EVER was to provide access to affordable dental health care services for all the population, not the disposal of hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium etc., (known as water fluoridation); into our drinking water supplies and hence also the contamination of our food chain and using the populations’ kidneys as hazardous waste disposal/filtration units.

    STOP WATER FLUORIDATION/POLLUTION AUSTRALIA WIDE URGENTLY AND IRREVOCABLY FOR ALL TIME

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s