Rob Dew and Kurt Nimmo
July 29, 2010
Writers Note: The following is a lengthy article with links to government documents. In order to fully understand the argument presented, it is suggested the reader save the documents and study them. Keyword searches of the terms presented below will help better understand the dangers of fluoride.
After reading an article entitled Is flouride part of globalist plot?  by freelance author and technical writer Phil Elmore posted on the WorldNetDaily website, I was motivated to correct Mr. Elmore’s misconceptions. In order to do this, I have decided to present evidence concerning the health dangers of fluoride.
In order to make his argument about the safety of fluoride, Mr. Elmore cites a 1943 discovery made by Dr. H. Trendley Dean. According to Dean, 1 ppm (parts per million) of naturally occurring fluoride is an ideal concentration “to prevent cavities without staining the teeth.” In addition, the CDC claims that water fluoridation is one of the greatest health achievements of the 20th century. Apologists also make the claim that water fluoridation is beneficial to the dental health of poor children who may not have regular access to a dentist.
Currently there are two types of fluoride most commonly linked to water fluoridation. Calcium Fluoride  (CaF2) — the most likely culprit of “Texas teeth” cited by Dr. Dean — and Sodium Fluoride  (NaF), a common ingredient found in many pest control products including roach poison .
Sodium Fluoride has two distant cousins — hydrofluosilicic acid H2SiF6  and sodium silicofluoride Na2SiF6 , which are more commonly used for water fluoridation. According to a 1992 census of public water systems , hydrofluosilicic acid (63%) is the most popular compound used with sodium silicofluoride (28%). Sodium fluoride, at 9% , follow these two compounds. In is advised you read the linked MSDS sheets  for each compound.
Calcium fluoride, also known as fluorite, is a mined substance and therefore more expensive than sodium fluoride, hydrofluoric acid and sodium silicofluoride which are industrial byproducts from the production of aluminum and the phosphate fertilizer industry.
The fertilizer industry has released two toxic gasses into the atmosphere for a number of years — Hydrogen Fluoride  (HF) and and Silicon tetrafluoride  (SiF4). The industry was eventually convinced to add water scrubbers to plant smokestacks due to the fact this mixture produces hydrofluorosilicic acid.
In June of 2009, Infowars was invited to tour one of Austin’s Water Treatment Plants with a local citizen group. I saw the compounds the Austin Water Utility adds to the public water supply. I can tell you without a doubt that TOXIC WASTE IS BEING ADDED TO THE WATER in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid.
During our plant visit we were allowed to video a presentation of a Q and A session. However, we were asked to turn off our cameras during the actual tour for Homeland Security reasons. Because of this we do not have photos of the two 20 thousand gallon tanks and corroded piping I observed inside a sealed room marked “hazardous,” nor do I have photos of the soft and powdery concrete where the tanks — marked with “Hazardous” warning — link up to corroded pipes feeding fluoride into the storage tanks. I also was unable to capture images of the MSDS Label Code. This code is ranked 4 under the Health Hazard designation and states: “Very short exposure could cause death or serious residual injury even though prompt medical attention was given”. 
I did, however, receive an admission from the assistant director of the Austin Plant that the city uses fluorosilicic acid manufactured by the company Lucier Chemical Industries , dubbed “The fluoride specialists”. Lucier is a distribution arm of a large conglomerate called Mosaic  which is a partnership between Cargill, Incorporated, and IMC Global Inc. Mosaic’s 2010 annual report  contains only one reference to Fluorosilicic Acid: “Some of our Florida and Louisiana facilities produce fluorosilicic acid, which is a hazardous chemical, for resale to third parties.” The Austin Water Utility pays Lucier approximately 1 million dollars per year to add this wonder cocktail to Austin’s water supply.
In order to better understand the effects of fluorosilicic acid, consider the following description of an accident on a Florida interstate :
A spill incident of the chemical on an interstate in Florida, covering an area 600 feet long and 60 feet wide, resulted in the visit of more than 50 people to hospitals. Individuals complained of skin and respiratory irritation, including burning in the throat, and headaches. A man riding in a truck with his arm out the window experienced burning on his forearm. The effects of long-term exposure to fluorosilicic acid are changes in bone, corrosivity of the mucous membranes (e.g., ulceration of the nose, throat, and bronchial tubes), coughing, shock, pulmonary edema, fluorosis, coma, and even death. In workers engaged for approximately 30 years in the production of phosphate fertilizers, nine out of the 50 observed workers had increased bone densities. When swallowed, severe irritation of the lungs, nose, and throat can occur, as well as severe damage to the throat and stomach. A probable oral lethal dose of 50- 5000 mg/kg, classified as very toxic, has been reported for doses between 1 teaspoon and 1 ounce for a 150-pound (70-kg) person; a probable oral lethal dose of 5-50 mg/kg, classified as extremely toxic, has been reported for doses between 7 drops and 1 teaspoon for the same individual.
Seven drops of fluorosilicic acid is considered extremely toxic and potentially lethal. Remarkably, around 10 gallons per hour are pumped into Austin’s water supply. The level maintained is approximately 1ppm with the highest level being 4 ppm .
Let’s look at a few of the the safety procedures as defined by the state of Texas  for the handling of fluoride-like products.
Page 13 begins with safety procedures and overfeed issues for community fluoridation. Page 17 covers recommendations for fluoride levels in schools, a rate that is more than four times the amount established for communities.
Below is a second source for school fluoride levels from a CDC 1992 survey  of all water treatment plants within the United States.
The following table describes what the EPA has established as the Maximum Containment Level  (MCL).
The MCL levels set by the EPA directly contradict the CDC recommended optimal levels for setting up fluoridation systems in public schools. Even the EPA’s own employees take issue with these MCL levels set at 2 ppm. A 1986 brief  filed on behalf of the Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE ) cites toxicologists, chemists, physical scientists, statisticians, biologists, engineers and attorneys. NFFE acts as the exclusive representative of scientific and technical employees at EPA. The NFFE professionals claim that “serious errors were made by the Agency (EPA) in setting the fluoride Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL).” The NFFE took serious issue with the EPA’s mandates and wrote:
The process by which EPA arrived at the RMCL for fluoride is scientifically irrational and displays an unprofessional review of relevant scientific data. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that an RMCL must be a reflection of the opinion of health professionals as to the level of a contaminant at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons will occur, and which allows an adequate margin of safety. However, the final RMCL for fluoride does not represent a determination made on the basis of scientific and technical expertise.
Four years later Dr. Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Adviser in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, was fired in response to a 1990 whistle-blowing memo calling for a review of the cover-up of the National Toxicology Program study that demonstrates fluoride is a “probable human carcinogen [cancer causing agent] “:
The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal “trigger” mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.
Still think fluoride is safe? Read the back of your tooth paste. I show this to friends who will not believe that water fluoridation is detrimental to human health. Here is a pic of what you will find on all fluoride toothpaste. Sodium monofluorophosphate  is pharmaceutical grade and does not have the serious health risks of fluorosilicic acid and yet if you swallow more than a pea sized amount you are told to contact a Poison Control Center.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
In order to make the case fluoride is safe, proponents cite 1940s pseudo-science, CDC statistics, and the claim that fluoride is beneficial to the dental health of poor children. The state of Texas has made the same questionable claim . “For thousands of Texans, geography serves as a barrier to oral health care. The problem is presumably worse among poor, uninsured or elderly uninsured residents of medically undeserved areas”. Since Texas fluoridates 76% of the state’s water supply, one can conclude that water fluoridation has done little to improve the dental hygiene of poor Texans and indeed the rest of the country. Regardless, both agencies strongly support expanded fluoridation despite the overwhelming evidence stacked against the practice.
Harvard university inserted itself in the fluoride controversy when one the university’s own “School of Dental Medicine epidemiologists was investigated by federal authorities  for burying evidence of fluoride’s link to bone cancer.”
Chester Douglass, editor in chief of the industry-funded Colgate Oral Care Report, claimed he did not find a link between osteosarcoma and fluoride. A closed door panel determined at Harvard stated the professor did not intentionally suppress the findings. His research shows a clear carcinogenic link especially in young boys. Harvard would have us believe that when industry insiders withhold evidence in studies it is not intentional suppression. Harvard has continued to keep the findings and minutes of their investigation a secret .
Many members of the scientific community no longer ignore the facts and because of this the tide is turning against water fluoridation, a fact demonstrated by a 2007 report  submitted by hundreds of scientific professionals. “Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.” Eight years since the original brief workers at the EPA remain vocally opposed to water fluoridation. Petitioners have demanded the practice be stopped until Congress initiates an investigation.
An Australian news program todaytonight Adelaide did their own investigation  into the fluoridation process.
Time magazine  ranks fluoride as 4th in a list of TOP 10 COMMON HOUSEHOLD TOXINS.
The only winners in this paradigm are the aluminum and fertilizer industries working hand in hand with public water works to send a proven toxic waste into the homes of millions across the country. Americans are paying to be force-medicated and to act as bio-filters so multinational conglomerates can dispose of Superfund quality sludge in our bodies. Massive public relations campaigns keep the public in the dark and stifle proper disclosure of the evidence. Unfortunately, many Americans have grown accustomed to this type of cozy relationship between multinational corporations, government regulatory agencies and the elite scientific community.
Fluoride has no business being in our drinking water. Call and write your representatives  and demand they outlaw fluoride poisoning.