Is Fluoride in Our City Water Necessary or Safe?

24 05 2014

How much is too much prevention of our most precious consumable resource?

Updated:  24 May 2014

In order to determine whether adding chemical fluoride to our public drinking water is safe, necessary or even beneficial for dental health it is wise to first understand its origins and industrial use history.  Yes, I did say chemical, as it is not well known to most that the fluoride added to 90% of many public’s drinking water sources is hydrofluoric acid and once used to manufacture uranium and plutonium bomb-grade nuclear weapons.  Today it is used within multiple manufacturing firms and known to be one of the most caustic industrial chemicals on planet earth.

     Fluoride is also the active toxin in rat and cockroach poisons.  What other industries are dependent on fluoride in manufacturing you ask?  Semiconductors, refining high octane gas, fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants to cool our foods and to keep us cool; fluorescent light bulbs, herbicides, plastics and of course, it’s added to many toothpaste brands.

     It was the same A-bomb scientist of the day that produced the evidence against fluoride injuries to civilians through litigation; which also happens to be the same person that showed low doses of this chemical consumed by humans to be safe.  This fact in itself should cause one to further think the benefits of water fluorination.

        Fifty years ago the government introduced fluoride into our public water facilities claiming it would reduce cavities in our children’s teeth.  Of course in the same breath, one must understand with the dawn of the nuclear age, then came the age of nuclear downsizing and excess chemical reserves.  Chemical companies were hungry to continue generating revenues by finding other uses for fluoride.  Tthe excess chemical surplus no longer useful for nuclear enrichment found its way into our drinking water; much like Monsanto’s Aspartame, first an experimental chemical was redeveloped for something other than its intended use.

      Also click on links below to see how this artificial sweetener is greatly responsible for childhood obesity and cancer and why the FDA protects and promotes these chemical products within our consumer marketplaces.

     Dental organizations, special interests groups, governmental and other advocates sell communities on the ideal, that when fluoride is adjusted and controlled in our drinking water it is safe and good for us.  I’ve found much positive data on fluorinated water and children’s dental health care to support this argument.  However, I’ve also found just as much data showing when fluoride is added to public drinking water it is not healthy for the entire population.  And even when looking at the child’s dental benefits, controlling levels of daily fluoride intake is very challenging, if not impossible.

     There is also much research data of fluorinated water that shows no chemical difference between natural occurring fluorides found in nature’s consumables vs. public drinking water with added fluoride.  Since our bodies need this trace mineral in minuet amounts, maybe our governments feels an obligation to ensure we receive this very beneficial trace mineral requirement in greater amounts, and at tax payer’s expense.

     However, if that concern was the only reason, then why wouldn’t they also add, adjust and control other minerals our bodies need to ensure good teeth and bone health?  Keeping it short, why not add calcium, magnesium, phosphorus minerals also necessary for good dental and bone health… And why not vitamins A, B’s and C why we’re at it.  Or could the motivation to provide one trace mineral over another depend on which political or stakeholder fence you stand?

     So what makes fluoride such a critical nutrient and why are the other essential nutrients needed for good teeth, bone and “overall” general health disregarded?  You’ll soon understand the method to the madness here.

     Some selling points used to sway voters this type of policy is good for public health:  That by putting fluoride into the public water supply, it will promote “among other things,” less sick days, greater productivity and less dental care in the long run.  Of course when you cherry pick health benefits, or bias scientific data in support of a dental-health benefit(s) you can choose to promote the good ones over the health risks.  However, stay mindful “any” manmade or manipulated change to our daily diets has the potential to benefit some at the expense of intolerant immune, skeletal and metabolic systems and function.

     So one has to ask, why fluorinate public water at all if you can simply absorb it through the foods, supplements, drinks and proper dental hygiene as opposed to subjugating a populace to a questionable and unnecessary chemical additive?  What would motivate our government and dental industry to promote a seemingly unnecessary chemical proven to cause health risks for adults?  And if nature provides the trace mineral fluoride in organic and processed foods, and in the bottled drinks why the continued push to add it to our public water supply?  And thinking further on topic, how could any agency accurately determine the necessary and proper amount of hydrofluoric acid to be added to a water source and make it safe for everyone?

     If dental prevention is paramount why won’t parents take the responsibility to ensure their children are brushing their teeth with proper dental products if that’s what they need?  And don’t we as parents, health organizations and our schools have some responsibility to educate on good dental hygiene and promote good eating habits throughout the day.  Or is it our government’s responsibility to use our tax dollars for our preventative dental care?  Here’s a better ideal, why not subsidize low income families with a preventative dental care plan that includes fluoride if necessary?  Wouldn’t that be less costly to the tax payer and better for those intolerant of this added chemicals in our diet?

     Although proponents of fluorinated public drinking water say they are simply adding and adjusting the fluoride levels in our drinking water “safely” as prevention against childhood cavities, others have questionable arguments and concerns; what are safe levels for a medically diverse and aging population?

    Again, if it’s not a water quality issue, then what’s the overriding reason to add this chemical to our public drinking water?  Proponents further argue, since fluoride is a mineral and found within our soils and plants and is naturally occurring within our tooth enamel and bone and helps the body to resist disease.  Than it is reasonable to assume fluorinated water would be healthy for everyone.  After all there are many studies that say this is so.  So that makes it healthy and safe for everyone’s use right?

     As you further study this topic it is easy to make a positive, or negative health argument  for proponents or opponents regarding public water fluorination.  However, the sum of the whole arguments fall apart rather rapidly once you begin to dissect the entire cause and effect case studies connected to fluorinated water [the “other 50% of the story”].  I’ve published many articles where I state, “Man has yet to create a product that is better for us than God’s natural occurring elements.”  The natural occurring trace mineral fluoride “without manipulation” from mother earth is no exception.

     In the early stages of childhood development, fluoride additives may hold greater dental benefits vs. health risk, but not so for aging adults and those with intolerant immune systems.  And especially for those susceptible to ill-health risk triggered by added fluoride to the diet.

    Even though municipal water experts tell us they can control the levels of fluoride injection into our drinking water at safe levels, you are beginning to understand this is not the whole picture of concern.  This is because they cannot control the cause and effect this chemical may have on adult sensitive bodies to manmade “chemical” fluoride!

     The health problems caused by absorbing too much fluoride tend to be more problematic as the body ages, and/or in combination with immune or other ill-health problems.  Our children are also not immune to over fluorination health problems.  They are simply least likely to experience health problems because of their younger metabolisms and stronger immune systems.

     Why do I continue to use the word chemical instead of fluoride?  Because when looking at how fluoride got into our drinking water, we need to look back 70 years to see a pattern of consumer deceit.  Most don’t understand in today’s chemical markets that fluoride like many other chemicals where designed for military warfare.  And then when those chemicals didn’t meet military expectations or went through their lifecycles, R&D (Research and Development) found another industrial use within our consumer markets.  Fluoride is no exception.  And now powerful lobbyists and market makers support these interests regardless of effects on health.

     Even though numerous professionals within hundreds of organizations speak out against public water fluorination:  e.g., biochemists, oral medicine, gemology, physiology, orthopedic, podiatrist, toxicologists, EPA, nutritionists, medical associates, Nobel laureates, oncologists, epidemiologists, etc., it has been stated “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.”  And that more people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States [EPA scientist Dr. Robert Carton (Downey, 2 May 99) and Dean Burk, PhD National Cancer Institute, “Fluoridation a Burning Controversy].

     Most don’t understand not only should we be concerned about the water we drink and toothpaste we use, but also environmental pollutants derived from major industries where fluoride is a critical chemical ingredient in the production of aluminum to pesticides.  Within the last 15-20 years a dental revolution against public water fluorination occurred through the discovery of dental fluorosis.   Dental fluorosis is a sign of excessive exposure to too much fluoride.

     Although the proponents for public water fluorinations key talking point is tooth decay prevention, there is just as much evidence to support the undeniable health risks to children (Brunelle 1987; Heller 1997; Khan 2005).  One of the greatest concerns is the risk of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) and impacts on the thyroid function and lowered IQ’s (NRC 2006).  And the American Dental Association (ADA 2006) recommends if you can’t avoid fluorinated public water consider using fluoride-free bottled water for infant formulas!

     Signs of dental fluorosis include whitish flecks, spots mainly on the front teeth, or dark spots and stripes (most severe case).  If you display these signs then it would be wise to remove this chemical from your diet.  Your teeth are a sure sign that your protein enzymes have become mutated to a point that causes one to age at an accelerated rate.  If enough enzyme proteins change, or become foreign to the body the body begins to die exponentially!  And many other ill-health effects can become problematic within the body, such as:  immune, respiratory, digestive systems; thyroid, brain, liver and kidney functions and blood circulation.  Other autoimmune problems that occur due to over exposure of fluorides on health:  arteriosclerosis, asthma, lupus and arthritis.

     The National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research recommends that if children between the ages of 6 months to 16 years of age should need fluoride dental prevention and it is not supplied within a public drinking water source, parents should seek dental services that include a fluoride supplement if a child is in need.

     Dr. Alesen (Former president of the California Medical Association) cites “without a shadow of doubt” dozens of International studies show us how Fluoride disrupts the bone building process by creating a “calcium out of solution” situation has caused thousands of relational cases of  skeletal thinning fractures, “rubber bones,” osteoporosis, anemia, rickets, calcium stones and crystal buildup in organs and joints.

     Although I wanted to find a positive reason to be a proponent of fluorination of public drinking water, I could find no good reason to support a public program that I was not 95% confident it was beneficial to all.  If you do some research over the Internet you’ll likely come up to the same conclusions unless your special interest and livelihood revolves around this chemical industry.  In this case, you’re already sold on the fact it’s a good investment for your communities health and personal wealth.

     So who should consumers believe?  I’ll leave you with references cited below.  Don’t take my word on it, I highly recommend you go through the process of discovery and pay close attention to the historical development of this chemical and government and corporate money trail.

     Even though the proponents claim the return on investment is dental prevention and good bone health, including less time lost from school and work as a result of fluorinated water’s preventative properties while reducing dental bills and tooth decay by 20-40%; I don’t see the balance to be a positive return on investment.  As far as I can determine, the positive aspects are dwarfed by the negative ill-health cost effect(s) that would predominately occur within the adult population.   One could make a good argument there would be a negative return on investment greater than 50%.

     Also consider when you hear a pro-rally cry for public water fluorination…  Be sure to recall that almost every form of processed foods and drinks consumed has been most assuredly manufactured with fluorinated water.  There is no way to know exactly how much fluoride each one of us is receiving daily and more so if it’s added to our public water supply [hence, “the summation of the whole chemical effect on health”].

    Be sure to also remind them to take a look at their tooth paste labels.  Some sample label ingredients read:  “Active ingredient Sodium Fluoride – Warning – Keep out of reach of children.  If accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center immediately.”  And the reason this label warning is on the toothpaste is because if a 20lb child happened to swallow a tube of this toothpaste it could kill that child!  So it is no wonder why an overwhelming portion of the populace is concerned about a chemical so poisonous that the FDA requires a product warning label to consumers.

     In summarizing, I stand by what I said in many past publishing’s, if we’re talking about a man made chemical introduced into our daily diet be very skeptical about its motivations and benefits to your overall health.

     Parents should work with their dental specialists in supplementing their children the necessary fluoride if needed for dental and bone health.  And our government should only ensure they provide quality drinking water to the public without chemical fluorination because the benefit for the “sum of the whole” does not benefit the majority of a populaces health.  Also there is no way to guarantee fluorinating municipal water supplies wouldn’t create other unforeseen, or unintentional consequences that would further complicate our national health care costs, policies, resources and national debt!

 References,

 Acu-Cell Nutrition.  Fluoride, Fluorine and Chloride, Chlorine. http://www.acu-cell.com/fcl.html

 Delta Dental.  Vitamins and Minerals Play Important Roles in Bone Health.  http://oralhealth.deltadental.com/22,HD8

 Environmental Working Group.  Fluoride and Dental Health.  http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/healtheffects

 Glaros, William P., D.D.S., INC.  Better Health through Fine Dentistry.  Is Fluoride Really Good for Your Teeth?  1 September 2011.  http://www.biologicaldentist.com/623/is-fluoride-really-good-for-your-teeth/

 Healthvermont.gov. Department of Health, Agency of Human Services.  Fluoride. http://healthvermont.gov/family/dental/fluoride/index.aspx

 Murray, Rich.  How Aspartame Became Legal – The Timeline.  24 December 2002.  http://rense.com/general33/legal.htm]

 NIDCR.gov.  National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.  http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/

 Prevent Disease.Com.  How dangerous is Fluoride to your Health?http://preventdisease.com/home/tips79.shtml

 Woodard, Marc.  Can You Prevent Cancer?  Mirror Athlete Fitness Secrets.  1 May 2008.  http://mirrorathlete.com/blog/2008/05/01/mirror-athlete-enterprises-health-blog-can-you-prevent-cancer/

 Woodard, Marc.  Aspartame the silent Killer.  Mirrorathlete Fitness Secrets.  25 March 2008.  http://mirrorathlete.com/blog/2008/03/25/mirror-athlete-enterprises-health-blog-aspartame-the-silent-killer/

 Woodard, Marc.  Toxins in Every House Hold Consumer Product, What!  Mirror Athlete Fitness Secrets.  5 December 2007.  http://mirrorathlete.com/blog/2007/12/05/mirror-athlete-enterprises-healthblog-is-cancer-in-your-tub/

 Woodard, Marc.  Popular Sugar Substitute Healthy.  20 August 2010. http://mirrorathlete.com/blog/2010/08/20/popular-sugar-substitute-healthy/

Author: Marc T. Woodard, MBA, BS Exercise Science, ARNG, CPT, RET. 2014 Copyright. All rights reserved, Mirror Athlete Inc., http://www.mirrorathlete.com, Sign up for your Free eNewsletter.





Is Fluoride in Our City Water Necessary or Safe?

21 10 2012

How we change nature’s good resources into unintended health consequences

In order to determine whether adding fluoride to our public drinking water is safe, necessary or even beneficial for dental health it is wise to first understand its origins and industrial use history.  Especially since man had manipulated this naturally occurring trace element found within mother earth to produce a necessary caustic manufacturing product.  Yes, I did say chemical, as it is not well known to most that the fluoride added to 90% of many public’s drinking water sources is hydrofluoric acid that was once used to manufacture uranium and plutonium bomb-grade nuclear weapons.  Today it is also used within multiple manufacturing firms and known to be one of the most caustic industrial chemicals on planet earth.

     Fluoride is also the active toxin in rat and cockroach poisons.  What other industries are dependent on fluoride in manufacturing you ask?  Semiconductors, refining high octane gas, fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants to cool our foods and to keep us cool; fluorescent light bulbs, herbicides, plastics and of course added to many toothpaste brands.

     It was the same A-bomb scientist of the day that produced the evidence against fluoride injuries to civilians through litigation; which also happens to be the same person that showed low doses of this chemical consumed by humans to be safe.  This fact in itself should cause one to further think the benefits of water fluorination.

        Fifty years ago the government introduced fluoride to our public water systems claiming it would reduce cavities in our children’s teeth.  Of course in the same breath, one must understand with the dawn of the nuclear age came the age of nuclear downsizing and excess chemical reserves.  Chemical companies were hungry to continue generating revenues by finding other uses for fluoride as the nuclear age went bust.  Dumping the excess chemical surplus no longer useful for nuclear enrichment found its way into our drinking water; much like aspartame first an experimental chemical was redeveloped for something other than its intended use.

 [Read about Monsanto’s Aspartame troublesome history, and “How Aspartame Became Legal, the – Time Line,” http://rense.com/general33/legal.htm].

     Also click on links below to see how this artificial sweetener is greatly responsible for childhood obesity and cancer and why the FDA protects and promotes these chemical products within our consumer markets. 

     Dental organizations, special interests groups, governmental and other advocates sell to communities that when fluoride is adjusted and controlled in our drinking water it is safe and good for us.  I’ve found much positive data on fluorinated water and children’s dental health care to support this application.  However, I’ve also found just as much data showing when fluoride is added to public drinking water it is not healthy for the entire adult population.  And even when looking at the child’s dental benefits, controlling levels of daily fluoride intake is challenging.  This is because we all consume processed foods and drink products that already contain fluoride in them.

     There is also much research data of fluorinated water that shows no chemical difference between natural occurring fluorides found in nature’s consumables vs. public drinking water with added fluoride.  Since our bodies need this trace mineral in minuet amounts, maybe our governments feels it is their responsibility to control safe levels for our dental and overall health sake, based on the benefits of specific research.

     However, if that concern was the only reason, then why wouldn’t they also adjust and control the other minerals our bodies need to ensure good teeth and bone health?  Keeping it short, why not add calcium, magnesium, phosphorus minerals also necessary for good dental and bone health… And why we’re at it vitamins A, B’s and C, etc.  Or could the motivation to provide one mineral over another depend on which political and/or economic fence you stand?

     So what makes fluoride such a critical nutrient and why are the other essential nutrients to good teeth, bone and “overall” general health disregarded?  Patience, you’ll soon be able to understand the method to the madness here.

     Another governmental selling point in getting fluoride into the public water supply is it has a great return on our general health which promotes less sick days and greater productivity, less need for medical services, etc.  Of course when you cherry pick scientific data in support of a health benefit(s), we must learn to understand “any” manmade or manipulated change to our daily diets has the potential to benefit some at the expense of others intolerant of additional [in this case fluoride] chemicals in the diet.

     So one has to ask, why fluorinate public water at all if you can simply absorb it through the foods, supplements, drinks and dental hygiene as opposed to subjugating a populace to a questionable and unnecessary chemical additive?  What would motivate our government to promote a seemingly unnecessary chemical proven to cause health risks for adults?  And if nature provides the trace mineral fluoride in its natural form within organic and processed foods and in the bottled drinks we consume, why the continued push to add it to our public water supply?  And in further thought, how could any agency accurately determine the necessary and proper amount of hydrofluoric acid to be added to a water source that would be healthy for everyone?

     If dental prevention is paramount why won’t parents take the responsibility to ensure their children are brushing their teeth with proper dental products if that’s what they want as an enamel tooth care preventative program?  And don’t we as parents, health organizations and our schools have some responsibility to educate on good dental hygiene and promote good eating habits throughout the day.  Or is it our government’s responsibility to use our tax dollars on a preventative dental issue that is not a water quality problem? 

     Although proponents of fluorinated public drinking water say they are simply adjusting the fluoride in our drinking water as prevention against childhood cavities they have questionable arguments on what are safe levels for a medically diverse and aging population.

    Again, if it’s not a water quality issue, then what’s the overriding reason to add this chemical to our public drinking water?  Proponents further argue, since fluoride is a mineral and found within our soils and plants and is naturally occurring within our tooth enamel and bone and helps the body to resist disease, than it is reasonable to assume fluorinated water would be healthier for everyone.  After all there are many studies that say this is so.  So that makes it healthy and safe for everyone’s use right?

     As you further study this topic it would be easy to make a positive health benefit for any community as a whole because most only get half the picture.  However, the sum of the whole argument falls apart rather rapidly once you begin to dissect the entire cause and effect health case studies connected to fluorinated water [the other 50% of the story].  I’ve published many articles where I state, “Man has yet to create a product that is better for us than God’s natural occurring elements.”  The natural occurring trace mineral fluoride “without manipulation” from mother earth is no exception.

     In the early stages of childhood manmade fluoride additives may hold greater dental benefits and lower health risk to a point; but it is not convincing when held up to an adult litmus test.  In fact I found the opposite to be true.  Especially for those susceptible to ill-health risk triggered by added fluoride to the diet outside of the natural occurring trace minerals found within organic food and water.  Even though municipal water experts tell us they can control the levels of fluoride injection into our drinking water at safe levels, you are beginning to understand this is not the whole picture of concern.  This is because they cannot control the cause and effect metabolically this chemical may have for adults sensitive to a manipulated “chemical” fluoride!  And this line of reasoning becomes even more apparent and important once it is understood there is fluoride in many of the processed foods and drinks we consume daily.

     The health problems caused by absorbing too much fluoride tend to be more problematic as the body ages, and/or in combination with immune or other ill-health problems.  Our children are also not immune to over fluorination health problems.  They are simply least likely to acquire health problems because of their young metabolisms.  But this façade can change rapidly as young bodies change into adult bodies.

     And why do I continue to use the word chemical?  Because when looking at how fluoride got into our drinking water, we need to look back 70 years to see a pattern of consumer deceit.  Most don’t understand in today’s chemical markets that fluoride like many other chemicals where designed and evolved for military warfare.  And then when those chemicals didn’t meet military expectations or went through their lifecycles, R&D (Research and Development) found another industrial use within our consumer product markets.  Fluoride is no exception.  And now powerful lobbyists and market makers in support of lucrative positions support these interests regardless of impact on our public health.

     Even though numerous professionals within hundreds of organizations speak out against public water fluorination:  e.g., biochemists, oral medicine, gemology, physiology, orthopedic, podiatrist, toxicologists, EPA, nutritionists, medical associates, Nobel laureates, oncologists, epidemiologists, etc., it will be written “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.”  And that more people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States [EPA scientist Dr. Robert Carton (Downey, 2 May 99) and Dean Burk, PhD National Cancer Institute, “Fluoridation a Burning Controversy]. 

     Most don’t understand not only should we be concerned about the water we drink and toothpaste we use, but also environmental pollutants derived from major industries where fluoride is a critical chemical ingredient in the production of aluminum to pesticides.  Within the last 15-20 years a dental revolution against public water fluorination occurred through the discovery of cause of dental fluorosis.   Dental fluorosis is a sign of excessive exposure to too much fluoride.

     Although the proponents for public water fluorinations key talking point is tooth decay prevention, there is just as much evidence to support the undeniable health risks to children (Brunelle 1987; Heller 1997; Khan 2005).  One of the greatest concerns is the risk of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) and impacts on the thyroid function and lowered IQ’s (NRC 2006).  And the American Dental Association (ADA 2006) recommends if you can’t avoid fluorinated public water consider using fluoride-free bottled water for infant formulas!

     Signs of dental fluorosis include whitish flecks, spots mainly on the front teeth, or dark spots and stripes (most severe case).  If you display these signs then it would be wise to remove this chemical from your diet.  Your teeth are a sure sign that your protein enzymes have become mutated to a point that causes one to age at an accelerated rate.  If enough enzyme proteins change, or become foreign to the body the body begins to die exponentially!  And many other ill-health effects can become problematic within the body, such as:  immune, respiratory, digestive systems; thyroid, brain, liver and kidney functions and blood circulation.  Other autoimmune problems that occur due to over exposure of fluorides on health:  arteriosclerosis, asthma, lupus and arthritis.

     The National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research recommends that if children between the ages of 6 months to 16 years of age should need fluoride dental prevention and it is not supplied within a public drinking water source, parents should seek dental recommendation that may include a fluoride supplement if a child is in need.

     Dr. Alesen (Former president of the California Medical Association) cites “without a shadow of doubt” dozens of International studies showing us how Fluoride disrupts the bone building process by creating a “calcium out of solution” situation has caused thousands of relational cases of  skeletal thinning fractures, “rubber bones,” osteoporosis, anemia, rickets, calcium stones and crystal buildup in organs and joints.

     Although I wanted to find a positive reason to be a proponent of fluorination of public drinking water, I could find no good reason to support a public program that I was not 95% confident it was beneficial to all.  If you do some research over the Internet you’ll likely come up to the same conclusions unless your special interest and livelihood revolves around this chemical industry.  In this case, you’re already sold on the fact it’s a good investment for your communities health and personal wealth.

     So who should consumers believe?  I’ll leave you with references cited below.  Don’t take my word on it, I highly recommend you go through the process of discovery and pay close attention to the historical development of this chemical and government and corporate money trail.

     Even though the proponents proclaim the return on investment is dental prevention and good bone health, to include less time lost from school and work as a result of fluorinated water’s preventative properties while reducing dental bills and tooth decay by 20-40%; I don’t see the balance to be a positive return on investment.  As far as I can determine, this figure is off-set by a negative ill-health cost effect(s) that would predominately occur within the adult population.   One could instead make a good argument there would be a negative return on investment greater than 50%.

     Also consider when you hear a pro-rally public water fluorination pitch…  Be sure to recall that almost every form of processed foods and drinks consumed has been most assuredly manufactured with fluorinated water.  There is no way to know exactly how much fluoride each one of us is receiving daily and no way to know how varying levels of fluoride impacts each of our overall health.  Be sure to also remind them to take a look at their tooth paste labels.  Some sample label ingredients read:  “Active ingredient Sodium Fluoride – Warning – Keep out of reach of children.  If accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center immediately.”  And the reason this label warning is on the toothpaste is because if a 20lb child happened to swallow a tube of this toothpaste it could kill that child!  So it is no wonder why an overwhelming portion of the populace is concerned about a chemical so poisonous that the FDA requires a product warning label to consumers.

     In summarizing, I stand by what I said in many past publishing’s, if we’re talking about a man made chemical introduced into our daily diet be very skeptical about its motivations and benefits to your overall health.  To help you with your skepticism, also tuck this away in the back of your mind.  As humans we are fundamentally flawed with wanting control, power and greed.  And with that said, unfortunately for some, doing the right thing for the majority is not wired into their moral value system!

     Parents should work with their dental specialists in supplementing their children the necessary fluoride if they lack the proper natural occurring fluoride for good preventative dental and bone health.  And our government should only ensure they provide quality drinking water to the public without chemical fluorination because the benefit for the “sum of the whole” does not apply to the majority of a populace.  Also there is no way to guarantee by fluorinating municipal water supplies wouldn’t create other unforeseen, or unintentional consequences that would further complicate our national health care costs, policies, resources and national debt!

 References,

 Acu-Cell Nutrition.  Fluoride, Fluorine and Chloride, Chlorine. http://www.acu-cell.com/fcl.html

 Delta Dental.  Vitamins and Minerals Play Important Roles in Bone Health.  http://oralhealth.deltadental.com/22,HD8

 Environmental Working Group.  Fluoride and Dental Health.  http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food/healtheffects

 Glaros, William P., D.D.S., INC.  Better Health through Fine Dentistry.  Is Fluoride Really Good for Your Teeth?  1 September 2011.  http://www.biologicaldentist.com/623/is-fluoride-really-good-for-your-teeth/

 Healthvermont.gov. Department of Health, Agency of Human Services.  Fluoride. http://healthvermont.gov/family/dental/fluoride/index.aspx

 Murray, Rich.  How Aspartame Became Legal – The Timeline.  24 December 2002.  http://rense.com/general33/legal.htm]

 NIDCR.gov.  National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.  http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/

 Prevent Disease.Com.  How dangerous is Fluoride to your Health?http://preventdisease.com/home/tips79.shtml

 Woodard, Marc.  Can You Prevent Cancer?  Mirror Athlete Fitness Secrets.  1 May 2008.  http://mirrorathlete.com/blog/2008/05/01/mirror-athlete-enterprises-health-blog-can-you-prevent-cancer/

 Woodard, Marc.  Aspartame the silent Killer.  Mirrorathlete Fitness Secrets.  25 March 2008.  http://mirrorathlete.com/blog/2008/03/25/mirror-athlete-enterprises-health-blog-aspartame-the-silent-killer/

 Woodard, Marc.  Toxins in Every House Hold Consumer Product, What!  Mirror Athlete Fitness Secrets.  5 December 2007.  http://mirrorathlete.com/blog/2007/12/05/mirror-athlete-enterprises-healthblog-is-cancer-in-your-tub/

 Woodard, Marc.  Popular Sugar Substitute Healthy.  20 August 2010. http://mirrorathlete.com/blog/2010/08/20/popular-sugar-substitute-healthy/

 

Marc T. Woodard, MBA, BS Exercise Science, USA Medical Services Officer, CPT, RET.  2012 Copyright, All rights reserved, Mirror Athlete Publishing @: http://www.mirrorathlete.com,  Sign up for your Free eNewsletter.





Is Bottled Water Safer Than Tap Water?

18 07 2008

I decided to do a little research regarding bottled water to determine if it was safer, or better for your health.   Not only does my family drink bottled water but also many of my friends and family feel that bottled water is better than their own tap water.  I on the other hand am always under argument that our tap water is safe and most likely better quality than what’s purchased in the bottles.  I also can’t see spending an additional cost for bottled water when our municipality provides safe drinking water at our residential tap.  As a Californian I understand that regardless of what impression others may have about our water municipalities… California’s EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is one of the most stringent in the country when it pertains to tap water supply purity guidelines.  

    “Bottled Water Statistics: 1) More than one-fifth of tested brands contained levels of bacteria or cancer-causing compounds that exceeded the California limit.  2)  Seventeen percent of tested brands contained more bacteria than allowed under purity guidelines.  3)  Thirteen states have dedicated no staff or resources to regulating bottled water.  4)  In a four-year study of 103 brands of bottled water, one-third contained levels of bacteria or carcinogens and exceeded purity guidelines according to NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) reports.  While many people believe that bottled water contains no chlorine or harmful chemicals, the study found that fluoride, phthalate [recall I wrote an article “Are Leaching Plastics Killing Us?  Phthalates a known carcinogenic in poly plastics from the plastic bottle leaches into consumable liquids.  See Mirror Athlete Enterprises health repository for review of this article”], trihalomethanes and arsenic, a known carcinogen, can be found in some bottled waters.  5)  25 and 40 percent of bottled waters are re-packaged municipal tap water which may or may not have been subject to additional treatment.  6)  Bottled water is required to be tested less frequently than city tap water for bacteria and chemical contaminants.  Just because you buy your water in a bottle doesn’t mean it is any safer, purer or better than water that comes out of your tap.”  7) Some “designer” waters may even pose a health threat to vulnerable people, according to the national study from an environmental watchdog group (http://www.drblank.com/hnbottle.htm).” 

There are basically two reasons one should consider bottled water 1) Your tap water has contaminants that are greater than the EPA – tap water supply) and FDA (Federal Drug Administration – bottled water) accepted MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) standards.  2)  Your water has a strange taste or smell “(http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/safedrink/bottled.htm).” 

Recommendations
 -Buy filters certified by NSF International, change filters per manufacturer recommendations.
-Check the bottle label – If it says municipal or community source, it comes from tap water.
-Save money by drinking and bottling your tap water if it meets MCL standards.
-Due to bacteria possibilities, bottled water should not be consumed by infants and elderly.
-For FDA Standards on bottled water:  http://www.fda.gov (FederalDrugAdministration).
-For more information about bottled water: http://www.wqu.org (WaterQualityAssociation).
-For more information write to Standards and Practices of bottled water companies: International Bottled Water Association, 113 N. Henry St. Alexandria, VA 22314-2973.

Author:  Marc T. Woodard, MBA, BS Exercise Science, USA Medical Services Officer, CPT, RET.  2008 Copyright.  All rights reserved, Mirror Athlete Publishing, www.mirrorathlete.com,  Sign up for FREE Monthly eNewsletter.