The material in this slide show is intended for presentation before neighborhood associations, PTAs, church groups and similar community-oriented audiences. It is to be shown free of charge, for educational purposes only. Its meant as a guide to help you acquaint your friends and neighbors with this important subject. No script is provided. Users are free to modify it by removing slides and/or adding their own new ones but not by changing the content of any of the original slides contained herein. Thank you for sharing this resource with your community. - RNO

THINKING ABOUT FLUORIDEAN INFORMAL SLIDE PRESENTATIONcopyright 2009 by Rae Nadler-Olenick

WHO SUPPORTS WATER FLUORIDATION?THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION (ADA)THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC)THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (AMA)ALL STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENTSALL AMERICAN DENTAL SCHOOLS, RESEARCH INSTITUTES AND MAJOR FUNDING ENTITIESYOUR FAMILY DENTISTTHE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSETHE SUGAR LOBBYTHE GOVERNMENTS OF MOST ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES

WHO DOESNT SUPPORT WATER FLUORIDATION?THE REST OF THE WORLD

THINKING ABOUT FLUORIDE

LOOK WHAT CAME ALONG ABOUT THE SAME TIME AS FLUORIDE

Q: Do You Trust Politicians?

HEALTH BUREAUCRATS ARE POLITICIANSTHEY MAKE THE HEALTH DECISIONS THAT AFFECT YOUTHEY RUN THE CDC, FDA, ADA AND SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONSTHEY ARE NOT YOUR FAMILY DENTIST OR FAMILY DOCTORTHEY OFTEN LACK APPROPRIATE SCIENTIFIC TRAININGTHEY ARE WELL-PAID POLITICAL APPOINTEESTHEY ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLETHEY REPORT TO THEIR BOSSES AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION AND INDUSTRYTHEY SERVE CORPORATE INTERESTS

IF DR. MARCUS WELBY WERE IN CHARGE, WE COULD TRUST HIM. UNFORTUNATELY HES NOT.

Q: Do You Still Trust Health Bureaucrats?

WHY SHOULD WE ABANDON WATER FLUORIDATION?IT DOESNT WORKITS BAD FOR YOUITS EXPENSIVE & WASTEFUL

WATER FLUORIDATION DOESNT WORKBOTH THE CDC AND THE ADA ADMIT THAT ANY BENEFITS OF FLUORIDE COME FROM TOPICAL APPLICATION (AS IN TOOTHPASTE)

LOOK AROUND YOU. YOULL SEE GOOD TEETH AN BAD TEETH, JUST AS ALWAYS. THE GULF BETWEEN THE DENTAL HEALTH OF LOW INCOME AND MIDDLE-CLASS CHILDREN IS AS GREAT AS EVER. PROPONENTS OF WATER FLUORIDATION AS A SOCIAL EQUALIZER CANT QUANTIFY THE BENEFITS.

WATER FLUORIDATION IS BAD FOR YOUFLUORIDE IS A TOXIC WASTE REGULATED BY THE EPATHE CDC AND ADA BOTH RECOMMEND AGAINST USING FLUORIDATED WATER FOR BABY FORMULAFLUORIDE CAUSES FLUOROSIS, A DISFIGUREMENT OF THE TEETH FLUORIDE CAUSES AND/OR AGGRAVATES BONE AND JOINT DISEASESFLUORIDE AGGRAVATES DIABETES & KIDNEY DISEASEFLUORIDE DAMAGES THE THYROID GLAND BY REPLACING NECESSARY IODINEFLUORIDE LOWERS IQEVERYONE RECEIVES THE SAME CONCENTRATION REGARDLESS OF AGE, SIZE, ACTIVITY LEVEL AND STATE OF HEALTH

FLUORIDE IS A TOXIC WASTE REGULATED BY THE EPA (a by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry)

BOTH THE CDC AND THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION ADVISE AGAINST MIXING BABY FORMULA WITH FLUORIDATED WATER

FLUORIDE CAUSES FLUOROSIS, A DISFIGURMENT OF THE TEETH

FLUORIDE CAUSES AND/OR AGGRAVATES BONE AND JOINT DISEASES

FLUORIDE AGGRAVATES DIABETES AND KIDNEY DISEASE

FLUORIDE DAMAGES THE THYROID GLAND BY REPLACING NECESSARY IODINE

FLUORIDE LOWERS IQ

EVERYONE RECEIVES THE SAME CONCENTRATION REGARDLESS OF AGE, SIZE, ACTIVITY LEVEL AND STATE OF HEALTH

WATER FLUORIDATION IS EXPENSIVE AND WASTEFULAUSTIN SPENDS OVER $300,000 ON WATER FLUORIDATION ANNUALLYLESS THAN 1% OF THE FLUORIDATED WATER SUPPLY IS CONSUMED AS DRINKING WATERTHATS AT LEAST $297,000 WASTED!THE MONEY COULD BE BETTER SPENT ON REAL ORAL HEALTH PROGRAMS (and by the way, where does all that tapwater that isnt consumed by drinking go? Back into the environment!)

HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS SITUATION?

TWO THINGS CAME TOGETHER

WORLD WAR II

EARLY* DENTISTS WHO STUDIED A CONDITION CAUSED BY EXCESSIVE FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATERCOLORADO BROWN STAINTEXAS TEETH

THEY THOUGHT THESE TEETH WERE HEALTHY AND DESIRABLE.*1920s and earlier

THE DENTISTS NOTICED THAT MANY OF THEIR PATIENTS HAD UNSIGHTLY BROWN STAINS ON THEIR TEETH.

THEY LIKEWISE NOTED THAT THOSE BROWN-STAINED TEETH SEEMED RESISTANT TO DECAY.

THEY KNEW THAT UNUSUALLY HIGH AMOUNTS OF NATURALLY-OCCURRING FLUORIDE IN THE LOCAL WATER CAUSED THE STAINS.

THEY CONCLUDED (INCORRECTLY) THAT FLUORIDE WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECAY RESISTANCE. A FEW WORDS ABOUT THOSE DENTISTS DISCOVERIES

WHAT THE DENTISTS FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT:THE NATURAL FLUORIDE SOURCE IN THE LOCAL DRINKING WATER WAS CALCIUM FLUORIDE. THUS THE PEOPLE WERE CONSUMING A GREAT DEAL OF CALCIUM.

THE LOCAL POPULATION WAS WEALTHY (RANCHERS & FARMERS), HEALTH CONSCIOUS AND ABLE TO AFFORD THE BEST DENTAL CARE.

THEY ENJOYED A HEALTHY DIET OF FOODS LOCALLY-GROWN ON THEIR RICH SOIL, INCLUDING GRAINS, VEGETABLES, BEEF AND AN ABUNDANCE OF MILK.

THEY CONSUMED VERY FEW PROCESSED FOODS.

NOW BACK TO OUR STORY

WORLD WAR II INDUSTRY REQUIRED FLUORIDE FOR:

STEEL SMELTINGALUMINUM SMELTINGURANIUM ENRICHMENT

WE COULD NOT HAVE WON THE WAR WITHOUT IT.

PRIOR TO WW II, FLUORIDE HAD NOT BEEN WIDELY USED IN INDUSTRY. ITS TOXIC PROPERTIES QUICKLY BECAME APPARENT IN THE FACTORIES, WHERE WORKERS BECAME ILL WITH A VARIETY OF AILMENTS. FARMS DOWNWIND OF THE FACTORIES SUFFERED SERIOUS CROP AND ANIMAL LOSS.

FEARING A SPATE OF LAWSUITS, INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT (JOINED BY HIGHER EDUCATION, WHICH IS FUNDED BY BOTH) WENT IN SEARCH OF EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO LITIGATION. THEY DISCOVERED THE FLUORIDE-IS-GOOD-FOR-YOUR-TEETH DENTISTS. THE REST IS HISTORY.

USING 2 OR 3 DENTISTS WRONG CONCLUSIONS AS A RATIONALE:THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OBLIGINGLY DEFINED FLUORIDE AS A NUTRIENT (ALONG WITH CALCIUM, MAGNESIUM AND VITAMIN D).THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE SET THE IDEAL CONCENTRATION ARBITRARILY AS ONE PART PER MILLION IN DRINKING WATER FOR EVERYONE .A MAJOR PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN - HEAVILY FUNDED BY INDUSTRY - WAS LAUNCHED TO SELL FLUORIDE TO THE PUBLIC.ALL AMERICAN DENTAL SCHOOLS AND RESEARCH LABS ADOPTED A PRO-FLUORIDE POSITIONLATER, LAWS WERE CLEVERLY FASHIONED TO ENABLE BOTH THE FDA AND THE EPA TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY.

SINCE 1945 THE REGULATORY AGENCIES HAVE CLUNG TO THEIR OUTDATED STANDARD DESPITE: MOUNTING EVIDENCE OF HARMMOUNTING EVIDENCE OF CHRONIC OVER-EXPOSURE FROM OTHER SOURCES, ESPECIALLY FOOD AND DENTAL PRODUCTSMOUNTING EVIDENCE OF INEFFECTIVENESSTHE 2006 NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT, WHICH CONCLUDED THAT THE EPAS MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL (MCL) IS NOT PROTECTIVE OF HEALTH.

Some Examples:IN THE MID-1980S, UNDER HEAVY LOBBYING PRESSURE FROM DOW CHEMICAL CO. WHICH MAKES FLUORIDE-BASED PESTICIDES,THE EPA RAISED THE MCL FOR FLUORIDE IN WATER FROM 2 TO 4 PPM.

IN 1990, THE HEAD TOXICOLOGIST OF EPAS DRINKING WATER DEPARTMENT, DR. WILLIAM MARCUS, WAS FIRED FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST FLUORIDE. HE SUED, AND WAS REINSTATED WITH BACK PAY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES AFTER PROVING HIS FIRING WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

IN 1994, A TOP TOXICOLOGY EXPERT, DR. PHYLLIS MULLENIX, WAS FIRED FROM HER HARVARD-FUNDED JOB AFTER PUBLISHING RESEARCH CONNECTING FLUORIDE TO CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DAMAGE IN LABORATORY RATS. SHE HAD EARLIER SPOKEN ON THE SUBJECT AT THE NIH IN WASHINGTON DC AND IN BOSTON.

DURING THE LATE 1990S, THE EPAS OWN UNION OF SOME 1500 SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ISSUED A STRONG STATEMENT AGAINST THE FLUORIDATION OF DRINKING WATER AND EVEN PARTICIPATED IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYER IN AN EFFORT TO GET EPAS SAFETY STANDARDS REVIEWED.

IN 2001, A HARVARD GRADUATE STUDENT, ELISE BASSIN, WHOSE RESEARCH SHOWED A LINK BETWEEN FLUORIDE AND A HIGHER INCIDENCE OF BONE CANCER IN YOUNG BOYS WAS REPUDIATED BY HER OWN MAJOR PROFESSOR, AND THE PUBLICATION OF HER WORK WAS DELAYED FOR FIVE YEARS.

IN 2006, THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCILS REPORT ON FLUORIDE IN WATER CONCLUDED THAT EPAS CURRENT ALLOWABLE MCL OF 4 PPM IS NOT PROTECTIVE OF HEALTH AND CALLED FOR A REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS. TO DATE, NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.

Why Do They Act This Way?FEAR OF LITIGATION. A TORRENT OF RUINOUS LAWSUITS WOULD FOLLOW ANY ADMISSION THAT WATER FLUORIDATION HAS DAMAGED THE HEALTH OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. LOSS OF FACE. AN ADMISSION OF HARM WOULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE THE PRESTIGE OF THE HEALTH BUREAUCRATS WHO ENDORSE WATER FLUORIDATIONINERTIA. (ITS EASIER TO KEEP FOLLOWING A FAMILIAR ROUTE THAN CHANGE DIRECTION).UNWILLINGNESS TO PART WITH LONG-HELD BELIEFS. SOME HEALTH BUREAUCRATS MAY ACTUALLY BELIEVE ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. THEYVE BEEN TOLD THAT MOST OR ALL OF THEIR LIVES, JUST AS WE HAVE.

The Moral of Our Story: THE POWER OF A HANDFUL OF HIGHLYPLACED BUREAUCRATS TO OBSTRUCTTHE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC ISLOCKED IN AT THE TOP. THEREFORE , ITIS NECESSARY TO OPPOSE THEM AT THELOCAL LEVEL. SAY NO TO WATER FLUORIDATION.

THE END