Toxic Tap Brisbane

Exposing the dangers of drinking Tap water

History of Water Flouridation

“We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic.”  Dr. John Yiamouyiannis .

fl1Most people have positive associations with fluoride. You may envision tooth protection, strong bones, and a government that cares about your dental needs. What you’ve probably never been told is that the fluoride added to drinking water and toothpaste is a crude industrial waste product of the aluminum and fertilizer industries, and a substance toxic enough to be used as rat poison.

This phenomenon can be attributed to a carefully planned marketing program begun even before Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first community to officially fluoridate its drinking water in 1945.

The first thing you have to understand about fluoride is that it’s the problem child of industry. Its toxicity was recognized at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when, in the 1850s iron and copper factories discharged it into the air and poisoned plants, animals,and people.The problem was exacerbated in the 1920s when rapid industrial growth meant massive pollution.

Prior to 1945 when communal water fluoridation took effect, fluoride was a known toxin. For example, a 1936 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stated that fluoride at the 1 ppm (part per million) concentration is as toxic as arsenic and lead. The Journal of the American Medical Association stated in their September 18, 1943 issue, that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes. And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, October 1, 1944, stated:

“Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.”

How community water fluoridation ended up being so widely implemented, and eventually even became heralded as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, is explained in-depth in Christopher Bryson’s book The Fluoride Deception. In it, he describes the intertwined interests that existed in the 1940’s and 50’s between the aluminum industry, the U.S. nuclear weapons program, and the dental industry, which resulted in fluoride being declared not only safe, but beneficial to human health. Once you understand the historical context, it becomes easier to grasp why anyone would ever promote water fluoridation as “a good idea.”

Due to the massive amounts of fluoride required to produce bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons, the Manhattan Project conducted various experiments to determine its toxic effects in 1946.

There were already several instances on record of fluoride being toxic to crops, livestock and people living downwind from the polluters, so the public concern over fluoride emissions needed to be quelled in order to avoid potentially crippling lawsuits.

Medical writer Joel Griffiths explains that

“It was abundantly clear to both industry and government that spectacular U.S. industrial expansion – and the economic and military power and vast profits it promised – would necessitate releasing millions of tons of waste fluoride into the environment.”

Their biggest fear was that

“If serious injury to people were established, lawsuits alone could prove devastating to companies, while public outcry could force industry-wide government regulations, billions in pollution-control costs, and even mandatory changes in high-fluoride raw materials and profitable technologies.”

 At first, industry could dispose of fluoride legally only in small amounts by selling it to insecticide and rat poison manufacturers. Then a commercial outlet was devised in the 1930s when a connection was made between water supplies bearing traces of fluoride and lower rates of tooth decay.

Griffiths writes that this was not a scientific breakthrough, but rather part of a “public disinformation campaign” by the aluminum industry “to convince the public that fluoride was safe and good.” Industry’s need prompted Alcoa-funded scientist Gerald J. Cox to announce that “The present trend toward complete removal of fluoride from water may need some reversal.

Griffiths writes:

“The big news in Cox’s announcement was that this ‘apparently worthless by-product’ had not only been proved safe (in low doses), but actually beneficial; it might reduce cavities in children. A proposal was in the air to add fluoride to the entire nation’s drinking water. While the dose to each individual would be low, ‘fluoridation’ on a national scale would require the annual addition of hundreds of thousands of tons of fluoride to the country’s drinking water.”

In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made – not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.

 Once the plan was put into action, industry was buoyant. They had finally found the channel for fluoride that they were looking for, and they were even cheered on by dentists, government agencies, and the public.

Such overwhelming acceptance allowed government and industry to proceed hastily, albeit irresponsibly. The Grand Rapids experiment was supposed to take 15 years, during which time health benefits and hazards were to be studied. In 1946, however, just one year into the experiment, six more U.S. cities adopted the process. By 1947, 87 more communities were treated; popular demand was the official reason for this unscientific haste.

Within the now declassified files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission, Christopher Bryson found that the toxicology department at the University of Rochester, under the direction of Harold Hodge, was asked to produce medical information about fluoride that could help defend the government against lawsuits where they were charged with fluoride pollution. Back in 1957, Harold Hodge was the nation’s leading, most trusted scientist, and when he declared that fluoride was “absolutely safe” at 1 ppm, everyone believed him.

The general public and its leaders did support the cause, but only after a massive government public relations campaign spearheaded by Edward L. Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays, a public relations pioneer who has been called “the original spin doctor,” was a masterful PR strategist. As a result of his influence, Griffiths writes,

“Almost overnight…the popular image of fluoride – which at the time was being widely sold as rat and bug poison – became that of a beneficial provider of gleaming smiles, absolutely safe, and good for children, bestowed by a benevolent paternal government.”

So, the endorsement of fluoride as a nutrient that will grace you with brilliant pearly whites, rather than the poison it really is, was born from the need to address increasingly debilitating political and industrial problems relating to fluoride pollution. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

Internet resource:

http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-fluoridation-fiasco-by-gary-null-ph-d-docx.pdf

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/21/fluoride-health-hazards.aspx

 

Leave a comment