There are two issues in the fluoride debate that have not been mentioned: one is that because the society is suffering an environment crisis, there is a prima facie case (where it needs to be disproved) that technologies produce more long term degradation than there are short term benefits. This, combined with the precautionary principle, suggests that rather than there be synthesised chemical applications to water, there is a need to look for alternatives.
Teeth may have deteriorated because the society is largely not aware, as Applied Nutrition professor at Middlesex University, Rozalind Gruben has said, ‘studies show there is a direct correlation between the consumption of animal proteins and the loss of calcium from the body. There is a lot of information showing that while dairy causes the ingestion of calcium, it is in a form that mostly cannot be ‘held’ by human bodies.’ It makes no sense to fluoridate water while this is mostly not known by the general population.
The second point is that the toxicity of fluoride is dose related, the same as it is for say, alkaloids in lettuces. That does not mean that because diet is neglected in regard to calcium, dose rates of fluoride should be increased to prevent teeth cavities, especially when we have little knowledge of when it exceeds health and becomes a poison to the body. Furthermore, Paracelsus in the 15th century determined, and the knowledge has never been overthrown, that poisons combined are more toxic than the sum of their parts. Most water authorities add more poisons to the water supply than just fluoride. Chlorine and alum are routinely added as well, and both are known to be poisonous to humans.
The synergistic (combined) toxic effect of chlorine, alum and fluoride has never been tested.
Geoff Dawe, Uki