Menu

The dark side of fluoride explored

Dr Robert C Dickson is a community physician in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Photo supplied.

Dr Robert C Dickson

In both Canada and Australia, pro-fluoridation advocates have had a field day, citing claims that seemingly support their position to fluoridate water. Many of those claims are misleading or erroneous and incorrect.

In the early to mid 1900s, dentists noticed several communities where people, and particularly children, had white and brown staining on their teeth and fewer cavities. Their water contained natural calcium fluoride, which is ubiquitous in the Earth’s crust. They concluded fluoride must be good for teeth.

Fast forward to WWII and the Manhattan Project. Large quantities of fluorine were essential to produce atomic weapons. Yet workers in these facilities, and plants and animals around them, were doing poorly, some even dying.

This created an unusual liaison between the military, medical and dental establishment, and the industries saddled with disposing of their highly toxic and regulated by-product, hydrofluosilicic acid (HFSA).

Their solution was to enlist the master spin doctor of the 20th century, Edward Bernays, whom the tobacco companies had hired prior to the war to convince women that smoking was good for them.

Within a very short time, studies were set up and cherry picked, and doctors and dentists bought into the new wave of ‘science’ – fluoride is good for kids! The sacred cow of water fluoridation was born.

The chemistry

There are essentially three types of fluoride: natural calcium fluoride, found in much of our rock and rivers and in most of the Earth’s crust; pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride that is in most toothpastes, fluoride rinses, prescriptions, and dental office treatments; and HFSA, the highly toxic waste product scrubbed out of industry stacks in the southern US, China and other parts of the world along with traces of lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic and other highly unsavoury and harmful toxins.

It is HFSA that is used to fluoridate water in virtually all jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, the US and NZ.

This is a huge boon to industry which, instead of paying dearly to dispose of this toxic by-product, now sells it to municipalities to dispose of in our water supply. It therefore ends up in our bodies, or flows unchecked into the environment after washing our cars and flushing our toilets – where it was not allowed originally by strict law.

The significance here is that natural calcium fluoride is tightly bound and therefore much less is released when ingested into the human body, whereas HFSA, which is ionised immediately, is absorbed quickly and easily in the gut, and crosses the blood-brain barrier, the placental barrier, and has access to virtually every cell, organ and system in the human body.

Ethics and morality

According to the United Nations, everyone has the right to clean, unmedicated water. Forcing mass medication on entire populations, without informed consent, and without monitoring, checking its levels in the human body, or studying short- or long-term effects, is the epitome of poor, unethical and unprofessional medicine.

Fluoride is a medication according to major health bodies worldwide, and strict control is required in dental offices and through physician prescriptions. And yet the collusion of industry and health associations, backed by huge corporations, has bypassed these checks and balances.

Health associations and organisations patronisingly attempt to assuage public concern by repeating their mantra of safety as they control concentrations of fluoride in our water.

These advocates never address the fact that dose, the amount of a drug consumed, and dosage, the amount of drug per kilogram of body weight, have little to do with concentration.

Therefore a 50kg woman who runs marathons and drinks ten glasses of fluoridated water daily gets ten times the dose as a sedentary office worker drinking only one glass per day.

No consent, no control of dose or dosage, no monitoring or follow-up – highly unethical in every sense and meaning of the word.

Where we are now

Byron Shire remains one of the few bastions of common sense and protectors of human rights in this country, as much of Australia has submitted to mass artificial water fluoridation.

Dentists, public health officials and many politicians, none of whom are toxicologists, continue to push for fluoridation when more than 97 per cent of communities in Europe, British Columbia and Quebec in Canada have eliminated this antiquated practice.

In fact, more than 5,000 professionals worldwide have had the courage to publicly call for an end to fluoridation and, of special note, less than six per cent of the world is fluoridated.

Interesting that Labor health critic Walt Secord speaks of  ‘a tiny group of conspiracy theorists’. We wonder if he also includes the 14 Nobel laureates in Medicine who are strongly opposed to this mass medication?

Well-intentioned fluoridation proponents such as Mr Secord say they’re helping children and the poor. Ironically, it’s infants, children, the underprivileged, the chronically ill, elderly and people of colour who are most susceptible to harm from, and the side effects of, fluoridation.

Medical error

Medical science has historically and frequently made errors. Medical and dental associations have endorsed smoking, asbestos, lead, BPA, mercury, thalidomide, Vioxx and many other dangerous products.

Just as they were wrong then, they’re wrong again, despite Mr Secord’s insinuation that it is ‘mind boggling that any group would oppose water fluoridation’. Indeed, it is beyond reason and common sense that more groups don’t, or won’t, oppose this enforced mass medication.

Fluoride, after all, is not necessary for any body function, unlike calcium, vitamins B and D, or iodine, which are essential to health; or chlorination, which kills organisms before they reach our bodies.Artificial water fluoridation is not safe, ethical or effective.

♦ Robert C Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP, is a community physician in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and is the founder of Safe Water Calgary (www.safewatercalgary.com).


12 responses to “The dark side of fluoride explored”

  1. Jim says:

    This article is inaccurate at best and a scaremongering tactic at worst. The fluorine added to Australia drinking water is NOT produced from atomic weapon byproducts. It comes from rock called fluoropatite, which is also used in the fertliizer industry, the rock is pulverised to seperate and extract the phosphate and flourine gas which is then converted to liquid and added to our drinking water.

    Again, it IS NOT a byproduct of an atomic weapon process or a fertlizer, it is a natural occuring element contained in a mineral rock.

    https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/17667_-_nhmrc_-_water_fluoridation_qanda-web.pdf

    • John says:

      Sorry Jim, but perhaps you have clearly been drinking too much fluoridated water.

      Firstly, the NHMRC has been completely discredited with respect to the fluoridation of public water when they failed to include the latest studies from the USA which concluded that fluoride has NO benefit whatsoever and raised serious concerns about the significant lack of medium and long term studies on the effects of adding this heavy metal-laden substance into the public water supply.

      All the “questions” in your reference document make presumptions with no supporting evidence. Those references in the back of the manual have been cherry picked and many discredited. Some of the “studies” were such a poor standard they were not even published in reputable journals. Mind you, that doesn’t mean much these days given the statements of former editors-in-chief that more than 80% of publications are not even peer reviewed and many are simply advertorials paid for by large corporations.

      If you want to sound credible then you need to read Dr Paul Connets book, The Case Against Fluoride. If you are so adamant then please feel free to take up the challenge that Paul openly puts out to all supporters of fluoridated water and discredit each of the arguments laid out in his book.

      To this date is hasn’t been done because the science is so clear.

      Also, the original studies that caused the introduction of fluoride into the drinking water have been thoroughly debunked and those responsible would be charged if they were alive today.

      And to your last line…”it is a natural occurring element contained in a mineral rock”. Are you serious? Are you saying that Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is naturally occurring? Now who sounds crazy?

      There are just too many issues that you have simply failed to convince anyone of anything.

      The article NEVER stated or implied that HFSA was derived from the atomic weapon process. This is you trying to discredit the whole article by saying something ridiculous that isn’t even true.

      You fail to address any of the arguments put forward and instead try to discredit.

      Shame. Shame. Shame

      • Well stated, John, thanks. Jim got off on a bit of a tangent there.
        As you are aware, HFSA is not allowed by strict law to be disposed of in air, land, or water. However, disposing of it in our human bodies appears to be fine for the powers that be and the industries that fund them.
        It heartens me to see many informed Australians like you. Dr Bob

        • Dr. Dickson – Are you aware that chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite, chloramines and the various disinfection byproducts (land other water treatment chemicals) are not allowed by strict law to be disposed of in air, land or water? However, disposing of these chemicals in our drinking water where they are ingested into our human bodies appears to be fine for the powers that be and the industries that fund them – oh, and these treatment process (like fluoridation) help protect the health of citizens.

    • Mark says:

      Well done, … Do you know how to read??

      Section 23 onwards goes on to state that the Fluoride is in fact HydroFluoroSilicic acid. That publication is an absolute hack job anyway. This is FAR from the naturally occuring Fluoride that is found in water. Natural water Fluoride is not anywhere near as biologically available as the shit they put in our water. In other words… its much safer.

      Also, nice “strawman” regarding the “atomic weapons byproduct”. Like thats relevant to the argument…

    • Declan Waugh says:

      Jim, learn to read. Nowhere in this article does it say that HFSA for fluoridating drinking water is sourced from atomic weapons byproducts.

    • Colin says:

      Jim seems to be misinformed.
      The chemicals added to fluoridate water supplies is not fluorine gas at all.
      http://fluoridealert.org/issues/water/fluoridation-chemicals/

      The 3 chemicals used in Australia are the same 3 chemicals used in the USA.
      http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/reeves-2000.pdf
      “All of the fluoride chemicals used in the U.S. for water fluoridation, sodium fluoride, sodium
      fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid, are useful byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
      The manufacturing process produces two byproducts: (1) a solid, calcium sulfate (sheetrock,
      CaSo4); and (2) the gases, hydrofluoric acid (HF) and silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4).
      A simplified explanation of the manufacturing process follows: Apatite rock, a calcium mineral found in
      central Florida, is ground up and treated with sulfuric acid, producing phosphoric acid and the
      two byproducts, calcium sulfate and the two gas emissions.
      These gases are captured by product recovery units (scrubbers) and condensed into 23% fluorosilicic acid. Sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate are made from this acid.”

      As for the biased NHMRC. A Royal commission called for.
      http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/fan-australia.nhmrc-fluoridation-critique-8-3-17-1.pdf

  2. Doug Cragoe says:

    Jim – One of the primary sources of fluoridation chemicals is phosphate fertilizer factories. Fluoride and other toxic elements are released as gasses at these factories. This is part of the process of making phosphate fertilizers. A wet scrubber pollution system traps the gases basically by spraying the gas with a fine mist of water. This water picks up a lot of fluoride and other toxic elements. The phosphate plant owners used to call this “scrubber liquor” until the U.S. CDC told them to stop using that nickname. It does not sound good to have “scrubber liquor” added to our water, but that is what happens. Scrubber liquor is a product used for a few other things besides water fluoridation. It’s used to tan animal hides and etch glass. But if this products is not sold for a legitimate use then it becomes a highly toxic pollutant that has to be disposed of in the highest rated toxic waste dumps. And that is very expensive.

    Before the wet scrubbers were required by the U.S. EPA phosphate plants and other manufacturing plants that emitted fluoride had to deal with many lawsuits as a result of environmental damage. Fluoride particulates would fall on vegetation eaten by farm animals. The animals would get fluorosis and suffer. Farmers lost money due to having unhealthy animals that died or had other problems. Of course people were also negatively affected, but this fact has been suppressed by industrial interests since the 1800’s. And once fluoridation started and fluoride dental products were invented there was even more interest in suppressing and denying any adverse effects of fluoride on humans.

  3. Susan Kanen says:

    “Jim” needs to get it right. HFSA is not a naturally occurring rock. Start your education on the truth about the lie of water fluoridation, Jim, and correct at least your spelling:

    seperate=separate

    flourine=fluorine

    occuring=occurring

    pulverised=pulverized

    fluoropatite=fluorapatite or fluoroapatite

    fertlizer=fertilizer

  4. Glenn says:

    I do believe he’s was writing about how fluoridation got started, not how its exactly produced today.as it states in the article “the highly toxic waste product scrubbed out of industry stacks in the southern US, China and other parts of the world”.
    I cant say for Australia, but it does happen in the USA.

  5. Joy Warren says:

    Poor Jim: he’s being got at right and proper. He’s either an innocent misinformed member of the public or this is his first outing as an industry/dentistry troll. Back to the drawing board Jim.

    After a quick read of the information in the comments above, it does not seem that any of you have yet discussed Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) which is present in Hexafluorosilicic Acid. I don’t know who decided that that was the correct name of the acid but they were trying, perhaps, to divert our attention away from the fact that the acid contains Hydrogen. Thus, the acid is more accurately, imho, Hydrofluorosilicic Acid and H for Hydrogen appears in the chemical formula H2SiF6.

    Going back to Hydrofluoric Acid, according to a British Standard, the fluoridating acid contains 1.5% HF. It may be a good idea to consult the Canadian and Australian Standards to see whether they also list HF if they don’t consult British Standards when ensuring the ‘purity’ of H2SiF6. HF is a deadly acid which dissolves out as Hydrogen Fluoride gas.

    Another snippet of information of which most people are unaware: the fluoridating acid is normally supplied as a 20% fluoride acid so in order to ensure that we are all given 1ppm fluoride, water companies/utilities are recommended to add 6.3mg of the acid to each litre of treated water. Thus in each litre of fluoridated water we are given a nice little dose of hydrofluoric acid. Then there is also the hydrofluoric acid which is created in the stomach. Anybody out there with dicky tummies might like to take this information on board.

    How strange that our politicians think that it’s a neat trick to make us all drink a soup of harmful chemicals 24/7, 52 weeks of the year for a lifetime. I can only hope that they are also drinking the stuff otherwise they are hypocrites ….. There’s a thought! Definition of a hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. So I wonder how many politicians in fluoridating countries have filtered water when at work and/or at home?

  6. Ms Divvi De Vendre says:

    With all of the conspiracy theories etc and emotive arguments around Fluoride in Australia, (and I have done a little research myself).

    Examining the campaigns in Lismore in regard to fluoridation and speaking to NSW health, it seems to me that the “informed” literature on the so called positive aspects of Fluoride was provided to the Lismore Council by the NSW State Health who were provided the same literature by the Commonwealth Dept of Health. Who it was supposed were provided the material by the suppliers of the Fluoride.

    That is how it works apparently. The material is provided by selling organisation rubber stamped by the Commonwealth then by the State and is handed out in good faith by the local council.

    No one rocks the boat. The general public accepts the government’s support of the fluoride as being in their own best interests because that is what government is supposed to do.

    This is how government works here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Become a supporter of The Echo

A note from the editorial team

Some of The Echo’s editorial team: journalists Paul Bibby and Aslan Shand, editor Hans Lovejoy, photographer Jeff Dawson and Mandy Nolan

The Echo has never underestimated the intelligence and passion of its readers. In a world of corporate banality and predictability, The Echo has worked hard for more than 30 years to help keep Byron and the north coast unique with quality local journalism and creative ideas. We think this area needs more voices, reasoned analysis and ideas than just those provided by News Corp, lifestyle mags, Facebook groups and corporate newsletters.

The Echo is one hundred per cent locally owned and one hundred per cent independent. As you have probably gathered from what is happening in the media industry, it is not cheap to produce a weekly newspaper and a daily online news service of any quality.

We have always relied entirely on advertising to fund our operations, but often loyal readers who value our local, independent journalism have asked how they could help ensure our survival.

Any support you can provide to The Echo will make an enormous difference. You can make a one-off contribution or a monthly one. With your help, we can continue to support a better informed local community and a healthier democracy for another 30 years.”

Echonetdaily is made possible by the support of all of our advertisers.