Raise the Hammer

Dr Ted Adding HFSA damages the water drastly. Those that wish to remove the fluoride must also remove the very healty needed minerals like calcium and magnesium which are the foundation of healthy strong enamel and bone. 85% of people are said to use tap water to make infant formula. mothers milk has as little as .004ppm fluoride in non fluoridated areas and only slightly higher in fluoridated areas. Nature has seen fit to remove fluoride to protect the infant developing brain and other systems from fluoride. Normal adults kidneys filter out half of all fluoride intake from blood but young infants only about 14% so it is even more important to not tax their systems until the kidneys develope better function. Nature planned they only have breast milk at 250 times less fluoride content. 1ppm is not a small dose compared with breast milk.
The soy formulas when they first came out sometimes were even above 7ppm fluoride and devistated infants with fluoride damages. This was eventually lowered but it is still higher then regular formula. With the warnings for infant formula by government agency CDC and ADA and others little has been done to mention this to the public. I know as I talk to new parents when I see them and most have never heard of the issue. The ADA only did a press release in one state and the health departments in only 3 states accept the concept of no fluoride for infant warning. Wic healthy start and most health departments suggest strongly fluoride is needed for healthy teeth in infants. No mention of the other side so a parent can make a informed consent. In the black community many more have truely ugly enamel damage just like the CDC data has shown for decades. Yet the CDC does ZIP to inform those that very likely will be damaged for life by their policy. Is thisa the best we can do instead of a logical dental policy. Like I said before only 4% of the dentists in my county will even treat poor kids with medicaid dental. Any comment on that TED. Fluoridation is proven to damage the enamel of about 50% of the kids and it was claimed to only affect 10% at the beginning. Other sources of fluoride that is ingested has rendered this policy redundant and to boot the entire theory that ingested preeruptive benefit is now proven to be false.
There is no doubt arsenic and lead are not good for ingestion but the HfSA increases both in our water. When the MCLG for arsenic dropped to 10ppb from 50ppb many had tried for 5ppb and even 3ppb. at 3ppb many batches of HFSA would have to be rejected as having above MAL after added to water with is 10% of MCL. HFSA can put lead leaching off the meter if PH goes acid slightly or chloramine is use or if expensive orthophosphate is not used to reduce corrosion. No water plant is perfect and if the design of injection ports or valves are not flow proportional things can get ugly very fast. I know this can happen because this happened in my city and the state had to levy fines and threaten to take over before they corrected the problems which they have yet to admit to the public but were in the state report. This went on for several years. Arsenic is the worst contaminate in the FSHA But the leaching is shown by Dartmouth Masters and Coplan, Maas 2007, Coplan 2008 with the last two full studies at waterloowatch.com top of page. I have seen entire condo complexes that had to have every piece of copper pipe removed because of faulty water plant control of corrosion and the pipes looked like swiss cheese. Our bodies who knows.
FDA studies when done by the company owning the drug only have a negative finding 10% of the time but when done by a third part 50% of the time. Money buys favorable results often in faulty science. Funding is control by agencies that have a dogma of benefit and safety and have been know to strip funding when not the desired results. Abstracts often go very light on negative fluoride effect or risk funding being ended. Research is channeled by what they will pay for and results determine future funding. This is not a arms length deal. Promoters can not be expected to fund the destruction of their honor and flagship policy. Where is the objectivity. Read some of the transcripts and see many decisions did not include much science and behind closed doors rewritten without the knowledge of the experts. The EPA Headquarters union got in the middle of the 1986 EPA increase from 2.4ppm to 4.0ppm against the 7-2 vote that they had no science to even show 2.4 safe and sever dental fluorosis was a medical effect. Some how that finding was altered and the 2006 NRC again shows 4.0 not protective but no action yet. Read the transcripts and it sure sounds like fraud. Same for the 4th annual dental convention where deception was planned to promote fluoridation based on PR. Frank Bulls statenments show true arrogance.--Things have not changed much..
Michael Easley DDs Florida Oral health stated 'Nobody drags anyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country' This was a state employees statement for anyone who did not like fluoridation. The state has not fired this sad excuse for a public servent yet. He should be the first cut. I mentioned to the state that actually kids have no choice especially babies. Is dental fluorosis a desirable thing to inflict on unknowing people. Safe for all. and everyone benefits are both lies for any medical treatment. Peanuts are a good example as many grade schools have become peanut free to protect one child. Am I allowed to make a difference for one person? Fluoridation violates the SDWA in the 1986 Amicus curiae brief 28 pages of reasons never looked at by the courts when the EPA scientists tried to protect the public as the law requires.