|
Copy List
THE STORY OF THE LITTLE FLUORIDE ION
By Glen S.R. Walker
There are times when one
should relate to the paramount rule of debate: "never allow your opposition
to set the agenda".
However, frequently, in
scientific debate, the subtle trap is set.
Presently, there appears to be
a debate about whether or not the fluoride ion - in silicofluorides -
dissociates in drinking water.
Promoters of water
fluoridation (mainly from the dental profession) have, from the outset,
attempted to impress
politicians and trusting populations by claiming that it does not matter
what the chemical is called, the only thing that
matters is the fluoride ion.
They claim that all fluoride
ions are the same - and we agree - but the fluoride compounds differ
enormously in toxicity. Example - Merck Index, Martindale Pharmacopaeia,
etc. The debate about dissociation is confined to a simplistic reaction of a
single molecule under ideal conditions - i.e. add silicofluoride to water
and start a debate on its chemical action and structure.
This redundant debate fills
pages reiterating questionable and hypothetical scientific conclusions which
do not address
the ultimate effect on humans. Whatever argument ensues is confined by
dental and water scientists to the mantra, "A
fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion."
But this is only the beginning
of the argument. Our Melbourne water is a good place to explore the process.
The first step in the
fluoridation of Melbourne is the addition of 1,000 tonnes per year of an
industrial grade fluoride chemical, usually sodium silicofluoride, to the
drinking water. (Let's call this entity "Fluor").
The next step is the addition
of 2,000 tonnes per year of industrial crude quality lime (Calcium
carbonate) to adjust
the pH. Now Fluor is swirling with abandon in a turbid chemical soup with
her new friend, Cal.
The next ingredient to excite
the little fluoride ion is the arrival of one of her favoured nefarious
alumni - 2,200 Legal
tonnes of Potassium Aluminium Sulphate (which she immediately recognises as
her friend, "Alum").
Following a sojourn with her
friends, Cal and Alum, the little fluoride ion is introduced to new company
- pristine
Chlorine - in the amount of 1,000 tonnes every year.
Fluor is delighted to form
such exciting relationships with so many new friends not aware of the
already action, reaction or interaction between all the elements in this
chemical soup called drinking water supplies.
The turbid soup is finally
transported via plastic, ceramic, asbestos-lined, iron or other modes of
piping to eventually
emerge at a kitchen tap in Anyhome, Anystreet, Melbourne.
In spite of Flour's propensity
to form relationships (however questionable), with almost any one of many
substances in the water with whom she comes into contact, dental fluoride
scientists inexplicably describe her as a wallflower - lonely orphan!
Oblivious to the incredibly
exciting trysts between Flour, Cal, Alum and many other drinking water
associates, the same dental scientists insist that Fluor enters the human
body as a virgin, untouched by any of her companions.
Finally, at the moment of
ingestion (according to the dental scientists), the virginal Fluor embarks
upon a long, lonely journey, avoiding millions of cells and enzymes, weaving
her way through the entire body, seeking only a perfect union - with
children's teeth.
The story of the "Little
Fluoride Ion" has been perpetuated by both proponents and opponents of water
fluoridation to fulfil the redundant and simplistic agenda for intellectual
debate.
"Scientific debate" is a
contradiction in terms. Either something happens, or it does not. A
scientist's conclusion is right, or it is not. Scientists are demeaned and
Science itself is undermined by frivolous, redundant "debates". The
responsibility of scientists is to prove theories beyond argument. It is not
for the audience or politicians to determine scientific outcomes on the
basis of theatrical prowess.
"Dentistry on a whole has
lagged behind other medical sciences." (Professor Paul Sharp, Dental
Institute Kings College, London, The Age, 25th June, 2001).
The dental scientific equation
of fluoride safety: "There is quite a margin of safety, but still it must
be kept within fairly narrow limits." (Dr Doty - Hearing before Commerce
Committee, P.301 Circa 1950).
"Ethical Issues
High ethical standards
are the foundation of sound medical practice; without such standards we
are on the slippery slope which leads to medical dictatorship.
Fluoridation of drinking water is forced mass medication,°a practice which
destroys the right of a patient to choose or refuse treatment and which
should be abhorred by conscientious doctors. Let there be no confusion
from the assurances of officials that fluoride is a 'natural' constituent
of drinking water. The silicofluorides used in artificial fluoridation are
derived from the toxic wastes of industry; they are truly classed as
drugs, medicines or poisons. Forced massed medication is always wrong."
Legal
In Edinburgh's Court of
Session, after a long hearing, in 1983 Lord Jauncey ruled that to use
water supplies for mass medication broke existing laws. To its eternal
shame the Conservative government of the day (supposedly pledged as
guardians of individual freedom) hastily passed a Bill to legalise
fluoridation. Today's Labour Prime Minister has declared "we are committed
to consumer choice"; but his ministers declare their support for
fluoridation." (W.W. Yellowlees, MB, ChB. FRCGP 2001 U.K.)
In Australia it is recorded
that one medical scientist said, "We are getting an Ethics Committee", but
one doctor stood up and said, "But we do not have any ethics".
Spin doctoring is now queen of
the sciences!
The Hamer Victorian Government
Inquiry into Fluoridation 1980 made a "clear" scientific statement on
fluoridation - p.203:
"A vast amount of
evidence is available as to its (fluoridation) value and as to its
possible harm."
A Report from Canada 25th
April, 2001, E-Dental.com:
"Government Studies
provide evidence that fluoridation in water probably does more harm
than good. "No Canadian Studies provide evidence that fluoridation is
effective in reducing tooth decay."
(Dr. David Locker, Professor of Dentistry,
University of Toronto, Author of the "2000", Benefits and Risks of Water
Fluoridation, prepared for the Ontario's Minister of Health, Canada.)
Why is this little F orphan
dishonestly sold world wide? It has been sold to medical and dental
scientific groups, politicians world wide, local councils, often with
success even though it has never been approved by research from such
organisations as the U.S. E.P.A., U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the
U.S. New Drug Applications.
The nearest case of factual
statement relative to fluoridation safety is by the Victorian Government
"Inquiry into Fluoridation 1980". In their Report they state, p.203:
"Fluoridation
A vast amount of evidence
is available as to its value and as to the possibility of harm."
One must not inquire how that
little orphan F ion can cause such distress for children who suffer dental
fluorosis, fluoride poisoning.
The Australian National Health
and Medical Research Council in their book "The Effectiveness of Water
Fluoridation 1991" - p.129 states:
"A greater prevalence and
severity of dental fluorosis (mottled teeth) is not only the first sign
of toxicity (poisoning) ..."
So the little orphan F ion
does damage teeth!
The conclusion about the
fluoride ion and human health is a rare Government statement in the above
mentioned publication on fluoridation.
"Human data are clearly
more relevant than animal data, but the uncontrolled nature and
variability of human exposure and the poor quantitative definition of the
actual levels of exposure usually place severe limitations on the
interpretation." (dose)
But the N.H. and M.R.C. and
Australian Governments still recommend and promote fluoridation as
scientifically proven safe and effective, even though they cannot produce
actual scientific evidence to support their belief based on zero science.
Copy List
|
