Comment 27495

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 12:09:14

Please understand the H2SiF6 is a very different chemical and complex blend of radioactive contaminates. It was admitted again in congressional investigations 2000 Calvert by Charles Fox EPA that not a single study for chronic use have ever been done for health and benefit. This produce is b703-06 AWWA standard but No government agency actually tests it but NSF a non government does. The products tested for the thousands of studies are very purified sodium fluoride in double distilled deionized water. Far from real life because all water differ and often greatly in calcium ,magnesium and a long list of potential contaminates which fluoride is under law.
The FDA sort of grandfathered in under claims of being used prior to 1938 but under questing did admit no human uses could be found but did admit effective rat killer. FDA reply to Sally Stride. John Kelly congressman NJ waited 2 years for the FDA to admit they misinformed him and that fluoride was a new unapproved for ingestion with no review or approval ever.
There is a excuse for ignorance but please try to get at least one fact right next time. Dr Mitchell might be a nice guy but he is ignores the massive amount of data showing proof of fluoride damage at levels close to those many recieve in fluoridated cities. Most doctors think it wise to control dose and make it dependant upon personal health and situation. Most cities unfluoridated in the US have more then 10% with dental fluorosis which the theory was would not exceed 10% at 1ppm which would give a child 1mg per day. One brushing with big glob of fluoridated toothpaste can easly exceed that for most young kids as the youngest swallow half even when they do not try to. Many try to because of very tasty blends. 1000ppm toothpaste in a small pea sized dab is 1/4mg or the same as 1 cup 8 oz water at 1ppm. Most young kids get more fluoride then a professional could prescribe many times over. Is this logical or control. See Featherstone 2000 who with other researchers can not find any ingested benefit of fluoride or relationship of fluoride in enamel to cavity reduction or acid resistance. That was a theory that took on a life of its own with out proof of a mechanism of action. Lots of poorly controlled studies. If you get to pick the teams and the refs you control the results in any game. The foundation of fluoridation is junk science from short bias design studies that did not look beyond delayed eruption benefits and no control of examiner variability which is often bigger then the claimed result. Thus meaningless unless controlled.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds