F.A.N.
THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FAN Bulletin 655: A very important number.
Aug 18, 2006
Dear All,
This is a short bulletin but it contains a very valuable and important number.
In the table which appears on page 33 of the Online version of NRC report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's standards" published in March 2006, there appears the level of fluoride which is present in mothers milk in nonfluoridated areas. It is 0.004 ppm (the same table gives the level in fluoridated areas (1 ppm) as ranging from 0.007 to 0.01 ppm).
0.004 ppm!
This means that babies bottle fed in communities with fluoride at 1 ppm get 250 times more fluoride than nature intended and it means that babies bottle fed in communities with the EPA's current (established in 1985) Safe Drinking Water Standard of 4ppm, are getting 1000 times more fluoride than nature intended.
Was this very low level (0.004 ppm) forced upon nature by the surroundings? No, there was plenty of fluoride around when life was evolving. For example, the average level in the oceans is 1.4 ppm.
So do those dentists, those "leaders" at the ADA, those "watchdogs" at the CDC, those public "health" officials, who promote fluoridation at every turn, know more about what the new born baby needs than nature itself? Hardly.
Is it possible that nature had more in mind than baby's developing teeth, when this number was fixed? Could nature have been concerned about fluoride's impact on the developing brain before the blood brain barrier was fully developed (see chapter 7 of the NRC report)? Could nature have been concerned with fluoride's interaction with the thyroid gland, parathyroid gland, the pineal gland and the pancreas of the developing baby (see chapter 8 of the NRC report and Thiessen's power point presentation)? Could nature have been concerned about fluoride's interaction with the delicate lining of the gastro-intestinal tract when subjected to reconstituted hydrofluoric acid resulting from the high acidity of the stomach (see chapter 9, NRC report)? Could nature have been concerned about fluoride's genetoxic effects (see chapter 10, NRC report); musculoskeletal effects (see chapter 5, NRC report) or reproductive and developmental effects (see chapter 6, NRC report)? Could nature have been concerned about fluoride's interaction with the enzymes which function in every tissue? Could nature have been concerned about the fact that in the presence of a trace amount of aluminium, fluoride is capable of switching on G-Proteins which regulate the flow of messages across the membranes of every tissue?
Pedantics will wonder if "nature" is actually "concerned" about anything, arguing that nature doesn't "think" or "worry" but simply follows the mandates of the second law of thermodynamics.
But what about Public health officials? Are they concerned about anything or do they just simply follow the "laws" as passed down to them by the US Public Health Service?
On the matter of fluoride exposure, comparing the respective "strategies" developed by nature and the US Public Health Service, I know whose mandates I would prefer to follow. Do your local officials?
Paul Connett

_______________________________________________
Fan_bulletins mailing list
Fan_bulletins@lists.fluoridealert.org
http://lists.fluoridealert.org/listinfo/fan_bulletins
Reader Comments