Posts Tagged ‘fluorosilicic’

Preface

Charlee Eades was likely the only individual besides myself who was in attendance during the March 2013 Durham board of health hearing who was not paid or affiliated with the state and city government.  Therefore her eyewitness account to what happened that day remains crucial evidence as to  what deceptions & techniques were used by the government to disseminate false information among the Durham County Board of Health in order to mire their critical thinking and produce the current recommendation to continue drugging the City of Durham’s public drinking water.

Since she can not attend the city council work session tomorrow, where this fallacious recommendation will be officially rendered by Gayle Harris to the Durham City council, she has penned her own appeal, published below, and I will hand deliver it tomorrow.  It is an important and worthwhile account from a different perspective than my own which should be seriously considered when trying to understand how it is that the Powers That Be continue to indoctrinate the agents of our government to keep poisoning all of our public water resources.

My Appeal of the Board Of Health’s Recommendation to Continue Medicating Durham’s Water

Mr. Bell & Durham City Council members,

I am writing you because I am unable to attend Thursday’s public meeting due to work obligations, but want to issue my full support of the appeal of the Durham Public Health Board’s recommendation to continue the practice of water fluoridation.

I have personally attended numerous “DPHB” board meetings over the past year and the March 2013 Ad Hoc “expert panel review” where I witnessed an unfair and rather extreme bias towards pro-fluoridation. It is bothersome to me that my avenue to address what I consider to be a very serious health concern is handled with clear cognitive bias. As I am sure you are aware, this meeting was held with the pretense that no public comment would be allowed & if one was to speak out of turn, a police officer was positioned in the room to escort any such citizens out of the building. Video Evidence Below:

With the blatant and reprehensible threat to the First Amendment aside, I am writing specifically to make you aware that the panel of 5 experts in fields related to the fluoride issue (only 4 were present to comment) pledged, unabashedly, in favor of fluoridation.

Each of these experts were either employed by or provide direct consultation to the state of North Carolina and the City of Durham.  This is especially problematic because there was no one present or rather, no one present who was allowed to speak, that could provide an independent or alternative viewpoint, which at the very least, would tip this purported “review” out of the territory of being painfully biased.

Furthermore, panel expert Amy Keyworth, a Hydrogeologist, answered questions from the DPHB with research regarding water exclusively collected & studied for the NC Private Well Program.  I find this odd considering this is a public policy directly affecting the public water supply.  Why would statistics on the private well program illustrate any meaningful data for the DPHB to consider? The testimony delivered by Mrs. Keyworth is moot for it’s complete lack of relativity to the debate.  However, because no expert was present to debate and give credibility to the facts presented at this meeting, many opinions went unsubstantiated.

For example, in response to a question fielded by Board Member & Ad Hoc Committee Chair Dr. F. Vincent Allison, DDS regarding the form or source of fluoride used by Durham in its public water supply, Mrs. Keyworth stated clearly that naturally occurring “fluoride” was used. This is patently false and you must certainly agree as this information is sourced directly from Durham’s Department of Water Management. Durham actually purchases hydrofluorsilicic acid from PENCCO chemical company, and this is stated on your own website! More concerning was that seated beside Amy Keyworth was Vicki Westbrook, Assistant Director of Durham Water Management, who never corrected Amy’s fallacious statement. I would hope she knows the precise chemicals purchased with public money to use for public consumption, since it is a highly corrosive material requiring increased safety regulations, and especially given that Ms. Westbrook was present this day as an expert to clarify and verify matters regarding the Water treatment standards and procedures.

In the absence of facts, a citizen, Corey Sturmer, thought it was pertinent to correct Mrs. Keyworth as this is information critical to the DPHB in its review of the fluoridation policy which it intended to further recommend to the City Council.  Mr. Sturmer was met with several gavel knocks and a swift escort from the room & ultimately the building, for correcting an “expert” who was delivering obvious disinformation to the DPHB.

I remained in the room following this disturbing display of supremacy and was disappointed to see the deterioration of the discussion from science and ethics based to outright slander of so-called “alternative viewpoints” or as “expert” Dr. Rebecca King so eloquently put it “You know you can’t believe everything you read on the internet.”

If only I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that phrase to “debunk” or detract from a legitimate argument.

This poor attempt to dismiss all research hosted online, because it may serve to shape the debate against this policy, is a relic of the technologically illiterate. If we apply this sentiment evenly, then the information displayed on Durham’s own municipal or governmental sites could be deemed invalid as a proper source.

It is simply unacceptable that Durham believes a one-sided debate will deliver the satisfactory “due diligence” review, as announced by Mr. James Miller at the beginning of the panel, mind you only moments before telling everyone that those who “spoke out of turn” would be escorted away by a policeman, like a criminal.

This is not elementary school or reformatory school, this is my life and my body being discussed and I implore my elected and un-elected officials to take these matters seriously, not for themselves, but for the public good.

An appeal of the DPHB ‘s recommendation is necessary to ensure all relative viewpoints are represented and that all opinions are counter-weighted.   Two members of the panel were dentists with backgrounds in both pediatrics & public health, but no one was there to speak to the effects on the human body comprehensively. Is it not remiss to believe the fluoride we consume only touches our teeth before being swallowed- when it is in fact absorbed by your bones & organs?

Dr. Timothy Wright said that the Harvard studies showing a decrease in IQ among grade-school age children who ingested fluoride in China [Harvard, 2012] did not “pan out.” No specific reasons were ever stated as to why these studies failed to “pan out” but also no Board Member pushed Mr. Wright for clarification or more information whatsoever. The Harvard study was completely dismissed from that moment on, as were other studies that found negative side effects to water fluoridation. Those others, Wright vaguely said, “didn’t pan out” either.

I have to tell you that the reason I ultimately excused myself from this meeting was due to comments made by Dr. Rebecca King in response to a question from Dr. Nancy Short, DrPH, MBA, RN, on how to “Deal” with citizens who do not support the practice of medicating people against their will. Dr. King scoffed “Good Luck” and stated “these people will never be satisfied because they will always have something to complain about” and “bad information” from various “internet sources” to support it. King was dismissive of all information she deemed “alternative,” “independent,” or not in concurrence with the ADA, CDC or the NC Board of Public Health, despite never providing a specific “bad” source.  This sweeping disrespect of citizen’s who seek change in public health policy was so offensive to me that I left.

On top of demonstrating a clear cognitive bias towards the practice of fluoridating unsuspecting citizens, despite recent and developing research to the contrary, it is also important to highlight that the city has no issue stifling the public from voicing complaints, enforcing dejection from public meetings due to free speech no less and outright disrespect of its citizens with a “majority rule” mentality.

In all of the meetings that I have attended, never have I once witnessed a discussion about the cost of mass fluoridation compared to the cost of toothpaste and toothbrush for those in dire need. If money is to be spent, it should be spent wisely and with the health of the populace at the forefront of your minds. Durham City Council and the DPHB has displayed thus far a blatant disregard for all citizen complaints and has instead supported a biased review of the available information, all while failing to even discuss the financials.

I pledge support to Mr. Sturmer’s Appeal of the DPHB recommendation to continue this unethical practice. The Durham City Council has an obligation its to citizens to conduct sound & unbiased reviews of its practices and to ensure that such reviews are welcoming to public debate, as should be mandated.  It is simply impossible to condense an argument against a policy of this nature and magnitude into 3 minutes for you, our civil servants, to digest and scrutinize. What a shame it would be in years to come to find out that the IQs of the children in Durham have decreased just as those in China and could have been avoided had fluoride been applied only topically, as it is intended, and not via the public water supply. Will you think back to the pesky citizens who warned you and wonder why did we not avoid it all together? That’s only a hypothetical though- what about for all of the mothers who use Durham’s water to mix with their baby’s formula? Should they not at the very least be warned that the CDC has found the levels of “optimal” fluoride currently maintained in Durham will directly increase the child’s risk of dental fluorosis (mottling of tooth enamel)? This information could have been communicated to the Durham Public Health Board during its review of the practice had they allowed citizens to speak without fear of dejection by an officer of the law.

I thank you for your time and for your consideration to this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

Charlee G. Eades

Advertisements

Thanks to a new understanding of water filtration techniques, I have created a brand new page on the top menu bar of DurhamAgainstFluoride which is designed to educate & enable you to protect yourself against the harmful chemicals and medications deliberately added to your municipal tap water.

It is also a very easy and seamless way for you to support my effort to expose the bureaucrats who toxify our water in the first place, since you are able to purchase a home water distiller here which will also contribute $49.00 to our cause and will thus help us pay for this website, flyers and other material to help raise awareness on public water fluoridation.

Check it out today! – “How to Remove Fluoride”

PaulRevere

Alex Jones’ Infowars.com Paul Revere Contest began at the beginning of 2013 to inspire liberty-oriented individuals to produce a short film on the state of our world and the state of freedom, to be considered for a potential $115,000 in prizes!  It was soon thereafter I began working with other activists in Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill to create our entry which was entitled “21st Century Dawes Project” and followed retrospectively the efforts of myself and others in the area to raise awareness on the mass medication of our public water supplies by the bureaucratic & academic “elite” who have convinced generations of people that it is in their best interest to drink an industrial toxic waste – one that is destroying our minds & bodies systematically.

Support Us – Rate & Comment on

“21st Century Dawes Project”

After much hard work the Infowars Paul Revere Contest is now LIVE where our entry is featured.  Please support Durham Against Fluoride, Greater Raleigh Resistance, Fluoride Free Chapel Hill and in general – FREEDOM – by visiting the contest page and commenting/rating our entry.

  • Finalists announced July 17th
  • 3rd place announced July 22nd
  • 2nd place announced July 25th
  • GRAND PRIZE announced July 29th

Support Us – Rate & Comment on

“21st Century Dawes Project”

Subject: On Gary Slade & Fluoride

Dear Mark Schultz,

This letter is in response to the recent article penned under your guidance as News and Observer Editor entitled “OWASA will continue fluoridating water in southern Orange County.”

Specifically I am rebutting Dr. Gary Slade, who serves as professor and director of the Oral Epidemiology Ph.D. program at the UNC School of Dentistry.  Gary was quoted in the aforementioned article alongside myself, making the most blatantly fallacious comments about the reality of this issue that reading them literally took my breath away.

In talking with the article’s author, Dr. Slade said the following which printed in your publication June 18:

Gary Slade

“If Orange County was to remove fluoride from the drinking water, that would mean that a bunch of people would have no choice in a certain aspect of their health because it’s pretty much impossible to buy bottled fluoridated water,”

This was breathtaking because never before had I considered that I would hear a pro-fluoride argument using the same ethical logic as an anti-fluoride argument.  How Slade was able to confuse and flip-flop the moral high-ground on this issue I am unsure, but I would bet money that his employer UNC has a few ethics 101 courses he could take which would point this out to him.

In case extracurricular learning does not fit into Slade’s schedule allow me, an amateur academic by comparison, explain;
  1. The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill first began medicating the water supply with fluoride in Orange County by fiat in approximately 1964.
  2. In 1977, the bureaucratic Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) was formed and given control of our public water supply.  They stubbornly continue pouring medicine into our water up to present day.
  3. Fluoridation as a policy originated in the US Public Health “Service,” an arm of the Federal Security Agency who’s head at the time was Oscar Ewing, an ex-lawyer for the Aluminum Company of America
  4. In 1953 Oscar Ewing retired to Chapel Hill and helped set up the Research Triangle Corporation
  5. The Research Triangle Corporation gives money to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  6. One should wonder what influence Oscar Ewing had within the public health department of UNC who first began fluoridating Orange County’s water
  7. In reality, the people living in OWASA’s public water district never had a choice about this –  especially those born after the practice began
  8. To assert that the cessation of water fluoridation, which was decided by none of us, is “removing choice” is simply logic that is absolutely dead-on-arrival.

Fluoride is an additive costing taxpayers in excess of $100,000/year.  It is added by the government without the consent of the governed; why does Gary pretend it is anything less?  If the city government & overzealous quacks like Slade were not so intent on medicating our drinking water, it would only contain trace levels of Calcium Fluoride, depending on geography, which is completely different than the fertilizer waste product hydrofluorosilicic acid purchased and administered by OWASA to drug all of Chapel Hill.

By the way, most of this information can be gleaned from OWASA’s own documents, made publicly available on their website.

Since fluoridation is a public policy done to us, the citizens, one who becomes aware of the water “treatment” can only ask questions after the fact.  If those questions lead you to doubt the efficacy of public water fluoridation, what are your choices? This is a key question Slade completely fails to ask himself since the answer is yet again, the opposite of the reality he is trying to project.

Why can’t Slade acknowledge that one could easily add fluoride to their non-medicated tap water if they wanted to?  Like all medicine doesn’t this make the most sense? Slade also makes the wrong assumption that he and the government are the ultimate authority on what is healthy or not,  shouldn’t that be left to the individual to decide?    Gary implies in his statement that we all consent and agree to the stated benefits of fluoridation, when it is abundantly clear that we do not!

Slade and others of his ilk believe this is not a decision you are able to make for yourself, he would rather the government make that decision for you.   This is stunning for a doctor to admit in such a public manner, since an ethical doctor would uphold the right of all individuals to consent to what medicine is (or is not) added to their own drinking water.

Slade’s health claims regarding fluoride only further confirm my assertion that fluoride is a drug and therefore illegally added to our drinking water.  How does Slade reconcile that it has its own national drug code # 68032-383, is regulated by the FDA, and requires a prescription for dosages lower than the dose administered by OWASA per 1 liter of Orange County Public Water? Doesn’t Slade know it’s against the law to administer medicine without a proper license?  Slade’s lack of knowledge on these most basic realities of the issue are exposed even further when he expands on the ridiculous notion that finding fluoridated bottled water would be “pretty much impossible” and the apparent main concern of OWASA customers, should they suddenly discover that OWASA stopped medicating their water supply.
He said later,
“Someone can currently buy bottled water without fluoride, or they can put a filter on that is able to remove fluoride. If fluoride is taken out of the water, the opposite does not apply.”

This type of logic is typical of tyrannical government servants and medical “authorities” who believe freedom of choice means one of two things;

  • you are free to remove the medicine they forcefully add to the public water
  • free to purchase bottled water without fluoride

Does that sound like a free choice to you?  None of these options are “free,” especially in consideration of the below:

1) It is incredibly easy to find bottled water that is fluoridated already. Is Slade not aware that most bottled water originates from municipal water sources which  in the United States, are fluoridated more than 80% of the time?

By contrast it is actually much harder to find truly non-fluoridated bottled water. Further to my point – many companies strangely advertise the addition of fluoride to their bottled water. You may have seen this at grocery stores called “Nursey Water.”  It is marketed to unsuspecting mothers- a fact I find incredibly disturbing.  For Slade to suggest that fluoridated bottled water is even close to impossible to find is generously speaking, ignorant hyperbole.

"Nursey Water" Creepy!

“Nursey Water” …”Since 1948!

To illustrate this here is a list of major bottled water brands who admit fluoride is added to their product, a fact you would not be able to discern by looking at their bottle alone:

Source: BottledWater.org

  • Alhambra
  • Arrowhead
  • Belmont Springs
  • Crystal Rock
  • Crystal Springs
  • Deer Park
  • Diamond Springs
  • Hinkley Springs
  • Ice Mountain
  • Kandiohi
  • Kentwood Springs
  • Mayer Bros.
  • Mount Olympus
  • Nursery Water
  • Ozarka
  • Poland Spring
  • Pure Flo
  • Puritan Springs
  • Shenandoah
  • Sierra Springs
  • Sparkletts
  • Zephyrhillis

2)  It is cost prohibitive to filter out the medicine added to your tap water which in a painfully ironic way, ends up hurting worst the same class of citizens public health do-gooders are claiming to help.  I know this myself, since I have had to spend more than $400 on equipment required to remove the medicine and contaminants lovingly added by Durham, a cost many would not bear.

The frustrating thing about fluorosilicic acid is that a cheap Britta filter will not remove it whatsoever, which makes access to the correct filters legitimately impossible for some. The only way I have discovered over the long term to remove FSA from my tap water is with steam distillation, a time & energy consuming process that removes the water from heavier elements contained in the tap water.  Unfortunately, distillation still does not even solve the problem of  showering in the highly corrosive hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is absorbed through your skin & accumulates in your bones over time.

It should be lucid by now, but these are not options. The citizens pay for and have the right to a public utility, water, without medication being added to it by force.  How this is not evident to a professed doctor, Gary Slade, is something I hope he will be able to explain after reading this.

In closing I would just like to say that since becoming an anti-fluoride activist it has been a most curious phenomenon to witness – that many of the most rabid pro water fluoridationists like Slade are dentists, even though one might expect that if fluoride worked as claimed it would put them out of business. With this in mind it was no surprise to me that Gary Slade, a dentist who teaches public health at the UNC school of dentistry, was published promoting the forced medication of all of Chapel Hill.  At least in Orange County it is the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Slade’s employer, the citizens have to thank for their medicated tap water in the first place.

Hopefully this adds some valuable color to Slade’s comments which will help your readership understand their illogicality and offensively spurious nature.

Sincerely Yours,

Corey Sturmer

http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

Contact GARY SLADE Today

Dr. Gary Slade
Department of Dental Ecology
UNC School of Dentistry
CB# 7450
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450

Telephone: (919) 843-0419
Fax: (919) 843-1170
Email: gary_slade@dentistry.unc.edu

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and Coronary Artery Disease

A January 2012 study published by the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System has linked Sodium Fluoride uptake with the hardening & calcification of major arteries, also known as Cardiovascular disease & the number one cause of death in the United States.

The study first appeared in the Nuclear Medicine Communications Journal, a “rapid communications journal publishing research and clinical work in all areas of nuclear medicine for an international readership,”  but these observations have not yet been picked up by the collective.  The research was performed by nuclear medicine physicians who retrospectively reviewed the imaging data and cardiovascular history of 61 patients who received whole-body sodium [F]fluoride PET/CT studies at their institution from 2009 to 2010. Fluoride uptake and calcification in major arteries, including coronary arteries, were analyzed by both visual assessment and standardized uptake value measurement.

In the introduction section it is interestingly noted that the phenomenon of hardening arteries & what risks that may pose to our health has been extensively studied, however Fluoride uptake & it’s clinical significance to coronary arteries has not yet been documented:

To predict and prevent any deadly cardiovascular events, extensive studies have been conducted to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular disease.  Over the past decade, many cardiovascular studies focused on the calcification process in atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries).  Calcification in atherosclerosis occurs through an active process that resembles bone formation and is controlled by complex enzymatic and cellular pathways.  Coronary artery calcification parallels atherosclerosis progress and is strongly and linearly correlated with fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in coronary arteries.  However, the clinical significance of fluoride uptake in coronoary arteries has not been documented.

The results of this study therefore have vast implications for our collectively becoming aware of one main contributing factor to the ongoing scourge heart disease, namely municipal water fluoridation.  This is especially true in consideration that 80% of Americans are since 1957 forcibly fluoridated  via their public drinking water & cardiovascular disease still remains the #1 cause of death in America (600,000/year).

Despite this study’s relative significance to the research produced by Harvard which concluded higher Fluoride uptake predictably lowers the Intelligence Quotient in humans, these specific conclusions have unfortunately not made it into mainstream news to the same degree. Although the full article admits more research should be conducted on the clinical significance of Fluoride uptake, this is the exact problem we face (lack of studies) nearly 60 years into the forced, highly systematic & ubiquitous fluoridation of our municipal water supplies!  One wonders the true extent of damage done if our scientists are only just now realizing the tragic link between Fluoride uptake & a disease that kills more Americans than one hundred and seventy  9/11s combined EACH YEAR

This blows a huge hole in the already horrendously flawed pro-fluoride argument which posits that drinking Fluoride only affects the teeth and does not have any health hazards to other organs of the body.  For fluoride fighters in the area, listen to me debunk local Public Health Terrorist Rebecca King once more, who ridiculously claims ingestion of fluoride is the best thing since sliced bread as it returns to the mouth in our saliva & continuously bathes our teeth in Fluoride-rich fluid! Such a bold faced & twisted manipulation of the facts is incredible in that it intrinsically admits Fluoride is penetrating all cells of the body- even the salivation glands.

So What were the results?

Patients

There were 58 male patients and three female patients. Detailed clinical histories and the presence of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, smoking history, obesity, and history of cardiovascular events, were obtained for all patients. The clinical characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Patients' Clinical CharacteristicsImaging and Statistical Analyses

sd_CTorthopedics_main_enCT and PET images were coregistered by the Philips Extended Brilliance workstation (Philips Healthcare). CT, PET, and fused PET/CT images were evaluated visually and semi-quantitatively simultaneously using the same workstation. All images were analyzed by two independent nuclear medicine physicians blinded to all patients’ clinical information. Inter-reader reproducibility was excellent and was evaluated using an intraclass correlation coefficient (0.89). Vascular calcification was identified as positive on CT images if the target was visually detectable with a greater than 130 Hounsfield units. CT-attenuated PET images were evaluated for fluoride uptake in major arteries. Background activity was based on the standardized uptake value (SUV) of the blood pool, which was calculated from the mean SUVs of three circular regions of interest (ROIs) placed in the left atrium, mid lumen of the aortic arch, and abdominal aorta at the level of the celiac trunk on axial images. The sizes of ROIs were 2cm in diameter for the left atrium and 1cm for the aortic arch and the abdominal aorta.

Results (Abbreviated, click link to view original article)

Patients’ age and reasons for sodium fluoride PET/CT imaging are summarized in Table 1.  Most patients were men with a median age of 66 years (27-91 years).  The majority of patients (69%) had more than one risk factor for coronary artery disease.

Arterial sodium Fluoride uptake and calcification

Arterial wall sodium fluoride uptake and calcification were evaluated in major arteries, including carotid arteries, the thoracic ascending (including aortic arch) aorta, the thoracic descending aorta, the abdominal aorta, femoral arteries, and major branches of coronary arteries. Iliac arteries were not evaluated because of frequently observed urinary and occasional bowel uptake in the pelvis, which interferes with the accurate assessment of iliac vessels. For coronary arteries, four major branches were evaluated. An example of fluoride uptake in femoral arteries is shown in Fig. 1. Orthogonal views of fluoride uptake in the aorta and coronary arteries are shown in Figs 2 and 3.
Figure1
Figure 2Figure3Relationship between coronary fluoride uptake and cardiovascular risk factors
The coronary arteries were also investigated for fluoride uptake. Four major branches of coronary arteries, including left main artery (LMA), left anterior descending (LAD), left circumflex (LCA), and right coronary arteriy (RCA) were evaluated. Fluoride uptake was more frequently observed in the LAD and LCAs.  A similar pattern was also identified in coronary artery calcification. In each individual coronary branch, calcification was more frequently observed than fluoride uptake (Table 2).  Table2
  • Among 10 patients who had significant three-vessel coronary calcifications, 80% demonstrated fluoride uptake in at least one coronary branch (data not shown).
  • Cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension, obesity, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, smoking history, and history of coronary artery disease were reviewed in all patients (Table 3).
  • The majority of the patients (69%) had more than one cardiovascular risk factor; however, neither the individual cardiovascular risk factor nor the number of risk factors was significantly correlated with coronary fluoride uptake (Table 3).
Table3
Nine patients had a history of cardiovascular events. Among them, eight demonstrated identifiable coronary fluoride uptake. There was significant correlation between coronary calcification and fluoride uptake in this group evaluated by Fisher’s exact test (Table 3). All nine patients also demonstrated coronary calcification on CT images. We also compared the SUVmax in coronary arteries between patients with and without a history of cardiovascular events. The average coronary SUV max in patients with a history of cardiovascular events was 1.70, significantly higher than 1.39 for patients without a history of cardiovascular events (P=0.029, two-tailed Student’s t-test). No correlation was observed between cardiovascular risk factors and fluoride uptake in other vascular territories (noncoronary).

Discussion Highlights

Vascular calcification, in particular coronary calcification, has been shown to predict vascular events [25–27]. 

In our study, fluoride uptake and CT calcification are significantly correlated in the same arterial territories, except in the abdominal aorta. This is because of the extremely high positive rate (97%, only one patient demonstrated negative uptake) for fluoride uptake in the abdominal aorta.

 Fluoride uptake either overlaps with calcification or locates adjacent to the detectable calcium deposits, suggesting that fluoride uptake and detectable calcification represent different stages of the atherosclerotic process.

 We found that fluoride uptake in coronary arteries is significantly correlated with a patient’s history of cardiovascular events, and the uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than that in patients without cardiovascular events. These results further support the fact that higher fluoride uptake in coronary arteries indicates increased cardiovascular risk.

The combination of sodium [18F]fluoride PET and CT is a promising imaging modality that provides both metabolic and anatomic information in evaluating vascular calcification. However, large-scale studies are needed to evaluate the clinical significance of fluoride PET/CT for imaging atherosclerosis.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that vascular calcification and fluoride uptake are significantly correlated in the same arterial territory, although not necessarily overlapping in the same anatomic locations. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Combined anatomic and metabolic imaging with sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT offers a promising, noninvasive method to evaluate atherosclerosis.

May 21, 2013 – Fluoride Action Network Press Release

Clean Water Portland

Portland, Oregon — A broad coalition of Portlanders have resoundingly rejected adding fluoridation chemicals to the city’s water supply.  By a 61%  to 39% margin, Portland voters agreed with the positon of most western nations that there are safer, more effective, and less intrusive ways to promote oral health than adding a chemical linked to thyroid disease, IQ loss, and other ailments to the water supply.

“We are proud of our Portland colleagues who used science and integrity to defeat fluoridation and the public relations blitzkrieg that backed it,” says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN’s Executive Director.

Portland’s clean water campaign was spearheaded by Clean Water Portland (CWP), a broad coalition formed in August 2012 after a newspaper revealed secret ongoing fluoridation meetings with Portland City Council members that were illegally kept off the record. With virtually no public input, the City Council mandated fluoridation for the city on September 12. CWP then led an unprecedented effort that gathered over 40,000 signatures in less than 30 days to halt the mandate and force the referendum vote.

Clean Water Portland – Photo by Mark Colman

Fluoride chemicals are the only chemicals added to public water for the purpose of medication. Most western countries, including the vast majority of Europe, do not fluoridate their water.

“Most of Portland’s media falsely reported that fluoridation promoters had science on their side and that opponents used emotion,” says Connett.

“Those opposed did their homework, relying on recent scientific findings from the National Research Council (NRC) and Harvard that raise serious questions about the safety of current fluoride exposures.”

In 2006, the NRC warned that current fluoride exposures in the US may increase the risk of thyroid disease, endocrine disruption, neurological disorders, and bone damage – particularly among people who have medical conditions that increase their vulnerability to fluoride.  The NRC called on scientists to investigate fluoride’s role in chronic disease, but government health authorities have opted against funding this research.

Photo by Mark Colman

Portland’s vote comes just six months after voters in Wichita, Kansas soundly rejected fluoridation by a 20% margin, and follows close on the heels of an announcement this April that Israel will be ending its mandatory fluoridation program. In Ireland, legislation was proposed this spring that would make it a criminal offense to add fluoride to public water supplies, and in Canada, the number of people drinking fluoridated water has dropped by about 25% since 2008.

“The 21st century does not take well to anachronistic medical practices, and fluoridation is no exception.  This is why more than 120 communities have rejected fluoridation over the past 3 years alone,” says FAN’s Campaign Director, Stuart Cooper. “The trend is towards less fluoridation, not more.”

Photo by Mark Colman

In Portland, opposition to fluoridation included the regional Sierra Club, the Portland branch of the NAACP, Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality employees union, and more than 200 local medical professionals. National leaders also weighed in, including Ralph Nader, Lois Gibbs, John Stauber, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, and esteemed scientists Drs. Theo Colborn, William Hirzy and two members of the NRC’s review.

cliff_walkerThe breadth of the coalition was reflected in polling data showing bipartisan opposition to fluoridation among democrats, republicans, and independents alike, and overwhelming opposition among communities of color.

Voters who rejected fluoridation were concerned by research showing low-income communities to be at highest risk of fluoride’s adverse effects with virtualy no offsetting benefit. This fact was not lost on Portland’s low-income neighborhoods, which voted overwhelmingly against fluoridation.

Fluoridation proponents had a massive war chest, raising almost $1 million. They used their nearly 4-to-1 funding advantage and media clout to flood Portland with misleading ads and editorials touting fluoridation as an urgently needed tool for solving the “dental crisis” in the city’s poor neighborhoods.

But there really wasn’t a dental crisis in Portland as the Oregon Department of Health’s own reports indicate. Fluoridationists tried to hide this inconvenient truth, pressuring state officials to not publicize new Smile Survey data showing Portland children’s decay rates have improved without fluoridation and, in fact, are better than most fluoridated cites.

“Fluoridationists had no evidence that any Portland child was fluoride-deficient; but did prove that some Portland children are dentist-deficient.  We urge the legalization of dental therapists in Oregon who will treat the low-income children who dentists refuse to treat,” says Connett.