Fluoride and the First 5

In the continuing saga of “The Fluoride Fallacy,” and the impending increase in our water rates, I’ve been doing more research. 

Here we go again … it’s the proverbial shell game. Take the money from the poor slob with a smoking addiction and give it to our trusted politicians who then teach us poor slobs about the protection of our children’s health. Good idea?

Smoking cessation, vaccinations, fluoridation, prevarication … What is the First Five Commission, this mysterious government entity that most people have never heard of, or perhaps have forgotten, based on Proposition 10, a statewide vote back in 1998?

I too had forgotten about this, but did anyone back then know what would happen to between $500 million and $750 million Bucks (hundreds of millions of dollars annually) once Sacra-Demento got a hold of it?

Most people would agree that this particular sin tax, on cigarettes, is a good thing and would not give it another thought. (If we could just keep the butts off the beaches, right? Of the garbage collected from public beaches, 40 percent is cig butts!) I digress. We blindly trust government and the officials elected, appointed, or hired to serve us.

None of my friends, some very smart individuals I queried in a recent mini-poll, knew what I was talking about when I mentioned the First Five Commission. Here’s some data for you to ponder and verify, taken straight from their official web page:

“First 5 California represents an important part of our state’s effort to nurture and protect our most precious resource — our children. Research shows that a child’s brain develops most dramatically during the early years of life. Our focus at First 5 California is to educate parents and caregivers about the important role they play in their children’s first years. First 5 California’s services and support are designed to ensure that more children are born healthy and reach their full potential.”

Sounds good, but please define “nurture and protect.” Water fluoridation is one of their healthy ideas, on which they spend tons of money, but fluoride isn’t a nutrient, nor is it an essential mineral. Trust me; you don’t want to pollute your young child’s developing body with this chemical! Did you know that state law approving fluoridation is in violation of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act?

“The promise of First 5 California is to continue to invest in services and programs that directly benefit children and families and to advocate for a sustainable early childhood system for future generations. Current efforts at First 5 California include the development and implementation of integrated programs and resources designed to benefit three target audiences: the Child, the Teacher, and the Parent in the focus areas of Nutrition, Early Literacy and Language Development, and Smoking Cessation. Our public education and outreach efforts also target hard-to-reach and low-income populations through a variety of effective media approaches.”

Promises, promises. How are these goals being accomplished? Why is it that preschoolers are more obese than ever before? Why is autism increasing? Why is our state ranked No. 49 in the nation in spending on education? Could it be more waste and corruption? Promote cessation of cigarette smoking, yet legalize marijuana? Who are these experts and how much are they paid? Another case of pigs at a trough?

“While we are proud of First 5 California’s accomplishments to date, our work is far from over. We are eager to work toward meeting the new challenges that await us, and we are confident that we will continue to have a positive impact on California’s youngest children and the futures they deserve.”

Positively outrageous! They claim to base their funding decisions on community input. Please get informed and speak up to your favorite politicians — local, county and state. And, be sure to oppose the water rate increase.

Celia Kiewit is an Encinitas resident.


Filed Under: Community Commentary


RSSComments (22)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. nyscof says:

    Is Fluoride “Brain-Drain” Damaging Generations of Children?

    Fluoride is one of 213 known brain-toxic chemicals that may lower the intelligence of generations of children, reports renowned physician and 30-year brain researcher, Dr. Phillipe Grandjean in his new book, “Only One Chance: How Environmental Pollution Impairs Brain Development,”

    EPA lists fluoride as having “Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity.”

    Fluoride, never safety-tested in humans for brain or many other health effects, is an unapproved drug says the FDA. Yet, physicians and dentists routinely prescribe fluoride supplements and endorse fluoridated water as a cavity-preventive.

    When environmental chemicals affect developing brains, children risk cognitive deficits, learning disabilities, mental retardation, ADHD, autism, cerebral palsy, and other disorders that will remain for a lifetime, says Grandjean.

    “Fluorides are known to cause brain toxicity and neurological symptoms in humans,” Dr. Grandjean says. He laments that vested interests often manipulate brain-drain research and manufacture uncertainties to wrongly discredit scientists’ conclusions and credibility.

    Vested interests caused decades to pass before children were protected from the brain-damaging effects of lead exposure reported in the literature. We unnecessarily lost a generation to lead-induced brain damage, reports Grandjean.

    When Grandjean’s research team published a careful review of studies (meta-analysis) linking fluoride to children’s lower IQ, worried fluoridation promoters and regulators immediately and incorrectly claimed that only excessive exposures are toxic, the effect is insignificant, decades of fluoridation would have revealed brain deficits (although nobody looked, yet), and that it was probably lead and arsenic that lowered IQ, not fluoride.

    “When such a misleading fuselage is aimed at the authors of a careful meta-analysis of 27 different studies, what would it take to convince critics like that,” asks Grandjean.

    Another respected researcher, whose experiments revealed fluoride clearly is brain damaging, was fired because she “was jeopardizing the financial support of [the] entire institution [Forsyth],” writes Grandjean (See: The Fluoride Deception, Chapter 1)

    Grandjean was part of a WHO International Program of Chemical Safety. Most committee members promoted fluoride’s beneficial effects but curtailed any mention of fluoride’s toxic effects in the draft report.

    Grandjean writes, “as I was considered part of the secretariat I had no vote and my views were not allowed in the final document. Realizing that I had been taken hostage, I had to disengage from this report.”

  2. Steven Slott says:

    The “27 different studies” to which Grandjean refers, were found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, were an evaluation of the effect of high, naturally occurring concentrations of fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Iranian, and Mongolian villages, were missing key information, had inadequate controls for variables, and used questionable methodologies. As there seem to be no English translations of these studies by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether these studies had even been peer-reviewed. The studies were so deeply flawed that the two lead researchers of the meta-analysis, Grandjeann, himself, and Anna Choi, felt the need to issue the follwing statement in September of 2012:

    “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

    –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

    The “213 known brain-toxic chemicals” listed by the EPA, is composed of substances that can cause these effects at improperly high levels. Included in the same category as fluoride are aspartame (artificial sweetner), caffeine, and salicylate (aspirin). ALL substances known to man are toxic at improper levels. Water is fluoridated at the miniscule level of 0.7 ppm, at which concentration no adverse effects have ever been proven to occur.

    Fluoride at 0.7 ppm, is a mineral additive to water, identical to that mineral which already exists in water “naturally”. It is therefore under the complete control and regulatory authority of the EPA. The FDA has no authority, or control, whatsoever, over fluoride at this level. There is no requirement, nor any need, for “FDA approval” of this mineral additive any more than is there any such for chlorine or other drinking water additives.

    The litany of disorders attributed to claims made by Grandjean, in nyscof’s comment, have never been demonstrated by anyone to be attributable to water fluoridated at the optimal level. Again, ALL substances known to man are toxic at improper levels, including plain water.

    The “book” cited as being the source of the implication that an employee was fired due to opposing fluoridation, “The Fluoride Deception” was written not by a scientist, reaearcher, or healthcare expert, but by an “investigative reporter”. It has not been peer-reviewed in any manner, as is the norm with credible scientific literature, and is nothing more than opinions.

    Grandjean’s purported “experience” with the WHO committee, is nothing more than hearsay and is totally irrelevant.

    Water fluoridation has been proven beneficial by countless peer-reviewed scientific studies. There has never been any proof of adverse effects attributable to it in its entire 68 year history.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Lara says:

      Please type in fluoride to pubmed.org. There you will read hundreds of peer reviewed studies on the effects of the thyroid, kidneys, and breaking the blood brain barrier. As a person myself who is very ill from fluoride, disabled actually, I can tell you that there are people allergic with kidney issues such as myself that get very ill from fluoride. Since fluoride is in many substances, it is a daily struggle for me. Even showering with it, causes rashes and weakness. The average American does not consume just .7 ppm of fluoride. It is not only in the water, but in the food, the pesticides on our produce, drinks, toothpaste and medications. In fact there are many medications with enormous amounts of fluoride in them above what is considered safe. Once you tally all the sources, you will find that it QUITE exceeds safe limits. Naturally occuring fluoride is not the same animal as fluoridation fluoride. There is an extra molecule in it added to pass through the blood brain barrier. This is why it shows in bones. Giving a mass medication without dosing per individual, is a federal crime. If you want it, be a big boy and take it on your own. Forcing the rest of us to do this when it causes disabilities and health issues, is unfair and criminal. I cannot, living in an apartment, choose to not be exposed to fluoride. There is NO filter that is 100% effective for even a month duration. I have no choice. This is not ethical, and promoting it, is dictating, forcing your will on others. Think about it. If you were seriously ill from something, and others FORCED you to take it, how would you feel?

  3. Kurt Ferre DDS, Portland says:

    Cecilia is entitled to her own opinions, but not her own facts. 16th Century European doctor and alchemist, Paracelsus, stated it well:

    “All Substances are poisons: there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.”

    Fluoride at 0.7 parts per million (ppm) is NOT toxic or poisonous.

    Congratulations to the First 5 Commission for taking the important public health step of increasing the access to optimally fluoridated water to the citizens of California.

    • Doctor Ferre wants to talk about dose and the fact is that a concentration 0.7 PPM is not and never was a dose.

      Paracelsus understood that dose is calculated as weight for weight (example Mg/Kg) not parts per million and it does make a whole lot of difference.

      An infant drinks its weight in water every 3 to 4 days.

      You can do the calculations yourself or watch my Youtube video Poisoned Babies. The dose of fluoride an infant on fluoridated tap-water formula receives is many times greater than has been shown harmful to that infant. It clearly is causal for dental fluorosis and if you review table 23 of the CDC MMWR 2005 review of dental fluorosis it is causing disproportionate harm to minority populations with 4 to 55 of Black and Hispanic children displaying moderate and severe dental fluorosis and 40% of the children in the Us displaying at least two teeth damaged by excess fluoride.

      Damage that is very good for the cosmetic dentists business for sure but certainly bad for the child. Furthermore the actual cost of patching over the fluorosis grossly exceeds even the most exaggerated clams of benefit.

      Paracelsus claimed that dose alone makes the poison “Sola dosis facit venenum”. We now know this 500 year old concept failed to take into account synergistic effects like for example a deficiency in iodine or calcium. It also did not consider racial origins.

      Fluoridation is a flawed approach to public health because the dose an infant on a baby bottle receives from fluoridated tap water is far greater than the eEPA says can harm that child.

    • Dr. Richard Sauerheber says:

      The claim that fluoride at 0.7 ppm in water is harmless by Ferre DDS is false. Consumption of this level of industrial fluoride compounds lacking calcium in soft water supplies lifetime leads to accumulation into bone at thousands of mg/kg, weakening bone above 3,000 (NRC,2006). It takes 5 times as much calcium fluoride as sodium fluoride to achieve this level of accumulation in bone. All industrial fluorides are listed toxics in poisons registries. No registry lists calcium fluoride (or water which must be ingested to remain alive) as a poison because the lethal dose is so high (compared to actual listed poisons). Fluoridated water is illegal, useless, harmful and a complete waste of money. One day it will end because facts are immutable.

  4. David Lewis says:

    “We blindly trust government and the officials elected, appointed, or hired to serve us.” No we don’t. we vote for them again, or those who hired them, or we don’t. Fear of government talk is becoming toxic in this country. Would you rather let the free market care for our kids? And on the issue of fluoride I’ll trust the CDC, the ADA, the AMA and the WHO over a handful of “Fluoride Action Network” spokespeople like NYSCOF.

    • Lara says:

      So we are not supposed to trust the EPA who actually did studies and concluded that babies under 5 years old should never consume fluoride? (Which just happens to be the ‘first five’ years of a child’s life.) P.S. Fluoridation is passed WITHOUT voter approval in most communities. It is a known fact that fluoride lobbyists paid off various city’s politicians to approve it through city council without taxpayer vote. Luckily, Portland did something about it, put it on the ballot and reversed the lobbyist pay offs. That is not a democracy.

  5. David Banks, DDS says:

    Thank you, Ms.Kiewit, for raising public awareness of this important issue.

    There are now 38 studies associating fluoride exposure with lower IQ’s. In addition, lead uptake has been proven to be significantly higher in fluoridated communities and of course lead exposure also lowers mental ability.

    There is absolutely no need for fluoride in human nutrition as evidenced by the absence of fluoride in mother’s milk.

    When will fluoridation proponents understand that fluoride’s effect on tooth decay is topical, not systemic?
    When will they understand that it is not OK to medicate someone without their permission and without regard to individual dose?

    With over 40% of teenagers now showing fluorosis, indicating overexposure to fluoride, clearly First Five is doing our community a great disservice.

    David Banks, DDS

    • Nikki Bradford says:

      Excellent points. Every dentist I have ever been to has told me that the benefits of fluoride come from the topical application on the teeth. System application through drinking water is the LEAST (if at all) effective method and carries the most risks for all other non-teeth body parts. The large scale medication of an entire population without consent or regard to individual dose is something we should all be concerned about.

  6. Dr. Richard Sauerheber says:

    Please examine the 5 day discussion posted by the Parkland WA News Tribune between Slott DDS and myself. He actually boldly claims that the reason “no one has been harmed from fluoridated water for 68 years” is because fluoridation is like chlorination–it doesn’t actually treat people, it merely treats the water! Thus any damage done to people (see for example the recent review free online at Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490)is automatically pre-defined as not being the fault of water fluoridation. What he fails to understand is that chlorination is allowed by the Safe Drinking Water Act because it sanitizes the water. Fluoridated water violates the SDWA which prohibits adding ANYTHING into water other than to sanitize the water. He publicly endorses the violation of U.S. water laws designed to protect our Nation’s water supply. The EPA does not accept liability for fluoridation and is prohibited from requiring it. The same is true for the Oral Health Division office of dentists inside the CDC.
    Of course water is dangerous when you stick your head in it too long–everyone knows this. But water is not a listed toxic on poisons registries like industrial fluoride compounds are listed because a blood level of only 3-5 ppm is lethal for fluoride. This is the concentration that begins to precipitate blood calcium required for normal heart function. At levels considered “low” by Slott in water the blood fluoride is 0.21 ppm (NRC,2006) where it does not belong. This indeed does chronic damage in addition to permanent dental fluorosis enamel hypoplasia in children exposed to it. Calcium in water inhibits fluoride assimilation into blood after ingestion but sadly all added fluoride compounds are industrial,not natural and thus lack calcium for protection from assimilation. Fluoride incorporates into atherosclerotic plaque and accumulates permanently into bone with weakening in elder years when fluoride exceeds 3-4,000 mg/kg in bone (NRC, 2006).
    To remove fluoride from water is difficult because it is such a tiny ion. Please watch the Youtube video at Sauerheber Gerson Institute to educate yourself on how to remove it. Protect your kids from this insidious poison (listed LD50 60 mg/kg single oral dose in tested mammals, Merck Index)because the EPA will not help you. The EPA has no controlled human clinical trials data from which to determine a low enough dose to totally prevent any chronicvlow-level-induced symptoms, particularly in those lacking kidneys. And the EPA imagines like Slott that “fluoride is fluoride”, independent of source. Understand that the LD50 for natural calcium fluoride is a safe 3-5,000 mg/kg single oral dose in tested mammals. This is why filtered municipal water (with natural fluoride still present) was never a problem for kidney dialysis patients. But targeted levels of industrial fluoride in water when used in dialysis equipment has killed kidney patients from calcium sequestration in blood. You may wish to check the FDA report on this phenomenon since Slott will claim I am ‘scaring people with falsehoods.’ But I am helping my neighbors here in Encinitas and Slott has nothing to do with it. Slott, like the OHD, cannot even answer the most simple question–how does fluoride in saliva at 0.02 ppm from drinking water have any effect on teeth topically when this is 75,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste? CDC did not know the answer because the actual answer is that 0.02 ppm fluoride topically cannot affect caries. U.S. citizens are paying money for an illegal, useless, harmful boondoggle.

  7. Here’s a take you might not expect on Fluoride.

    Encinitas is an affluent Meca of California. Since when were there “impoverished” kids in Encinitas that needed fluoridated water in the first place? Notwithstanding the corrupt sociopaths at the wheel the voters and couldn’t tie their shoes unaided even if fluoridation was one of the oldest con games in this county. First Five, every single city council member and every single water board member is in my opinion guilty of fraud and lying to the public. But why are they lying in such a consistent blockade? They are doing it because it is expected OF them by the CDC (a militarized entity), the ADA and the state of California. Powers that control them one hundred percent. It’s a POLICY OUT OF CONTROL that either pays them off, intimidates them or outright threatens them. I have spoken to hundreds of council members nation wide this year. They ALL KNOW what fluoride is, what it does to those who drink it. When they were not completely brainwashed (which very few of them were) they said they were forced to tow the line pro fluoride or suffer the consequences. That is the power of POLICY. Until the policy changes we’re going to be filtering our water.

    Furthermore, Southern California residents simply do not have the political will to organize, stand up and fight like citizens did in Portland. We are simply a different kind of animal. These kind words in lieu of far less politically correct words are an inditement of every citizen living in this amazing county.

    So when you shower tomorrow morning an you get an unavoidable transdermal dose of fluoride equal to drinking a gallon of unfiltered tap water, inhale chloramine, and chlorine gasses among other nasty elements, you have only yourselves to thank for the privilege of paying for the poisons you and your kids will enjoy in the years to come. That is until you stand up like Portland and just say NO.

  8. JLSS says:

    Dear Dr. Slott,

    As such a highly respected and well educated dentist I am sure that you are very well aware that certain of your patients are allergic and/or sensitive to certain drugs and/or materials that are used in dentistry. Please answer each and every question–

    1. When a new patient comes to your office for treatment do you have them fill out a questionnaire first so you can identify which drugs and/or materials a patient is allergic and/or sensitive to? Yes or No

    2. Would you just go ahead and treat them without having this vital information in advance? Yes or No

    3. If you answered “Yes” to 2., what would the legal and moral implications of your doing this be? Please Explain

    4. If you answered “No” to 2, why you would not do it? Please Explain

    5. If a patient discloses to you that they are allergic and/or sensitive to a certain drug and/or material what do you do? Would you go ahead and use it anyway since most of your other patients tolerate the drug and/or material? Yes or No

    6. If you answered “Yes” to 5, why would you think it would be legally and ethically all right for you to do so? Please Explain

    7. If you answered “No” to 5, is it because you could inflict harm and even possibly kill the allergic/sensitive patient? Yes or No

    8. If you never met me would you come to my house and without knowing my medical history and which drugs and/or materials I am allergic and/or sensitive to force me to ingest or apply to my skin a drug and/or material? Yes or No

    9. If you would do such a thing why would you think it was safe or ethical to do so? Please Explain

    10. If you would not do such a thing why wouldn’t you? Please Explain

    11. Would you urge anyone else to come to my house and do that to me? Yes or No

    12. If not why not? Please Explain

    13. As a dental professional are you aware that allergic/sensitive reactions to various drugs and/or materials can vary from individual to individual and that different people can exhibit different reactions. For example one person could get nauseated or another could become dizzy or another may suffer a fatal episode of Anaphylaxis? Yes or No

    14. Considering that approximately 1% of the population is allergic/sensitive to fluoride do you think that segment of the population ought to be forced to ingest artificially fluoridated water and to apply it to their skin which results in dermal absorption–for example every time they wash their hands or take a shower? Yes or No

    15. I am one of those people who are allergic/sensitive to fluoride. In my case exposure to artificially fluoridated water results in serious and potentially fatal reactions. I do not have to drink it to suffer these symptoms–simple dermal exposure results in my suffering the same reactions because it is absorbed directly through the skin and is disseminated systemically. Do you think I should be forced to have fluoridated water? Yes or No

    16. If you answered “Yes” why do you think so? Please Explain

    17. If you answered “No” why do you think so? Please Explain

    18. Knowing that a certain segment of the population is allergic/sensitive to fluoride do you believe that it is ethically and legally permissible for you to publicly proclaim that artificial fluoridation is safe without providing a qualifying statement that it is harmful to a certain segment of the population? Yes or No

    Of course artificial fluoridation has numerous other detrimental systemic health effects–for instance on the thyroid, kidneys, brain, bones etc. However I want to confine my questions and your answers to just this one specific aspect–that of allergy/sensitivity to fluoride.

    I do not want my time wasted with proclamations of the prevalence of fluoride such as the amounts of calcium fluoride found in nature. Nickel is also a common naturally occurring and widely prevalent element yet is well known to be a strong allergic sensitizer. For example almost all of us know someone who cannot wear jewelry which contains nickel. Hopefully neither of you would be so incompetent so as to place a nickel based crown, for example, into the mouth of a patient with nickel sensitivity and then when the patient reacted badly proclaim that it did not matter that you had acted in such a reckless manner because nickel is such a prevalent element that the patient could not avoid it completely.

    Thus please confine your answers to the specific above questions which I have numbered for your convenience. I am looking forward to reading the responses you will provide. Please number your responses to correspond with the questions.

    *Because you would not answer the simple questions when they were posted on two separate website comment sections in which I repeatedly requested the answers I am providing the links for the readers to see for themselves the ridiculous lengths you went to to avoid doing so and which resulted in your publicly humiliating yourself and losing your credibility http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/time-for-brooksville-to-add-fluoride-funds/2131045 and http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/06/28/2658316/parkland-will-lose-fluoridated.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy

  9. Our corporate-run government clearly has no interest in truth, health, transparency or accountability and have used their guns, law making capabilities, mass media power and security forces to ensure that honest investigations of state crimes like the fluoridation policies and many other atrocities are never carried through.

    As big corporate bodies take over virtually all of our governance and enforce their authoritarian values with impunity, we lose our right to know what they are doing while they blithely invade our privacy, pollute our water, air and food supply with dangerous chemicals more and more every day. Now we, the supposedly sovereign people, are stark naked to our “public servants” while they in turn are totally shielded from liability, culpability and visibility.

    Californians must awaken to organize and address the matrix of mendacity we are living in and what it might take to reveal the truth of fluoridation politics and its long buzarre history and turn our usurped country around. It takes at least a solid ten percent of the population to make a difference. This “magic ten percent” should be the mantra and bumper sticker for the cultural antibodies reared to subdue theses cancers like the fluoridation policy business. The great giant of public outcry must awaken and act in concert in order to re-establish democratic control of overgrown agencies and corroborate power elite. Keep organizing, focusing and communicating people. And never give in or give up. Our conscious choice to buy organic, local and as close to nature as possible is a start. It is a vote with every dollar. Finance those who are making the changes we want to be and you will become the change you want to see.

  10. Leigh Skinner says:

    What the proponents of fluoridation seems to easily overlook is that some people are highly allergic to hydrofluorosilicic acid, a by-product of aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing, and the substance San Diego is adding to its water. It is 17% fluoride and the rest is heavy metals and poisons like arsenic and lead. It hurts dialysis and kidney and low thyroid patients and it is mass medication without informed consent. And only about 1% of what comes out of the tap is consumed, and the rest washes cars and laundry and people and waters lawns, so it is the most inefficient way to affect teeth.

    So whether it is the best thing since sliced bread of a dangerous substance, is immaterial. If one wants it in their water, by all means buy fluoridated bottled water, which any bottled water company will sell you. For the rest of us, leave us alone.

Leave a Reply

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.