Roiling The Waters
A bill to mandate fluoride in New Jersey’s public water supply has pitted some natural allies against each other. Can dentists, environmentalists, and other groups resolve their differences?
A bill to mandate fluoride in New Jersey’s public water supply has pitted some natural allies against each other. Can dentists, environmentalists, and other groups resolve their differences?
Photo by John Kuczala.
In New Jersey Dental School’s pediatric clinic in Newark, Dr. Nanci S. Tofsky and her students peer into the mouths of very young children whose teeth are already filled with decay.
“We’re seeing significant dental caries in kids as young as a year and a half old,” says Tofsky. “It’s to the point sometimes that we aren’t even able to save their teeth. When I see that, I get very sad.”
Poor oral hygiene and a carbohydrate-rich diet contribute to the problem, but such children, says Tofsky, are also “not getting the right amount of fluoride.” As a remedy, she prescribes a dietary fluoride supplement—a therapy that works well enough, as long as parents remember to refill the prescriptions, which many do not. Tofsky and many of her colleagues would prefer that Newark’s inner-city children receive fluoride in the public water supply. “Having it in the water would make their teeth stronger and more resistant to decay from other sources,” she says.
Newark, however, is one of a number of large cities in New Jersey—Camden, Elizabeth, Jersey City, and Paterson are others—that do not add fluoride to their drinking water.
In fact, only 22.6 percent of New Jerseyans served by a public water system drink fluoridated water, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta. Only Hawaii has a lower percentage of residents receiving fluoridated water.
A bill introduced in the New Jersey Assembly in February would change that. Sponsored by, among others, Assemblyman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington), chair of the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee and a medical doctor, the bill, the first of its kind in New Jersey, would mandate fluoridation in all public community water supply systems. Currently, the state leaves the fluoride decision up to individual municipalities. The bill has already been reported out of Conaway’s committee and awaits action by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
But the bill is not without its opponents—notably environmental groups and water companies. They object to mandated fluoridation on a number of grounds: its impact on the environment, what they see as potentially deleterious effects on humans, and the cost of implementation. And though some of these critics find it odd to be at loggerheads with the health community, they are united in their opposition to the fluoride legislation.
Conaway claims his bill would have multiple benefits. Not only would it address a public health problem—one that he says hits “the less affluent in society” especially hard—it would also save money in the long run. “For every dollar we invest, we can expect to save about $40 in treatment and other costs,” says Conaway, citing CDC figures.
The New Jersey Dental Association supports the Conaway bill. Arthur Meisel, NJDA executive director and general counsel, agrees that it would not only benefit the entire state but would have an especially big impact on “persons who don’t have the same access to [dental] care as everyone else.” The CDC, citing studies indicating that fluoridation reduces decay in permanent teeth by up to 40 percent, is another proponent of fluoridation.
Individual dentists feel much the same way. Dr. Elisa J. Velazquez, a pediatric specialist who practices in the non-fluoridated town of Toms River and is a 2009 Top Dentist according to the New Jersey Monthly survey, says she’s “a fluoride advocate.” So is Dr. Irvin B. Sherman, also a 2009 Top Dentist.
Sherman has practiced pediatric dentistry for 33 years in East Brunswick, which has been fluoridating its water supply for at least that length of time. “I can tell you that the population of children in East Brunswick has a lower cavity rate than the children I see in the immediately surrounding towns, like Old Bridge, South River, and Englishtown,” says Sherman. Dr. Joseph Banker, a 2009 Top Dentist who practices general dentistry in Westfield, where the water is fluoridated, and Elizabeth, where it is not, says, “I think it would be pretty hard to find a dentist who wouldn’t be an advocate of water fluoridation.”
Jeff Tittel, chapter director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, is one of those who regrets the split the Conaway bill has caused between the “normally allied” health and environmental communities. Still, he thinks the fluoride debate is one in which “good intentions” come with “a whole range of other problems.”
Among other things, Tittel fears that cost-conscious water companies would use a cheap and less pure form of fluoride, which he refers to as industrial grade, rather than a medical grade. The cheaper fluoride, he says, is a by-product of phosphate fertilizer production. “It’s actually coming out of the plant’s air filters, and it contains heavy metals, including arsenic and lead,” says Tittel. “Our concern is that, as we are fluoridating the water with these materials, we are also adding a lot of other toxic chemicals.”
Tittel’s other big concern is the danger of overfluoridation in certain areas of the state, including the Passaic River Basin. “There are 70 sewage plants that discharge treated water already containing some fluoride above the Little Falls intake on the Passaic River,” he says. “If the river water taken up at Little Falls is then fluoridated to standard, you pick up not only the added fluoride but also the fluoride from all the sewage plants above.” Unless the standard were reset, Tittel says, the fluoride buildup in the water could end up overfluoridatng people and causing harm to macroinvertabrates and other parts of the ecosystem.
Other New Jersey environmentalists are even more critical of fluoridated water. “We don’t think fluoride should be added to the water at all,” says Sharon Finlayson, board chair of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, a state chapter of Clean Water Action, a national organization based in Washington, D.C. “There are other ways to obtain it if a doctor thinks you need it.”
The most common of these are the over-the-counter fluoride dental products, such as toothpastes and mouth rinses. Fluoride can be applied directly to the teeth in a dentist’s office or, as in the case of the dentists in Nanci Tofsky’s pediatric clinic, it can be prescribed as a dietary supplement, which is available in tablets or drops. In some New Jersey communities—including Burlington, Chester, Glassboro, Vernon, and New Milford—residents already get naturally occurring fluoridated water that is at or near desired concentration levels.
Finlayson and her group express concern about the “negative health impacts” of fluoridated water, especially at a time when people are receiving fluoride from multiple other sources. In testimony before Conaway’s committee in February, she reeled off a list of these impacts, including a condition in children known as dental fluorosis, in which young teeth overexposed to fluoride become pitted, mottled, and discolored.
Finlayson also alluded to research that showed suspected links between fluoride in the water and skeletal fluorosis, which in extreme forms (possibly following long-term ingestion of large amounts of fluoride) can lead to crippling; hypothyroidism; osteosarcoma (a rare type of malignant bone cancer seen only in boys); lowered IQ; and male reproductive damage, among other problems. “The list of potential side effects should be enough to stop mandatory fluoridation,” she told committee members.
Confronted with the environmentalists’ criticisms, proponents of fluoridation cite CDC assurances that fluoride is safe and effective.
On the charge that fluoridated water has potentially dangerous health effects, Dr. Bill Bailey, a dental officer in the CDC’s Division of Oral Health, cites the “weight of the evidence” to the contrary. “Opponents might point to a single study from China that says water fluoridation is lowering IQ,” Bailey says, “but our approach is to consult expert panels that look at all the evidence, not just one study.” (The “weight of the scientific evidence,” says the CDC, also does not support the alleged association between fluoridation and osteosarcoma.) Bailey quickly adds, though, that the CDC always has an eye out for new research.
CDC is equally confident in addressing other environmental concerns, including the fears articulated by Tittel and others that an industrial grade of fluoride will add to the contaminants in New Jersey waters, and that regulating the amount of fluoride in certain areas will prove problematic.
On the first point, CDC National Fluoride Engineer Kip Duchon pulls no punches: “We really don’t have illegal immigrants scraping fluoride off the inside of smokestacks in phosphate fertilizer plants.” Instead, says Duchon, fluoride additives are produced from phosphorite rock—which is mined from the earth—in the process of manufacturing phosphate fertilizer. “This isn’t like some waste product,” says Duchon. “It’s a very high-quality product.”
Does it contain impurities, as Tittel and other environmentalists contend? “Of course it does, because we live on an imperfect planet, and everything has an impurity,” Duchon says. The real question for the EPA, the agency in charge of water safety, is whether the fluoride water additive contains dangerous levels of contaminants—and there, Duchon says, the evidence is clear.
As he explains, the EPA is responsible for developing maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water—that is, levels below which contaminants pose no health risk. In the case of fluoridated water, it went a step further, partnering with outside groups, including the National Sanitation Foundation, to develop a safe standard for fluoride additives.
When the NSF tested fluoride products for arsenic, for example, 57 percent of the samples showed no evidence of the contaminant, though all were tested at much higher-than-permitted use levels. The remaining 43 percent showed detectable arsenic, but no sample exceeded 6 percent of the regulatory limit. Lead testing showed even lower contaminant levels.
The second big concern raised by environmentalists—that some areas like the Passaic River Basin will end up with too much fluoride—is also overstated, Duchon maintains. For one thing, he says, any water discharged from sewage plants will already contain significantly reduced fluoride levels, since “a portion of the wastewater reaching a sewage plant is ground water that leaked into the sewer pipes.”
The groundwater acts to dilute the fluoride in the wastewater. Significantly more dilution of any discharged water occurs as it flows into the river. If this river water is then taken up and fluoridated, the treatment plant is supposed to only add the amount of fluoride that it needs to.
Also critical of the Conaway measure are many of the state’s investor-owned and public water companies. “We’re against the bill’s overly simplistic approach,” says Ellen Gulbinsky, executive director of the Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey, which represents publicly owned facilities. “We think the decision-making should remain at the local level.”
The New Jersey Utilities Association, a trade group representing investor-owned utility companies, including water companies whose rates are set by the state Board of Public Utilities, is similarly opposed to taking the decision-making out of local hands and giving it to Trenton.
“It’s inappropriate in light of the costs involved, costs that would have to be passed along to customers, especially given that the vast majority of New Jersey people can obtain fluoride for dental hygiene through less expensive means,” says Karen Alexander, NJUA’s president and CEO. (One NJUA member, New Jersey American Water, which is the state’s largest investor-owned water company and already serves a number of fluoridated communities, is “neutral” on the bill.)
In a letter to Assembly Appropriations Committee chair Nelida Pou, a Democrat representing District 35, which includes Paterson, Alexander said that “upfront costs” would range from $400,000 for smaller utilities to more than $64 million for the largest ones. Annual operating costs, she noted, would range from $20,000 to $533,000. “These costs would be incurred by any system...not already adding fluoride to its water supply,” Alexander explained in her letter.
On December 1, 2002, for example, the city of South Brunswick began a fluoridation program. According to spokesperson Ron Schmalz, installation of the fluoridation system for the city of 44,000 people was about $800,000. Annual operating costs range from $30,000 to $40,000, depending on the price of the fluoride additives and other factors.
The more cost-effective way to go if the goal is to reach underserved populations, Alexander says, is to “devise a very targeted outreach to these populations.”
Conaway is skeptical of this approach. Once the required setup, staffing, and management resources are added up, he says, this outreach program would end up being “a much costlier proposition” and one that would ultimately reach far fewer people. He argues that spreading the cost among large populations reduces it “to a trivial amount.” (In South Brunswick, it breaks down to between 70 cents and 90 cents per capita annually—not including the installation cost.)
Asked about the likely fate of his proposal, Conaway ticks off the public health, cost savings, and scientific arguments in its favor. “When you have that kind of force behind a proposal, I think it’s irresistible,” says Conaway, who predicts action on his measure before the end of the year.
At least some of his critics are betting otherwise. “In its current form, it won’t go anywhere,” says Tittel.
CLICK HERE FOR A LIST OF FLUORIDATED COMMUNITIES IN NJ. (this file is in PDF format, if you have trouble viewing it you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader located here or download an alternative copy here)
Correspondent Wayne J. Guglielmo reports on health issues for New Jersey Monthly.
First, as all who are over the age of 50 should be, I am opposed to adding fluoride in any form to water since the natural level in NJ water is already at or above the level considered safe for infants (0.04ppm] and those who have decreased kidney function.
If we add flouride to water, where are the poorest families who would have to indirectly/ directly pay for the increased water costs going to find the money to pay for the fluoride-free water needed to reconstitute their newborn’s baby formula? or for the elderly who would fuoride-free drinking?
Finally, the actual toxicity data on fluoride in water clearly shows it is NOT safe at levels above 0.1 ppm for all to consume and, at the levels proposed, the evidence is clear that it increases the risk of bone cancer in developing children especially boys. Thus, in reality the claims of "safety" made by the CDC, other public health officials and and the pro-fluoride dentists are, like similar claims that it is "safe" to inject Thimerosal (49.55% mercury by weight) into pregnant women and developing children, provably false.
If fluoridated water comes to my community, then I and most others who value their health and that of heir children will be forced to relocate to a state where there is no such "medical" tyranny that attempts to medicate the public without their informed consent. If you want the truth, please visit:
the FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK’s website:
Posted by: Paul G. King, Lake Hiawatha, NJ | Jun 27, 2009 17:45:11 PM |
Safe and effective fluoride
I am 61 and I value my health and I particularly value the health of my grandchildren. Fluoride has been proven safe over many years. If fluoridated water comes to my community I will be happy to drink it particularly knowing the advantage that it has for the dental health of my grandchildren.
The denists, the CDC, the EPA and I agree, fluoridated water is a good idea. Paul King disagrees.
Posted by: Forrest Robleto, firstname.lastname@example.org | Jun 30, 2009 23:23:01 PM |
Here in central Florida, the phosphate mines and fertilizer industries use wet scrubbers to capture the fluorine gases that were causing environmental damages to plants and cattle. Google for AWWA Standard for Fluorosilicic Acid B703-06 which is expensive, but utility depts. usually have copy. The foreword gives this same data and page ix notes: "The transfer of contaminants from chemicals to processed water or the residual solids is becoming a problem of greater concern." Then, page 13 is entire page of contaminants ranging from heavy metals as arsenic, lead, more down to "Radionuclides" as uranium, radium 226-228 and Alpha and Beta particles. All low levels, but can be cumulative in the body, also cooking with this water, it accumulates, not evaporates.
Two government books available online are:
"Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F), 1993 and 2003
"Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride", 1993, National Academy of Sciences report for Congress
In my archaeological book: "The Geology of Florida", 1997, University Press of Florida, page 143 notes:
"In addition to uranium, fluorine is an economical byproduct of phosphoric-acid production. The fluorine from the rock reacts with silica to form SiF4 gas. During acid production this gas is recovered as Fluorosilicic Acid (H2SiF6) in wet scrubbers that are part of the environmental-protection equipment. Fluorosilicic Acid is widely used in the preparation of chemical compounds and in the treatment of public drinking water."
Posted by: Anita Knight , St. Petersburg, Florida | Jul 04, 2009 04:56:02 AM |
A huge amount of current science strongly proves ingested fluorides have little if any ability to decrease cavities. Intake is directly proven to increase skyrocketing dental fluorisis. This is passed off as cosmetic only by the dental establishment but then a huge industry of cosmetic restoration is a huge income boon for dentists. The porous,discolored, brittle, easily stainable and breakable when drilled is nothing but extra expense to the public. The dentists try to blame all the ugly problems on parents not supervising and controling fluoride toothpaste intake in the young children. Many very young accidently swallow a toxic tooth damaging dose this way alone. Food and beverages are so contaminated as to be a toxic dose for some.But the foundation of this over exposure is still fluoridation as proved by the York Review 2000 showing fluoridation tripled damage from 15% before fluoridation to 48%, Do we deserve informed consent or not? 12.5% of that was ugly enough for expensive cosmetic repairs. This has become a mega huge cash cow for dentists.
A very ugly fact is most dentists refuse to treat the poor on medicaid. Not enough money in medicaid payments and many poor kids have unpleasant things to treat. Many cities do not have a single dentist willing to treat medicaid kids. Transportation is often a huge issue preventing treatment. Only 4 of over 200 dentists in my county will treat the medicaid kids which is 2%. Dentists have turned their back on the poor and given them fluoridation as a smokescreen in a feeble attempt to hide the ugly truth.
Posted by: Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach Fl | Jul 06, 2009 13:54:20 PM |
Risks of fluoridation
Most of the world does not fluoridate and have decreased cavities as much and often more then few that do fluoridate. The WHO data clearly shows this for those that look. FAN has this data. Somehow the same is ture of CDC data in every state with no relationship shown to % fluoridated and cavity decrease. Instead Kentucky with 96% fluoridation has the worst teeth with the most missing. Burt 2007 documents Detroit and other huge poor inner cities with skyrocketing dental disasters after over 50 years of fluoridation. Detroit had nearly 100% with cavities by 5 years and 84% by 14 with untreated cavities. Almost all drank fluoridated water followed by soda and chips. Missing were vegetables and fruits in the perfect diet for poor health in calcium magnesium deficent children. Most have dental fluorisis proving they were fluoride toxic as infants. The CDC in 2005 and 2007 again admitted blacks with double the ugly moderate and severe dental fluorisis as whites but this was known in the first Grand Rapids experment(Russell 1962). This truth is not spoken by dentists and CDc and health department to the public. Sometimes the cure is the disease in public health. Honesty is often the first casuality in this fluoridation battle.
The EPA scientists are in a unreported revolt against the fraud of fluoridation. This started in 1985 and has grown to 11 EPA unions asking congress to halt fluoridation in 2005 and a goal of ZERO just like other cumulative toxins. Congress has not responded yet. 19 as of 29 Feb 2008 ask for halt. This is a huge red flag ignored. How do you ignore the 10,000 professionals with the skills to understand the science? This is a whole body toxic issue and dentists are not qualified outside the oral cavity by training and regulation. Cancer risks,thyroid, joint pain, hip fracture, decreased IQ are just the tip of the iceburg. Your dentist is not qualified to comment but they do with no knowldge of your fluoride intake total or personal sensitivities. Even peanuts can kill some.
Posted by: Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach Fl | Jul 06, 2009 14:22:36 PM |
Fluoride linked to health issues
This is very strange to me. Even The Department of Health in New Jersey has linked fluoride to increased bone cancer rates in young males. The US EPA has pretty much confirmed the findings in small animals, and the and there are numerous studies showing that fluoride lowers the IQ of children.
These issues need to be studied way before such a program is put in place and areas where such a program is in place the practice should be suspended.
I don’t know if this is really relevant but way back when scientists were trying to figure out why children in the southwest had better teeth health. That’s when fluoride was discovered. I can’t help but wonder if we are trying to protect this American discovery. Pretty much all of Europe has discontinued the practice due to the cure being worse than the disease.
Posted by: Jeffrey, none | Aug 12, 2009 11:35:56 AM |
To ignore the possible horrific negative effects cited in exchange for the miniscule positive effects is criminal and those proposing such nonesense should be strung up... or at least not be allowed to be part of any decision making process as they exhibit a flaming reckless ignorance
Posted by: E Con, Magnolia | Sep 17, 2009 18:39:12 PM |
Fluoridation not safe & not effective
The average person unfortunately has been fooled by this - industry control over Governments is behind this - silicofluorides/fluorides/fluorines potent neurotoxins and also damage kidney and other organs. As well as the silicofluoride poisons in Australia (probably the same there) they add aluminium sulphate, this also potent neurotoxin and damages kidneys and other organs - extensive information from many professors of chemistry, neurotoxicologists and other professionals have researched and reported on the dangers to our health and environment of silicofluorides/fluorides/fluorines - remember the silicofluorides added to water supply is the dangerously corrosive toxic waste pollutants sourced from industries, too toxic to dump anywhere, costs a fortune to properly dispose of, so keep telling the foolish population it’s good for their teeth and we can use their kidneys as toxic waste disposal filtration units.
See Fluoride Action Network Professor Paul Connett (Chemistry Professor) www.fluoridealert.org
FIRE WATER Australia’s Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace
Also see Report from FLUORIDE RESEARCH on WATER FLUORIDATION & CRIME in the United States of America
If water fluoridation were ended, it might take a generation for the effects to recede. If it continues to expand, the “signal” identified in this study may get lost in the “noise” of ENDEMIC VIOLENCE.
CHEMICAL IN FLUORIDATED WATER MAY CAUSE VIOLENT BEHAVIOR AND COCAINE USE, SCHOLAR SAYS 1998 ARTICLE http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/violence.html
VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR AND CRIMINALITY - ADVERSE HEALTH & BEHAVIOUR FROM SILICOFLUORIDES
Fluoride & Aggression - http://dianabuckland.webs.com/fluorideaggression.htm
Prof. Roger Masters and Mary Sparrowdancer
PORT MACQUARIE SILICOFLUORIDE POISONING BEGINS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txigSQzPpks
FLUORIDE HEALTH EFFECTS: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/
POISON ON TAP - THESE ARE THE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS ’FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS’
Posted by: Diana Buckland, Queensland Australia | Mar 27, 2011 20:20:37 PM |
Fluoridation not safe & not effective
Sorry everyone, that link for FIRE WATER Australia’s Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace www.firewaterfilm.com
’big business’ controls everything - One of the great whistleblowers Shiv Chopra Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower wrote of Health Canada CORRUPT TO THE CORE - An extract from that “The cancer of corporate corruption of science and safety regulations is becoming a major threat to the planet’s health and to public health.
BOYCOTT THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
Marching in lockstep with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in its "war" on cancer is its "ministry of information," the ACS. With powerful media control and public relations resources, the ACS is the tail that wags the dog of the policies and priorities of the NCI. In addition, the approach of the ACS to cancer prevention reflects a virtually exclusionary "blame-the-victim" philosophy. READ MORE
The American Cancer Society (ACS), the world’s wealthiest "non-profit institution", is fixated on damage control - - screening, diagnosis and treatment, - - and genetic research, with indifference or even hostility to cancer prevention. Together with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the ACS has failed to provide Congress, regulatory agencies and the public with the strong body of scientific evidence clearly relating the escalating incidence of non-smoking related cancers to involuntary and avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products - - food, cosmetics and toiletries - - so that appropriate corrective and legislative regulatory and action has not been taken. Nor have citizens been provided with available information to protect themselves against avoidable cancer risks. As such, the ACS bears a heavy responsibility for the current cancer epidemic, with lifetime risks now approaching one in two for men and one in three for women . These concerns are further compounded by incestuous conflicts of interest, apart from serious financial irregularities.
Source: American Anti-cancer Institute http://americanaci.org/articlepage.aspx?categoryID=19
Posted by: Diana Buckland, Queensland Australia | Mar 27, 2011 20:34:35 PM |
There is no reason for human beings to drink fluoride. There is an enormous amount of information in books and the internet that you will not get from institutional sources.
At this critical point, there’s no excuse for only listening to the mainstream view which has been so damaging to the interests of the common man. Wake up!!!!!
Countries in Europe are banning fluoride left and right, and you should know why. Look at the effects of fluoridation in Ireland vs. in Northern Ireland, where it hasn’t been implemented.
Saying that government funded science approves is not good enough. I wouldn’t even say that it’s good.
Posted by: FREEDOM OF CHOICE, New Brunswick | Nov 05, 2011 16:08:52 PM |
Fluoride is a poison
While the CDC and Dental Associations will continue to prey upon the ignorant, every conclusive study proves the typical fluoride added to water supplies is an industrial by-product, and highly dangerous.
Posted by: Chris, Bloomfield | Nov 10, 2011 20:17:27 PM |
It is totally unconstitutional to add any "medication" to the masses via the water or otherwise. But we know our elected "officials" do not care about the CONSTITUTION.
There are any number of detrimental effects to ingesting too much fluoride. It is in everything that we eat, as it is. Plants take it up from the ground, the animals eat it (along with GMO’s), and it is known to do damage to the thyroid and cause innumerable other health problems, let alone destroying brain cells.
While other cities are getting it out of the water after a decades’ long mistake, why should we pay to have it put INTO our water??
I, for one, along with countless others, do NOT want it in my water. It also has been shown that fluoride is INEFFECTIVE when ingested. It causes mottling of the bones, bone cancer, and on and on. This contributes to fat, stupid and lazy populace.
There is an easy solution: If someone wants to take fluoride, let THEM TAKE IT. Remember the news saying DO NOT GIVE FLUORIDE TO BABIES??? Wake up, everyone!!!!
Posted by: Maggie, Toms River | Jan 31, 2012 18:31:41 PM |
Flouride used in water is a by product of Phosphate
flouride used in water is a toxic waste by product of Phosphate which the FDA considers HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCT.
How is drinking a waste by product helpful to your teeth? Applied on teeth yes-drinking does not benefit the internal organs.
Wonder why our children have problems? Watch this
you tube video is simply explains the lies we all
have been given.
Posted by: Carol Zygmund, east Brunswick | Mar 01, 2012 10:15:41 AM |
Say NO to poison in your water
Just ask yourself why the government wants to add a chemical to your water that has been shown to reduce IQ by 20 points on average (assuming lifelong consumption since birth). I suspect they like apathetic, uninformed voters.
Posted by: Phillip Carlsson, Hardyston | Oct 28, 2012 13:39:30 PM |
Studies have shown that fluoride can cause hyperthyroidism and that in places where it was used, the more fluoride in the water, the younger the age of women bearing Downs Sydrome Children. Go to the dentist and put it on your teeth. Don’t swallow it every day.
Posted by: Karen Purcell, Mays Landing | Feb 27, 2013 18:39:20 PM |