Alright, here are a few from literally thousands.
Should I be giving my baby flouride?http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080208221715AAEtdzgFrom the article:
Fluoride is a neuro-toxin. It is not a nutrient like so many people seem to believe. If it was a nutrient, it would occur naturally in at least one food that God (or nature, depending on what you believe) gave us to eat. It doesn't. It's an industrial waste product. It was used at one time as a truth serum--that's how much effect it has on the brain.
Fluoridation Promiseshttp://www.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Utah/Fluoridation-Promises.aspxFrom the article:
The effectiveness and safety of fluoridated water will be debated until
the taps run dry, but Salt Lake County health officials have ensured that the stuff will never be associated with a truth serum.
The fluoridation lobby did a wonderful job last year of using
"intellectual" intimidation to overwhelm such common-sense concerns. We have more sheepskin than a Wyoming rancher, proponents informed Utahns, so if none of this makes sense it is only because you are too dense to understand it.
But Europe's dentists, doctors and public health officials understand
just fine, thank you, and most of their countries discontinued fluoridation in the 1970s due to concerns about effectiveness, safety, ethics and impact on the environment. This has not led to an increase in cavities, however. In fact, World Health Organization statistics show that 12-year-olds in Britain, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and Sweden -- none of which fluoridates its water -- have fewer decayed, missing or filled teeth (DMFTs) than Americans. So do kids in China, Egypt, Libya and Iraq, which also don't fluoridate their water.
The U.S. fluoridation lobby points to the downward trend of tooth decay in America as "proof" that fluoridation works, but decay rates have been dropping even faster in non-fluoridated countries. While DMFTs were falling from 2.6 to 1.4 among U.S. 12-year-olds, Britain's fell from 3.1 to 1.1, Cuba's dropped from 6 to 1.4, and the Netherlands' dropped from 1.7 to 0.9.
The kids with the world's best teeth tend to live in Africa, where they
not only lack money for fluoridation but -- what could be more significant -- sugar. The 12-year-olds in Rwanda, whose per-capita sugar consumption is about 120 times less than America's, have about one-fifth the DMFTs of their U.S. counterparts.
fluoride policy is a public fraudhttp://www.friendsofwater.com/Fluoride_Toxicity.htmlFrom the article:
Fluoride is also thought to suppress intelligence and independent will, which may explain some of the reasons why the U.S. population is so easy to control through propaganda and media manipulation. In fact, there is some interesting research going way back about fluoride being used on wartime prisoners as a truth serum in an effort to get them to go along with the capturing nation's propaganda. So, in an almost comic sense, the mass medication of the U.S. population with fluoride could, in a very real sense, be turning our country into a nation of mindless zombies.
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridationhttp://the-raw-advantage.com/2011/12/101-donations-fan-the-fluoride-action-network/From the article:
Swallowing fluoride provides no (or very little) benefit
11) Benefits are topical not systemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride?s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since the purported benefits of fluoride are topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people (against their will) to ingest fluoride through their water supply.
12) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most western, industrialized countries have rejected water fluoridation, but have nevertheless experienced the same decline in childhood dental decay as fluoridated countries. (See data from World Health Organization presented graphically in Figure 1).
13) Fluoridation?s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (HYPERLINK ?http://www.fluoridealert.org/NIDR.htm?Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing their entire lives in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface, and less than 1% of the 100+ tooth surfaces available in a child?s mouth. Large surveys from three Australian states have found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0 to 0.3 of one permanent tooth surface (Spencer 1996; Armfield & Spencer 2004). None of these studies have allowed for the possible delayed eruption of the teeth that may be caused by exposure to fluoride, for which there is some evidence (Komarek 2005). A one-year delay in eruption of the permanent teeth would eliminate the very small benefit recorded in these modern studies.
14) NIH-funded study on individual fluoride ingestion and tooth decay failed to find a significant correlation. The multi-million dollar, NIH-funded study by Warren et al. (2009) found no relation between tooth decay and the amount of fluoride ingested by children. This is the first time that tooth decay has been investigated as a function of individual exposure as opposed to mere residence in a fluoridated community.
15) Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped. Where fluoridation has been HYPERLINK ?http://www.fluoridealert.org/feb-2001.htm?discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has generally continued to decrease (Maupom? 2001; Kunzel & Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000; Seppa 2000).
16) Tooth decay is high in low-income communities that have been fluoridated for years. Despite some claims to the contrary, water fluoridation cannot prevent the oral health crises that result from rampant poverty, inadequate nutrition, and lack of access to dental care. There have been numerous reports of severe dental crises in low-income neighborhoods of US cities that have been fluoridated for over 20 years (e.g., Boston, Cincinnati, New York City, Pittsburgh). In addition, fluoridation has been repeatedly found to be ineffective at preventing the most serious oral health problem facing poor children, namely ?baby bottle tooth decay,? otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992; Shiboski 2003).
17) Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation started. Modern research (e.g., Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced in Australia and New Zealand and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized (see Figure 2). Many other factors influence tooth decay.
Figure 2. The number of decayed teeth in 5-year olds in New Zealand, over the period 1930-1990. The percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water and the percentage of the total toothpaste sold containing fluoride are shown on the right hand axis (Colquhoun, 1993).
18) The studies that launched fluoridation were methodologically flawed. The early trials conducted between 1945 and 1955 in North America that helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960, 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials ?are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.? Serious questions have also been raised about Trendley Dean?s (the father of fluoridation) famous 21-city study from 1942 (Ziegelbecker, 1981).
