Fluorides: Their Effect on the Thyroid, Alzheimer's and CFS

[Guest guest]

Fluorides: How they affect the Thyroid, Alzheimers and CFS JoAnn Guest Feb

12, 2004 15:13 PST

 

 

How toxins affect the thyroid gland

 

Toxins from the environs may alter the thyroid function. Eduardo Gaitan

from Univ Mississipi found that drinking water contaminated with

petrochemicals results in blocked activity of thyroid hormones.

( Ref Jounal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 1983 Vol. 56)

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) can alter thyroxine levels and result

in symptoms of thyroid disorders (Science, vol.267)

 

It is now understood that the environment, diet and nutrition

influence thyroid function in a number of ways and may relate to

thyroid disorders of non specific origin

(Annual Review of Nutrition -1995 Vol 15)

 

Another line of evidence indicating that fluoride is an

'endocrine disrupter' stems from the number of studies that indicate

the fluoride may inhibit the functioning of the thyroid gland.

 

Andreas Schuld, president of a group called Parents of Fluoride

Poisoned Children, has prepared an excellent summary of the evidence

that points in this direction

 

To put the matter as simply as I can, his group has been able to show

that areas of endemic fluorosis

are also areas designated as being endemic with iodine deficiency

disorders (IDD).

 

Thyroid hormones are absolutely essential for normal growth and

development. Hyperthyroidism means

that the thyroid gland is producing too much of the thyroid

hormones, T3 and T4. These two hormones have 3 and 4 iodine atoms

respectively. Schuld's group has also shown that there is a

remarkable similarity between the symptoms listed for hypothyroidism

(underactive thyroid gland) and those reported for fluoride

poisoning (55).

 

Putting these two conditions together, it appears that fluoride

decreases the production of thyroid hormones.

For a normal person if you are exposed to too much fluoride it could

result in reducing thyroid hormone production

below normal and necessary levels (i.e., hypothyroidism). It is not

clear just how fluoride reduces thyroid hormone

production.

 

Since Flouride, fluorine, and chlorine are identical

to the molecular structure of iodine, the thyroid detects it as such.

 

 

Alternatively, fluoride inhibits the enzymes inside the gland which

assemble the hormones from its chemical precursor, the amino acid

tyrosine.

 

--------------------------------Another

concern is that women who bottle feed their babies and who live in

fluoridated communities are not being adequately warned that they should

be using non-fluoridated bottled water, not tap water, to make up the

formula.

 

Underlining these concerns is the fact that fluoride levels in mothers'

milk is naturally very low, averaging

approximately 0.01 ppm (22, p 301), which is one hundred times lower

than fluoridated tap water. Even when the mother herself is drinking

fluoridated water, very little of it gets passed on in her breast

milk.

 

One has to wonder then, if fluoride is necessary for healthy

tooth development, how it was that God (or evolutionary

forces) " failed " in this important development by limiting the

supply of fluoride to the newly born baby.

 

Why is it that human milk provides the baby with such low levels of

fluoride if much higher levels are deemed necessary for healthy teeth?

Who is correct: " God " or the US Public Health Service?

 

--Even

though fluoride's toxicity is rated higher than lead, the US

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum contaminant level for

lead in water is 15 ppb (parts per billion)

whereas the level allowed for fluoride is 4,000 ppb.

 

The recommended level for artificial fluoridation of the drinking

water of 1 part

per million (1 ppm = 1,000 ppb) was established in 1945, and it

hasn't been changed since, even though today we (and our children)

are getting fluoride from many other additional sources, including

toothpaste, other dental products, mouthwashes, processed food, some

vitamin tablets, and beverages.

 

 

The theory behind fluoride's purported benefit to teeth is that

the fluoride ion displaces the hydroxide ion from the calcium

hydroxyapatite in the tooth enamel, forming the substance calcium

fluorapatite, which is more resistant to acid attack.

 

A second suggestion is that fluoride kills some of the decay causing

bacteria in the mouth by poisoning their enzymes .

However, these mechanisms pose three huge questions, which have plagued

this matter for over 50 years.

 

1) Can you poison the enzymes in the oral bacteria, without

poisoning some of the enzymes in the rest of the body?

Nearly every single chemical reaction in the body is steered by enzymes

(enzymes are biological catalysts).

 

--- In

Europe, where nearly all the countries remain unfluoridated,

the average DMFTs for the children are actually lower (i.e. better)

than those for children in the US. Moreover, Ireland, the only

country in Europe with significant fluoridation (about 73% of the

population drink fluoridated water), rates sixth in a table of

national average DMFTs in Europe

 

 

------------------------------Fluoride:

A Statement of Concern

by Paul Connett, PhD

 

Waste Not #459

January 2000

 

1. I have been researching the literature on fluoride for just over

three years. I approached this issue with an open mind. If I had any

bias when I set out it was that those who were opposed to

fluoridation were `crackpots'.

 

2. However, the more I have read the more concerned I have become

over the dangers posed by fluoride and the very poor science

underpinning its supposed efficacy in protecting children's teeth.

 

How we ever allowed such a toxic substance into the drinking water

is staggering.

 

Even though fluoride's toxicity is rated higher than lead, the US

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum contaminant level for

lead in water is 15 ppb (parts per billion)

whereas the level allowed for fluoride is 4,000 ppb.

 

The recommended level for artificial fluoridation of the drinking water

of 1 part

per million (1 ppm = 1,000 ppb) was established in 1945, and it

hasn't been changed since, even though today we (and our children)

are getting fluoride from many other additional sources, including

toothpaste, other dental products, mouthwashes, processed food, some

vitamin tablets, and beverages.

 

 

The benefits to teeth are questionable.

The key initial studies which purported to show that fluoride was

a benefit to teeth, conducted in Grand Rapids, Michigan (1945),

Newburgh, New York (1945), Evanston, Illinois (1947), and Brantford,

Ontario, Canada (1945), were of a very dubious scientific quality.

 

This is fully and thoroughly documented by Dr. Philip Sutton in his

book, " The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation " (1). While the science was

dubious, the confidence of the US Public Health Service (PHS) was

enormous.

 

In April 1951, before any single fluoridation trial had been completed,

the US Surgeon General, Leonard Scheele, was telling

a Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, " During the past year our

studies progressed to the point where we could announce an

unqualified endorsement of the fluoridation of the public water

supplies as a mass procedure for reducing tooth decay by two thirds "

 

 

Subsequent Surgeon Generals have continued to act as cheerleaders for

this procedure. Their passionate promotion bears little relation to the

quality of the science involved in fluoridation, either to its efficacy

or to its safety.

 

Another Surgeon General, Thomas Parran, stated, " I consider water

fluoridation to be the greatest single advance in dental health made

in our generation "

 

 

Such an opinion sharply contrasts with that of former US EPA scientist,

Dr. Robert Carton, who after he examined

the evidence declared,

" Fluoridation is a scientific fraud, probably the greatest fraud of the

century " .

 

 

According to Dr. John Lee, a bone specialist from California, " Certain

crucial errors common to fluoride studies that

claim benefit have been identified and, when applied to any or all

fluoridation trials claiming to prove benefit, are sufficient to

nullify them.

 

 

I challenge fluoridationists to find just one trial that can stand a

critical review in the light of the errors I describe.

If they cannot, they should use their authority to help

rid our water supply of this useless toxin " .

Lee continues, " It is important to understand that in health

matters, everything is interrelated and multifactorial. This

presents a challenge to all health research: the factor being

studied is just one factor among many that may confound the study.

 

If the other factors can not be held constant (or their presence be

kept equal in all groups being observed), the role of the single

factor being studied can be confused... In the case of dental

caries, the various factors include oral sugar and other fermentable

carbohydrates, lysine and other amino acids, calcium and other

minerals, vitamins, fiber, saliva flow and oral pH, dental hygiene,

sunlight, genetic or constitutional factors, immune factors, use of

antibiotics which may inhibit plague bacteria and others " (5).

 

Lee lists the statistical misinterpretations common to the

" fluoridation

trials " : a) using " percent reductions " instead of " rate of change "

of decay; b) selection bias; and c) outright fudging of the data.

 

6. Why were these early studies so poorly designed? In some cases it

may simply have been the result of over-zealous promotion. For

example, in the Grand Rapids, Michigan, study the control city was

dropped six years into the study, supposedly because they wanted the

children in this city to get the benefits as well.

 

In the case of Hastings, New Zealand, this study was unmistakably

fraudulent. Here the control city of Napier was dropped after only two

years and the method of diagnosing tooth decay was changed during the

course of the study, which quite artificially inflated the drop in

decay. This change in diagnosis was made without this being stated in

the final report .

 

I am not aware of any double blind examination to investigate the

efficacy of water fluoridation (i.e. one in which neither investigator

nor subject is aware of which subjects have been exposed and which have

not).

 

7. Meanwhile, considerable evidence has accumulated that the state

of children's permanent teeth in non-fluoridated communities, as

measured by their DMFT (decayed, missing and filled teeth) values,

is just as good as (if not better than) those in fluoridated

communities.

 

 

 

For example, in 1995 the teeth of the children in fluoridated Newburgh

were again compared to those in still unfluoridated Kingston (this study

started in 1945) and there was little difference in the DMFT values

across the 7-14 years age range.

 

If an average is taken the children in unfluoridated Kingston

had slightly better DMFT values. However, there was one big

difference: the average levels of dental fluorosis was about twice

as high in fluoridated Newburgh as it was in unfluoridated Kingston

 

(7). Dental fluorosis is a mottling of the teeth. In its mildest

form it consists of white patches or streaks. As the severity

increases the color of the patches changes from white to yellow, to

orange and then to brown.

 

In its severest form dental fluorosis results in loss of tooth enamel

and extreme brittleness. The only known cause of dental fluorosis is

exposure to fluoride and the rates are increasing.

 

The argument used by the pro-fluoride authors of the Newburgh-Kingston

study is that the improvement in DMFTs in non-fluoridated Kingston is

due to exposure to fluoride from other sources: fluoridated toothpaste,

beverages and processed food.

 

If we accept this argument at face value then it completely undermines

the need to add fluoride to the drinking water since a better result

(i.e. slightly better DMFTs and less dental fluorosis) was achieved

in Kingston without fluoridation.

 

8. In 1986-87 a survey was conducted by the National Institute for

Dental Research (NIDR) at a cost of $3.6 million to the US taxpayer.

 

The raw data from this study had to be pried out of this institution

by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis using the Freedom of Information Act. From

this data he was able to show that there was little difference in

the DMFT values for approximately 40,000 children, whether they grew

up in fluoridated, non-fluoridated or partially fluoridated

communities (.

 

Pro-fluoridationists have argued that this data (or a sub-set of it)

indicates 25% lower DMFT in fluoridated communities. Even if we take

this argument at face value, with current DMFT values (about 2.0 or

less) this represents less than half a tooth.

 

Hardly an achievement to compensate for the increase in dental

fluorosis which goes hand in hand with the measure and possibly other

more serious health effects discussed below.

 

According to Dr. Hardy Limeback, the Head of Preventive Dentistry at

the University of Toronto, fluoridation of water, " has contributed

to the birth of a multi-billion dollar industry of tooth bleaching

and cosmetic dentistry.

 

More money is being spent now on the treatment of dental fluorosis than

what would be spent on dental decay if water fluoridation were halted "

 

(9). Again, it was found that the teeth of children in non-fluoridated

cities were slightly

better than those in the fluoridated cities, and again the levels of

dental fluorosis was much higher in the fluoridated cities (10).

 

10. In Europe, where nearly all the countries remain unfluoridated,

the average DMFTs for the children are actually lower (i.e. better)

than those for children in the US. Moreover, Ireland, the only

country in Europe with significant fluoridation (about 73% of the

population drink fluoridated water), rates sixth in a table of

national average DMFTs in Europe (11).

 

11. How can this be? People in the US have been told again and again

that children drinking fluoridated water have far better teeth than

those who don't. What explains this conflict between claim and

reality?

 

What emerges from impartial study is that the quality of

children's teeth in industrialized countries has been steadily

improving from the 1930s to the 1990s, independent of whether

fluoride has been added to the water supply or not.

 

Thus, unless a control community was chosen extremely carefully–which

they were not–improvements were erroneously assigned to fluoride

addition rather

than to the overall improvement that was taking place in both

fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.

 

 

16. The theory behind fluoride's purported benefit to teeth is that

the fluoride ion displaces the hydroxide ion from the calcium

hydroxyapatite in the tooth enamel, forming the substance calcium

fluorapatite, which is more resistant to acid attack.

 

A second suggestion is that fluoride kills some of the decay causing

bacteria in the mouth by poisoning their enzymes (16).

 

However, these mechanisms pose three huge questions, which have plagued

this matter for over 50 years.

 

1) Can you poison the enzymes in the oral bacteria, without

poisoning some of the enzymes in the rest of the body?

Nearly every single chemical reaction in the body is steered by enzymes

(enzymes are biological catalysts).

 

2) As far as the tooth is concerned, can you strengthen the enamel

on the outside of the tooth without damaging the tooth cells on the

inside?

 

In other words, will chemical intervention with the enamel

on the surface of the tooth be accompanied by biological

interference with the enzymes which lay down that enamel?

 

3) What will this constant exposure to fluoride do to our bones?

They, too, contain calcium hydroxyapatite.

 

Will the formation of calcium fluorapatite in our bones make them more

or less vulnerable to fracture?

 

Does fluoride poison the enzymes involved in bone growth and turnover?

 

Are there any other ways fluoride could damage

bone growth and structure?

 

Some of these questions will be addressed below.

 

To argue that dental fluorosis is merely a " cosmetic effect, " as

some US government agencies do, is a blatant example of " linguistic

detoxification " (19).

In actual fact, dental fluorosis indicates that fluoride has interfered

with the enzymes laying down the tooth enamel.

Thus dental fluorosis is the visible flag of fluoride's toxicity.

 

This observation should raise the question, what other enzymes and

processes in the body are being affected by fluoride for

which we do not have a visible flag?

 

Up until 1983 dental fluorosis was defined as an adverse health effect

due to overexposure to fluoride.

 

 

Another concern is that women who bottle feed their babies and who live

in fluoridated communities are not being adequately warned that they

should be using non-fluoridated bottled water, not tap water, to make up

the formula.

 

21. Underlining the concerns in paragraph 20, is the fact that

fluoride levels in mothers' milk is naturally very low, averaging

approximately 0.01 ppm (22, p 301), which is one hundred times lower

than fluoridated tap water. Even when the mother herself is drinking

fluoridated water, very little of it gets passed on in her breast

milk.

 

One has to wonder then, if fluoride is necessary for healthy

tooth development, how it was that God (or evolutionary

forces) " failed " in this important development by limiting the

supply of fluoride to the newly born baby.

 

Why is it that human milk provides the baby with such low levels of

fluoride if much higher levels are deemed necessary for healthy teeth?

 

Who is correct: " God " or the US Public Health Service?

 

The threat to our bones.

If we now turn from teeth to bones, it is shocking to see how

little investigation of the long term effect of fluoride on bones

has been undertaken. For example, there has been no comprehensive

attempt to determine the levels of fluoride in the bones of people

living in the US. This, despite the fact that we know the following:

 

 

1) fluoridation has continued for over 50 years;

 

2) approximately half of the fluoride we ingest each day is

deposited in our bones;

 

3) there is a steady accumulation of fluoride in our bones over our

lifetime;

 

4) serious bone diseases have occurred to people with excessive

exposure, especially in workers in the aluminum industry and in

areas of countries like India and China; and

 

5) we are being exposed to more sources of fluoride today than we

were in the 1940s and 1950s.

 

By now, if American health authorities had done their job properly

we should have had a wealth of data.

 

We should know the bone levels as a function of many variables:

location, fluoridation, hardness of water supply, diet, disease status,

smoking, etc.

 

We have practically nothing. Instead, when American agencies consider

what levels may cause bone damage they go back to studies carried out

with cryolite (the mineral used in the smelting of aluminum) workers

in Denmark in 1937.

 

Even though Kaj Roholm's study is a classic (23), it should not

substitute today for a comprehensive study of the bones of the American

people.

 

According toa 1993 report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR),

 

" Fluoride is found in all bone, with the concentration depending on

total fluoride exposure. The amount varies among different bones.

 

Levels of fluoride in human bone are generally determined by biopsy

of the iliac crest bone, and are generally reported as ppm of bone

ash. Normal bone contains 500-1,000 ppm fluoride... Bone from people

with preclinical skeletal fluorosis... contains 3,500-5,500 ppm...

 

The fluoride concentration in bone increases with age. In a group of

five people ages 64-85 who had lived for at least 10 years in an

area with water containing 1 ppm fluoride, the average fluoride

concentration of the iliac crest bone was 2,250 ppm of bone ash "

(24, pp. 53-54).

 

It is extraordinary to me that a leading US agency should be relying

on measurements made on " five people " .

 

The sad truth of the matter is that the US PHS has spent many more

millions of dollars promoting fluoridation than it has on investigating

the effect that fluoridation has had on the American people.

 

Belatedly, an investigation has been carried out comparing the

fluoride levels in the iliac crest bone in citizens in Montreal (non-

fluoridated) and Toronto (fluoridated). The initial results of this

study by Dr. Limeback and colleagues have been reported to the

annual meeting of the International Association for Dental Research

in 1999.

 

These results indicate that the levels are about twice as

high in the bones of the Toronto residents. This is a disturbing

finding, since Toronto was only fluoridated in 1963. We have yet to

have any human being on this planet exposed to artificially

fluoridated water for a lifetime.

 

We have little idea what levels of fluoride will be in the bones of

someone who lives into their 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s who has had lifetime

exposure to fluoridated water as well as all the other sources we are

exposed to today.

 

It is incredible that despite the importance of this Canadian study its

funding has been discontinued. If governmental authorities in

fluoridated countries wish to retain any semblance of credibility on

this issue, these type of studies need to be carried out with

greater intensity, not less.

 

The fear is that the increases in dental fluorosis in our children

today may foreshadow the damage to their bones that will come in the

future.

 

.. Meanwhile, there are numerous studies in the published

literature (four published in the Journal of the American Medical

Association alone) which demonstrate an association between water

fluoridation, or naturally occurring fluoride, and increased hip

fractures in the elderly, particularly women who were exposed to

fluoride prior to menopause (25-30).

 

In 1993 the ATSDR made the following comment on the published studies on

hip fractures:

 

" The weight of evidence from these experiments suggests that

fluoride added to water can increase the risk of hip fractures in

both elderly women and men... If this effect is confirmed, it would

mean that hip fracture in the elderly replaces dental fluorosis in

children as the most sensitive endpoint of fluoride exposure " (24,

pp. 56-57).

 

Yet another study (this one from Finland) has just been published

which demonstrates a correlation between increased hip fracture

rates in elderly women and naturally occurring fluoride (31).

 

While there are other smaller studies which have not found this

correlation (32-34), and some critics have stressed the weaknesses

inherent in the " ecological " methodology used (study group and

control are distinguished by geographical location and not by the

actual doses received by individuals), the weight of evidence

indicates an association between hip fracture and exposure to

fluoride.

 

 

Does it make sense to protect our teeth (possibly) when we

are young, and then break our bones (possibly) when we are old?

By whom should such a trade-off be made?

 

This is not a trivial issue.

 

According to Harold Slavkin, Director of the National Institute of

Dental and Cranofacial Research (formerly the NIDR), " About one-half

of the people with hip fractures end up in nursing homes, and in the

year following the fracture, 20 per cent of them die " (35).

 

Another set of findings which has been outrageously downplayed

in my view is a possible association between water fluoridation (or

fluoride exposure) and osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young males.

 

 

 

Flouride is associated with " chronic fatigue syndrome " , and there is a

relationship between chronic fatigue and pineal gland calcification

(Sandyk and Awerbuch, 1994) with the latter consisting of apatite

crystals similar in size and structure to dentin and bone (Nakamura,

et al. 1995).

 

Thus, fluorides potential to acerbate soft-tissue

pathologies in general, deserves further consideration.

 

Similarly, the cognitive difficulties that result from exposure to

fluoride

(Spittle, 1994) are accompanied by general malaise and fatigue;

intolerance to low levels of environmental chemicals is a

polysymptomatic sequela of chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, etc.

resulting from an immunological and/or a neurogenic triggering of

somatic symptoms and inflammation (Bell, et al. 1998);

and the

earliest subjective symptoms of osteo-fluorosis are arthritic in

nature.

 

 

Side-effects of fluoride treatment also include gastro-intestinal

problems simply referred to as -- " symptoms "

(Riggs, et al. 1990); " intolerance " (Dequeker and Declerick, 1993);

and " complaints " (Lips, 1998).

 

In two separate studies, the comparative results between patients

receiving fluoride treatment for 3-12 months (Das,

et al. 1994) and those having documented osteo-fluorosis (Dasarathy,

et al. 1996) were identical - 70% endoscopic abnormalities, 70-90%

histologic chronic atrophic gastritis; and 100% microscopic

abnormalities such as loss of microvilli.

 

Moreover, these affects were also qualitatively similar to a study

(Gupta, et al. 1992) that correlated non-ulcer dyspepsia with ingested

fluoride level. As

expected, symptoms occurring at the (RTECS) human acute TDLo dosage

of only 214 ug/kg are gastrointestinal.

-----

 

Similar to curing osteoporosis, fluoride has been proposed as a

preventive measure (sic) against Alzheimer's Disease (AD) based on

the presumption that by direct competition in the gut,

fluoride would decrease aluminum uptake (Kraus and Forbes, 1992).

 

Rather, such antagonism (Li, et al. 1990) is due to the formation of

aluminum-

fluoride complex (Li, et al. 1991). That fluoride potentiates neuro-

toxicity of aluminum has been substantiated (van der Voet, et.al.

1999) -- consisting of interference with neuronal cytoskeleton

metabolism.

 

Aluminum accumulations have been found in nuclei of the

paired-helical filament (PHF) containing neurons in the brains of

both AD patients and elderly normal controls

(Shore and Wyatt, 1983)

 

but as no elevations of aluminum were found in serum or

cerebrospinal fluid of AD patients,

aluminum alone is not the cause – rather,

aluminum in PHF bearing neurons is simply a " marker " .

 

Fluoride had been deemed to be a potent stimulator of bone formation

(Farley, et

al. 1983), but most recent work indicates that the mitogenic effect

on osteoblasts is due to fluoro-aluminate (Caverzasio, et al. 1997;

Susa, et al. 1997) --

while another model claims the mitogenic

action is non-specific (Lau and Baylink,1998). In the animal model,

0.5-ppm aluminum-fluoride for one-year resulted in decreased neuronal

density and " necrotic-like " brain-cells (Varner, et al. 1998).

 

Also, fluoride decreases protein content of brain tissue (Shashi, et

al. 1994) with 7-months of 30-ppm fluoride resulting in a 10% decrease

in total

brain phospholipid content (Guan, et.al. 1998) – as well as

(biphasic) changes in brain

levels of coenzyme-Q (Wang, et al. 1997)

 

 

The benefits to teeth are questionable. The key initial studies which

purported to show that fluoride was

a benefit to teeth, conducted in Grand Rapids, Michigan (1945),

Newburgh, New York (1945), Evanston, Illinois (1947), and Brantford,

Ontario, Canada (1945), were of a very dubious scientific quality.

 

This is fully and thoroughly documented by Dr. Philip Sutton in his

book, " The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation "

(1). While the science was

dubious, the confidence of the US Public Health Service (PHS) was

enormous.

 

In April 1951, before any single fluoridation trial had

been completed, the US Surgeon General, Leonard Scheele, was telling

a Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, " During the past year our

studies progressed to the point where we could announce an

unqualified endorsement of the fluoridation of the public water

supplies as a mass procedure for reducing tooth decay by two thirds "

 

Subsequent Surgeon Generals have continued to act as

cheerleaders for this procedure. Their passionate promotion bears

little relation to the quality of the science involved in

fluoridation, either to its efficacy or to its safety.

 

Another Surgeon General, Thomas Parran, stated, " I consider water

fluoridation to be the greatest single advance in dental health made

in our generation "

 

Such an opinion sharply contrasts with that of former US EPA

scientist, Dr. Robert Carton, who after he examined the evidence

declared,

" Fluoridation is a scientific fraud, probably the greatest fraud of the

century " .

-----

 

Peer Review Journal References Cited in the Text – with more than

80% of them being published within the past ten-years

 

 

Akapa, et al. (1997). Dental fluorosis in 12-15-year-ol rural

children exposed to fluorides from well drinking water in the Hail

region of Saudi Arabia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol; 25(4): 324-

327.

 

Alexandre, et al. (1984). Fluoride poisoning caused by Vichy Saint-

Yorre water. [title only; article in French]. Presse Med; 13(16);

1009.

 

Alhava, et al. (1980). The effect of drinking water fluoridation on

the fluoride content, strength and mineral density of human bone.

Acta Orthop Scand; 51(3): 413-420.

 

Angelillo, et al. (1999). Caries and fluorosis prevalence in

communities with different concentrations of fluoride in the water.

Caries Res; 33(2):114-122.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The complete " Whole Body " Health line consists of the " AIM GARDEN TRIO "

Ask About Health Professional Support Series: AIM Barleygreen

 

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/AIM.html

 

PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

We have made every effort to ensure that the information included in these pages

is accurate. However, we make no guarantees nor can we assume any responsibility

for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or

process discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online