by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
We had a discussion in the QFS about Prozac. Someone
mentioned the technical name of the compound and it was noted that
it was similar to Fluoride. So, several members of the group
started looking at this issue and, yes, sure enough, the same poison
that is being used to dumb us down in so many other ways, is being
given to people as a prescription for any number of psychological
I guess that the
Powers that Be figure if you are made stupid enough, you
won't have brains enough to be depressed. This material was compiled
for Signs of the Times by mgt.
[Note: portions of this summary are drawn from a number of
more extensive articles at
A lot of attention has been brought forth in recent years by
alternative medical researchers and others regarding the issue of
fluorine compounds (the most common are fluorides) in drinking
water, toothpaste, food and beverage products, household products
like Teflon(TM), and as we recently learned, as a component in a
number of pharmaceutical drugs as well.
Environmentalists have become increasingly concerned about the
widespread effects of fluorides in air pollution, both in gaseous
and particulate form. The leading causes of fluoride air pollution
today include the manufacture of phosphates for fertilizer and other
uses, the manufacture of insecticides, aluminum, plastics and many
other products. In addition, in the past, the atomic weapons
industry has contributed greatly to the overall levels of toxic
fluoride pollution in many communities. These statements and more
will be supported in the following article.
The EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency), charged with protecting the environment
(which I take to also mean the environment people live and work in)
has long dragged their heels in addressing the fluoride pollution
The Wishing Well
Since the days of WWII
the Federal Government in the US has made a strong push to convince
all communities to fluoridate their water, and they drafted
assistance the US Department of Public Health and the American
Dental Association in this effort. A push which, by the way, still
continues today. Thomas Reeves, of the CDC, is a water
engineer responsible for overseeing the US fluoridation program (as
of May 2001).
Declassified documents obtained by by Joel Griffiths and
Chris Bryson (1) appear to show that:
"Fluoride was the
key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the
documents. Massive quantities of fluoride - millions of tons -
were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and
plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of
the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride rapidly emerged as the
leading chemical health hazard of the U.S atomic bomb program -
both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents
They also showed that
there was a clear conflict of interest between dealing with the high
toxicity of the fluorine by products of production and the wish of
the government to give a "clean bill of health to fluoridation
projects as the following selection of quotes from "Waste-not#414" (http://www.fluoridealert.org/WN-414.htm)
" Much of the
original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was
generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly
ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against
defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first
lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over
radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show."
" Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a
leading role in the design and implementation of the most
extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating
public drinking water--conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945
to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F,"
they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples
from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health
" The original secret version - obtained by these reporters - of
a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of
the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse
health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) - considered the most
powerful of Cold War agencies - for reasons of national
" The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at
the University of Rochester, site of one of the most notorious
human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which
unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of
radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with
the same ethical mind-set, in which "national security" was
" The U.S. government's conflict of interest--and its motive to
prove fluoride "safe" -- has not until now been made clear to
the general public in the furious debate over water fluoridation
since the 1950's, nor to civilian researchers and health
professionals, or journalists."
So it seems the
government and their contractors had (and still have) a strong
fiscal incentive in "whitewashing" the whole fluoride story.
The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta still maintain that water
fluoridation is safe and effective.
Thomas Reeves, CDC water engineer and the man currently responsible
for overseeing the US fluoridation program made the following
statements in a letter.
(And I have to ask why
is this a Federal program anyway? Wouldn't this logically be a
personal choice or at least decided at the community level? The
answer to this becomes clear further down.)
"All of the fluoride
chemicals used in the U.S. for water fluoridation, sodium
fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid, are
byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The
manufacturing process produces two byproducts:
(1) a solid,
calcium sulfate (sheetrock, CaSo4)
gases, hydrofluoric acid (HF) and silicon terafluoride
explanation of this manufacturing process follows: Apatite rock,
a calcium mineral found in central Florida, is ground up and
treated with sulfuric acid, producing phosphoric acid and the
two byproducts, calcium sulfate and the two gas emissions. Those
gases are captured by product recovery units (scrubbers) and
condensed into 23% fluorosilicic acid. Sodium fluoride and
sodium fluorosilicate are made from this acid."
"The question of toxicity, purity, and risk to humans from the
addition of fluoride chemicals to the drinking water sometimes
arises. Almost all of over 40 water treatment chemicals that may
be used at the water plant are toxic to humans in their
concentrated form; e.g., chlorine gas and the fluoride chemicals
are no exception. Added to the drinking water in very small
amounts, the fluoride chemicals dissociate virtually 100% into
their various components (ions) and are very stable, safe, and
Here he reverts to what
I call the "diversionary" argument, i.e.; he points out the toxicity
of other chemicals such as chlorine as a defense for using
fluorides. At no point does he actually address the toxicity of
fluorine/fluorides per se except to just say it is "safe".
I guess we are just
supposed to take his word on that. [the full letter from Reeves can
be read at
"It is an ill
wind blows no good"
In 1944 a severe pollution accident occurred at the E.I. du Pont
du Nemours Company chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey.
This factory was then producing fluoride, in the millions of pounds,
for the then Top-Secret Manhattan Project. It also appears they were
processing free uranium there, but that was never an issue in this
The farms directly downwind of this factory in two counties were
adversely affected, causing blighted crops and "burned up peaches"
as one farmer put it. Poultry died. Farmhand who ate the produce
sickened quickly and "frequently vomited all night and into the next
day." The horses were sick and too stiff to work and the cattle were
so weak they had to graze crawling. The humans were reported to have
an abnormally high fluoride content in their blood. This account was
confirmed by Philip Sadtler of Sadtler Laboratories of
Philadelphia, who had personally conducted the initial investigation
into the incident.
In 1946, after the wars
end, the farmers filed the first ever lawsuit to come out of the
Atom Bomb project:
October 18, 1946
"First Atom Bomb Suit - for Ruined Peaches - Filed by Salem
County Growers for $400,000
A dozen orchard owners in Salem County (NJ) blamed the atomic
bomb yesterday for their ruined 1944 peach crop. And - they're
"For they filed suit in New Jersey Supreme Court for $400,000 to
make good for their losses. Named in the suit - first of its
kind- are three chemical manufacturers whose products went into
the manufacture of atomic bombs. They are E.I. duPont de Nemours
Company, which has a plant at Deepwater, Salem County; the Sun
Oil Company and the General Chemical Company, both of Marcus
Hook, Pa. The bill of complaint made no mention of the atomic
bomb but attributed the damage to hydrogen fluoride and
This got the attention
of the government swiftly. Manhattan Project chief Major General
Leslie R.Groves convened secret meetings between:
the Manhattan Project
the Food and Drug Administration
the Agriculture and Justice Departments
the U.S Army's Chemical
Warfare Service and Edgewood Arsenal
the Bureau of
Du Pont lawyers
reveal that they agreed to mobilize all resources necessary to
effect a defeat of the farmers' claims.
27 August 1945
Subject: Investigation of Crop Damage at Lower Penns Neck, New
To: The Commanding General, Army Service Forces, Pentagon
Building, Washington D.C.
"At the request of the Secretary of War the Department of
Agriculture has agreed to cooperate in investigating complaints
of crop damage attributed... to fumes from a plant operated in
connection with the Manhattan Project."
Major General U.S.A
Lieutenant Colonel Cooper B. Rhodes wrote in a memo to
"are making scientific investigations to obtain evidence which
may be used to protect the interest of the Government at the
trial of the suits brought by owners of peach orchards in ...
General Groves wrote,
"The Department of
Justice is cooperating in the defense of these suits," to the
Chairman of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy,
in a Feb. 28, 1946 memo.
So a few farmers
apparently generated, in the words of Griffiths and Bryson, "a
national-security emergency". Why? Because at this point the US was
in full scale production of atomic weapons deemed essential to US
post-war domination and leadership and the lawsuits were seen as a
potential "roadblock". A favorable ruling for the farmers would set
a precedent and potentially derail the whole program, dependant as
it was, on the production of fluoride.
Griffiths and Bryson write:
"In a subsequent
secret Manhattan project memo, a broader solution to the public
relations problem was suggested by chief fluoride toxicologist
Harold C. Hodge. He wrote to the Medical Section chief, Col.
'Would there be
any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of
fluoride on the part of residents of Salem and Gloucester
counties through lectures on F toxicology and perhaps the
usefulness of F in tooth health?'
Such lectures were
indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of
the nation throughout the Cold War."
This is the origin of
the entire national water fluoridation project.
was brilliant, if somewhat Machiavellian, in that by creating a
large "background" presence of fluorine compounds in the
environment, esp. the water supply, any future claims of fluoride
damage by civilians would be very hard to document and prove in
Evidence that the government was well aware of the toxicity problems
associated with fluorides in any form dates to at least 1943. Here
is a memo reporting on that discussion:
29 September 1943
SUBJECT: Report on Meeting of 31 August 1943 for discussion of
On 31 August a meeting was held to discuss the allocation of a
portion of the experimental program involving the study of the
toxicological effect of various special materials. Present at
the meeting were: Dr. Col. Ruhoff, Major Hadlock, Lt. Sturgie
(Special Materials), Dr. Wensel, Dr. Stone, Dr. Tannenbaum
(Chicago Project), Dr. Hodge (Rochester Project), Dr. Warren,
Major Friedell, Capt. (Medical Section).
It was decided that a conference on the toxicity of fluorine
compounds should be held with the view to orienting those
concerned with the specific problems which may arise. It was
recommended that a program be arranged by the Public Health
Service since some of their members have more exhaustive studies
into the biological effects of fluorine and its compounds.
arrangements met with approval of Lt. Col. Ruhoff, and it was
contemplated that those companies actively engaged in the
production of F, F2, and fluorides be invited. The meeting was
also to be attended by representatives of the Manhattan District
but their association with the District would be concealed by
cc: Lt. Col. Ruhoff
Dr. R.S. Stone
For more information
about this meeting see:
(1) Joel Griffiths
is a medical writer in New York City, author of a book on
radiation hazards and numerous articles for medical and popular
publications. Joel can be contacted at 212-662-6695.
Chris Bryson holds a Masters degree from the Columbia University
Graduate School of Journalism, and has worked for the British
Broadcasting Corporation, The Manchester Guardian, The Christian
Science Monitor and Public Television. Chris can be contacted at
Fluorides in Water Systems and
of Municipal Water Supplies
France, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden,
Northern Ireland, Austria and the Czech Republic do NOT put
fluorides in their water supply! If fluoridation is such a boon to
mankind, why on earth would so many European nations refuse to do
it? According to statements from these governments, the main reason
is that they consider it unethical medication of persons without
In the case of the Netherlands, their water was fluorinated until
their Supreme Court threw it out. (June 22, 1973)
The Czech Republic said this:
drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public
water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although
fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed
it is not under consideration because this form of
supplementation is considered:
(only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such;
the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an
increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are
using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually
(environmental load by a foreign substance)
Toxicologically and physiologically debatable
(fluoridation represents an untargeted form of
supplementation which disregards actual individual intake
and requirements and may lead to excessive
health-threatening intake in certain population groups;
[and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological
active forms of fluor."
Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October
According to data from
the World Health Organization these countries have about the same
level of tooth decay as the United States which is 60% fluoridated.
In addition to the US, the UK, the former USSR and Australia do or
did until recently use fluoridation.
A more extensive list of countries who do NOT fluoridate their water
can be seen at:
We have already seen why the United States and it's prime defense
contractors and manufacturers such as DuPont) was so interested in
this "forced medication" program and went to great lengths to
promote and implement it. Now lets take a look at the consequences.
Fluorosis (over-fluoridation of teeth resulting in white spots later
becoming brownish spots and extreme brittleness) is becoming an
Vulnerable population segments include the elderly, people with
diabetes, deficiencies of calcium, vitamin C, cardiovascular
problems, kidney problems, underactive thyroids or those with
hypersensitivity to fluoride.
Aluminum uptake to the brain has been shown to be facilitated by
"Rats fed for one
year with 1 ppm fluoride (either as sodium fluoride or aluminum
fluoride) in doubly distilled and de-ionized water, were found
to have increased levels of aluminum in their brain and amyloid
deposits (11). Amyloid deposits in the brain are associated with
In addition, other
studies have suggested fluoride also facilitates aluminum uptake in
bone tissue resulting in increased osteoporosis and other bone
weaknesses causing proneness to fracture.
The fact that kids
nowadays seem to get broken bones much easier is surely no
bones, pineal gland and other tissues.
normal thyroid function (may be useful in treating hyperthyroid
condition). In fact the amount of fluoride ingested daily by
most Americans is in excess of that used to treat
Hazardous Wastes -
because all fluorides used for municipal treatment are derived
from industrial waste (as stated above by Reeves, CDC), arsenic,
lead and other highly toxic metals and compounds including
radioactive isotopes can easily be brought along with it.
or sodium fluorosilicate (silicofluorides) are used in 90% of
water treatment programs and A study published in the journal
Neurotoxicology (27) found that blood lead levels in children
were consistently and significantly higher in New York
communities where silicofluorides were used to fluoridate the
Other studies have
found an association between fluorides and Down's Syndrome
This is just a sampling
of the increasing number of findings about the health consequences
of fluorides. For more information on this subject try these links:
the Dental Industry
The primary justification for fluoridation has always been that it
prevents Caries in children's teeth. Let's take closer look at the
history of dentistry and fluoridation.
According to Dr. Paul Connet, PHD, the very claims of dental
benefit are dubious are best.
"The benefits to
teeth are questionable."
3. 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"
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"
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"
studies upon which the entire program was built are now
shown to be seriously flawed. In fact there never was a
truly scientific double-blind study done on fluoridation in
those days! Dr. Connet is kind in his assessment that these
scientists were simply over-enthusiastic in their efforts.
From Part 1 above, we
already know the real reasons these tests were set up to achieve the
results they did.
Dr. Connet goes on to talk about not only a lack of evident benefit,
but actually severe tooth damage as the result of fluoridation:
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 were 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
There is not space here
to go into the all the more recent studies and tests, which clearly
implicate Fluorides in a whole host of dental, medical and mental
problems. A search of the web will easily turn up hundreds of pages
on these topics for those who will like to pursue it more.
OK, we know the government and big industry did this to us to
protect their pocketbooks. Why the dentists went along with it can
only be speculated, but I suspect in the beginning there was
considerable pressure put on the dentists by the agencies that
regulate them, and of course they were presented with the same
flawed studies that everyone else was.
And dentists, like many
doctors, frequently fail to continue their education after they have
left medical/dental school. But there may be an ulterior motive as
well - given the kind of damage fluorides produce in the teeth of a
significant portion of the population, fluoridation may have
actually resulted in more work and profits for dentists rather than
the opposite which would be expected if the claims of fluoride
benefits were actually true.
Despite the current awareness among the public that there may be
serious problems with fluoridation, many dentists continue to
promote and sell fluoride treatments (the same one who continue to
promote and use mercury-amalgam fillings I would suppose, but that
is for another article!). And the CDC and the government continue to
promote and expand the fluoridation program.
The EPA has carefully
sidestepped the question and steadfastly refused to take any action,
however, the union of scientists representing EPA research
scientists has come out and demanded a moratorium on fluoridation
until better study and analysis of the problem can be done.
This should be a wakeup
call to the public and to the communities still administering
fluorides to their constituents.
fluoride or hydrofluoric acid)
Today hundreds of industrial and manufacturing processes use
hydrofluoric acid, much of which escapes in gas form into the
atmosphere as pollution. It is the 6th most emitted air pollutant in
Some of the suspected
medical indications from exposure include the following:
or Blood Toxicant
or Liver Toxicant
Skin or Sense
The MSDS sheet for HF
can be seen here :
ToxFAQs for Fluoride, Hydrogen Fluoride, and
Fluorine (a CDC website)
Because fluorides assist in the uptake of aluminum, there is an
extensive literature now available on musculoskeletal disease among
aluminum workers. The main problem seems not to be the aluminum per
se, but the presence of fluorides acting as a catalyst. (http://www.fluoridealert.org/i-fluorosis.htm)
Hydrogen Fluoride is used extensively in manufacturing phosphates,
aluminum, steel mills, oil refineries, power plants, pesticides and
Fluoride in Pharmaceutical Drugs
Fluorides have been used in many prescription drugs including some
of the SSRIDs or Seratonin-uptake Inhibitors such as Prozac(TM). The
Fluoride Action Network has put up a list of currently common
prescription drugs which contain Fluorine and can be seen here:
From the Fluoride Action Network:
The Danger of
Taking Prozac The Guardian September 4, 1999
Back to Prozac Peter R. Breggin, M.D.
Long-Term Consequences for Taking Antidepressants Are
ABC News April
linked to sexual side effects CNN.com Health with WebMD
February 9, 2000
Monograph MentalHealth.com, Phillip Long, MD, 1999
Report (pdf) Eli Lilly, June 1998
Note on Prozac: One
impact of prozac which is of particular concern is it's impact on
the thyroid. Eli Lilly, the company that produces Prozac, reports
that hypothyroidism can result from taking prozac, although the
company states that such cases are infrequent (see Manufacturer's
Report listed above). According to
Henry Ford Health System,
information of Prozac reveals that infrequently Prozac may cause
or worsen preexisting hypothyroidism. As hypothyroidism is known
to cause depression, it is important to have your thyroid
According to Mary
Shomon, author of Living Well With Hypothyroidism,
hormone replacement while taking the popular antidepressant
sertraline -- brand name Zoloft -- can cause a decrease in the
effectiveness of the thyroid hormone replacement, and make your
TSH rise. This same effect has also been seen in patients
receiving other selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors such as
Paxil (paroxetine) and Prozac (fluoxetine). If you are on an
antidepressant or thyroid hormone and your doctor wants to
prescribe the other, be sure to discuss these issues."
is a common cause of depression, there is concern that patients
with hypothyroidism may be prescribed prozac to treat their
depression, which could in turn make their hypothyroidism worse.
Cipro - The
controversial anthrax drug, Cipro is also a fluorinated drug
For an in depth look at
this try this link:
At this point there is simply not enough research available on the
use of fluorine compounds in drugs to justify such widespread use
and distribution. Much more investigation is urgently needed.