Saturday, September 29, 2012

Irrational and stunted behavior

It seems I have to post this every so often, so here goes.

It may occur to some of you who write me that I have a life, children to raise, and things to do. So, sending me hate-filled emails because you didn't get an answer from me the same day you sent it, is more than stunted, it's the sign of a soured mind and heart that is looking for any reason to ATTACK in the first place.
Oh, and since when did I ever become some kind of answer machine for the world?
But, as most of these attacks come from the same group of people they have always come from, I literally sit back and many emails before they show their real side to me? One, two? Ten?
And then whammo! Here it comes, the attack. I didn't answer fast enough, because I was out a few days or was so over booked with stuff, I pushed off dealing with emails until I felt like it. They day has yet to come when I have ever done this to someone, especially a total stranger.
So, if hate lingers in your heart and the network has sent you, all you will get is prayer for your recovery back into the human race. Maybe one day you will.
Anything's possible.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Monsanto in English Gematria Equals: 666

Gematria or gimatria (Hebrew: גימטריה‎ gēmaṭriyā) is a system of assigning numerical value to a word or phrase, in the belief that words or phrases with identical numerical values bear some relation to each other, or bear some relation to the number itself

Monsanto in English Gematria Equals: 666 ( m78 o90 n84 s114 a6 n84 t120 o90 )

GMO, Global Alert

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Dare to Think -- A Message About Fluoride, written by Darlene Sherrell

[Home] [EvoluLog] [Search] [GuestBook]

Written by Darlene Sherrell, 426 Heritage Oaks Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97405

E-Mail:; Phone/Fax 541-345-1786

Just in time for Children's Dental Health Month, (February 1997) the Reader's Digest published HOW HONEST ARE DENTISTS?, by William Ecenbarger, winner of the George Polk Award for Investigative Journalism. The article revealed that in 28 states dentists examined the same set of x-rays and the same set of pearly whites, and then recommended widely differing treatments, with price tags to match: $500.00 to $29,850.00. They didn't seem to know what to do or how much to charge for doing it. "I got 50 opinions," Ecenbarger writes, "and I am not comforted."

This article, however, barely scratches the surface with regard to dishonesty. For decades, the American Dental Association has worked hand in glove with industry to cover up the toxic properties of fluoride, causing untold pain and suffering among an unsuspecting population urged to trust their dentists, trust their government, trust their political leaders, no matter what.

In the early 1930s, when American Dentistry was becoming aware of the damage fluoride can cause during the development of our children's teeth, there was a great call to remove the fluoride naturally present in water supplies. Communities in sixteen states had observed disfiguring stains and pits in their children's teeth. In 1940 the Journal of Dental Research contained a report describing a survey of the inhabitants of St. David, Arizona, where water supplies contained 1.6 to 4 parts per million of fluoride There was no apparent dental benefit from fluoride. In fact, more than half the people in all age groups over the age of twenty-three had artificial dentures. With this new awareness came fear.

Industries necessary for the production of electricity, aluminum, refrigerants, pesticides, etc., were facing costly litigation due to an emerging environmental consciousness. The Country was facing a great dilemma: impossible choices involving survival. Our military forces could not function without the tools of war -- tools that could simply not be made if we were going to restrict the release of fluoride into our environment. Emissions from smokestacks, and in wastewater could not be limited beyond a certain degree, and laborers could not be given the benefit of an absolutely safe workplace.

Today, there are near-daily news reports covering past mistakes -- not because of conspiracies, but good intentions -- the pavement, they say, on the road to Hell. Today, as then, we are being led by persons with a hidden agenda. The promoters of water fluoridation who speak through the mouth of the American Dental Association are not isolated from those whose concerns are manufacturing costs. Instead, they are one.

Years ago, when I found dozens of discrepancies between the descriptions (abstracts) of scientific journal articles and the journal articles themselves; I also found that the U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental Association actually prefer to rely on the abstracts -- even though the discrepancies involve the movement of decimal points, and simple errors in arithmetic. Like Ecenbarger, I was not comforted . . . it didn't make sense.

Particularly disturbing were the discrepancies involving the quantity of fluoride capable of destroying a child's smile or causing osteoporosis, arthritis, lower back pain, heartburn, stomach cramps, diarrhea. These were not theories, but descriptions of the fate of hundreds of millions of people who developed Dental Fluorosis or Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis. . . not necessarily from fluoridated water, but from fluoride -- regardless of the source.

Although few of us are aware of the truly ubiquitous nature of fluorides, or their role in our lives and our history; we all understand the words overdose and side effect. Sooner or later, we must face the fact that our children are threatened, as we are, by a legacy of errors. The time has come for common sense, and change.

The U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental Association are currently promoting the idea of universal mandatory water fluoridation. Why? Their own experts point out that cavity rates have decreased worldwide, without regard to the fluoride in a water supply . . . and without any connection between the fluoride in children's teeth and their experience with cavities. There's no benefit in exceeding the recommended dose, they say. On the contrary, the U.S. Public Health Service says fluoride makes dental enamel more porous, and makes bone more brittle.

During the last twenty years Uncle Sam's Experts have had a great deal to say about the nature of fluoride . . . things everyone should know. The problem is that Policy requires that these things never see the light of day. They lie buried under executive summaries and official interpretations handed out in press releases. . . but facts are facts -- no matter whose slick mouthpiece or distinguished scientist tries to tell you otherwise. Most of what you think you know about fluoride just isn't so. Consider the facts . . . check the references, and dare to think.

According to the National Research Council's 1993 review "It has been calculated that the amount of fluoride ingested with toothpaste (or mouth rinse) by children who live in a community with optimally fluoridated water, who have good control of swallowing, and who brush (or rinse) twice a day is approximately equal to the daily intake of fluoride with food, water, and beverages. In the case of younger children or those who, for any other reason, have poor control of swallowing, the daily intake of fluoride from dental products could exceed dietary intake.

"Investigators seeking to examine the possible relation between fluoride intake and health outcomes, such as dental caries, fluorosis, or quality of bone, need to be aware of the complex situation that exists today. It is no longer feasible to estimate with reasonable accuracy the level of fluoride exposure simply on the basis of concentration in drinking water supply."

Although the recommended "upper limit" for children is 0.04 to 0.07 mg/kg/day (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day), and the "optimum" is 0.04 mg/kg/day; the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NAS/NRC) reported in 1993: "Recent estimates of daily intake of fluoride from food and drink by North American children up to 2 years of age are 0.01 to 0.16 mg/kg in areas without fluoridation and 0.03 to 0.13 mg/kg in areas with fluoridation."

In 1951, NAS/NRC wrote: "For practical public health purposes, it has been proposed that a safe level has been reached when not more than 10 to 15 per cent of children age 12-14 years, who have used water supplies since birth, and who have been examined under standard conditions, show the mildest detectable type of mottled enamel"

In 1993 NAS/NRC reported that in optimally fluoridated Augusta, Georgia, 80.9% of the children aged 12-14 had mottled enamel due to excess fluoride. Most was mild to very mild, but moderate to severe fluorosis was found in 14% of the children. Some studies, they report, have found that with increasing fluoride, the number of cavities increases as well. They also note, "the most severe forms of dental fluorosis might be more than a cosmetic defect if enough fluorotic enamel is fractured and lost to cause pain, adversely affect food choices, compromise chewing efficiency, and require complex dental treatment."

In 1977 the National Research Council (NAS/NRC) reported: "The possibility of mutagenesis due to hydrogen fluoride is potentially important in cancer of the stomach. ... the much higher stomach cancer rates in Japan are related to intake patterns that are compatible with a hypothesis that fluoride is the crucial factor involved."

NAS/NRC also noted that "a retention of 2 mg/day would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 years, based on an accumulation of 10,000 ppm fluoride in bone ash." It is generally agreed that approximately one-half of the total daily intake of fluoride will be retained. . . thus, according to our most prestigious scientists, the ingestion of less than 5 milligrams (mg) of fluoride daily will result, after 40 years, in the condition called Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis.

In 1977, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) explained, "Fluorine and some of its compounds are primary irritants of skin, eyes, mucous membranes, and lungs. Thermal or chemical burns may result from contact ... even when they involve small body areas (less than 3%) can cause systemic effects of fluoride poisoning by absorption of the fluoride through the skin." Brief exposure to inhaled fluorine "has caused sore throat and chest pain, irreversible damage to the lungs, and death. Gastrointestinal symptoms of nausea, vomiting, diffuse abdominal cramps and diarrhea can be expected. Large doses produce central nervous system involvement with twitching of muscle groups, ... convulsions, and coma." Fluoride is the active ingredient in the deadly nerve gas, Sarin, and in the fungicide Flusilazole, which caused crop damage and physical ailments in 40 states in the early 90s. Teflon is a fluoride product, as is freon.

In the 1940s, the U.S. Public Health Service was reporting a total daily fluoride intake from typical diets in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 milligrams. If the drinking water contained about 1 part per million fluoride, the total daily intake could be expected to reach about 1 to 1-1/2 milligrams.

By the 1970s, the total from dietary sources had increased to as much as 3.44 mg/day, even in non-fluoridated areas; and by 1991, the range in total daily dosage had exceeded 6-1/2 milligrams in areas said to enjoy optimal fluoridation; exceeding 7 mg/day in areas having 2 or more ppm in the water supply.

Once confined almost exclusively to drinking water, fluorides now reach us from a variety of sources, including virtually every food and beverage item; as well as dental products and drugs.

"Whereas dental fluorosis is easily recognized," said the World Health Organization in 1970, "the skeletal involvement is not clinically obvious until the advanced stage of crippling fluorosis ... early cases may be misdiagnosed as rheumatoid- or osteo-arthritis."

If we place our trust in the wisdom of the American Dental Association, and their pamphlet, Fluoridation Facts, we learn that for adults, "The possibility of adverse health effects from continuous low level consumption of fluoride over long periods has been studied by the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy found that the daily intake required to produce symptoms of chronic toxicity after years of consumption, is 20 to 80 milligrams or more depending upon body weight. Such heavy doses are associated with water supplies that contain at least ten parts per million of natural fluoride." However, if we take the time to check the World Health Organization reference cited by the ADA, we can immediately see that the dosage figures are just 2 to 8 mg per day, and the water supplies generally contain less than 1 part per million of natural fluoride.

The reference cited by NAS/NRC describes the development of Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis after exposures of eleven years duration, with a daily total expressed as 0.2 to 0.35 mg/kg/day. . . the equivalent, in terms of lifetime exposure to 2 milligrams daily for each 110 pounds of body weight. (lifetime = 55 to 96-1/4 years)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that 2 is considerably less than 7 -- trusting your dentist in the matter of water fluoridation requires a certain leap of faith.

NIOSH connects the dots between dentistry, industry, and fluoride in listing the various sources and uses of fluoride: "Elemental fluorine is used in the conversion of uranium tetrafluoride to uranium hexafluoride, in the synthesis of organic and inorganic fluorine compounds, and as an oxidizer in rocket fuel.

"Hydrogen fluoride, hydrofluoric acid, and its salts are used in the production of organic and inorganic fluorine compounds such as fluorides and plastics; as a catalyst, in the petroleum industry; as an insecticide; and to arrest the fermentation in brewing. It is utilized in the aluminum industry, in separating uranium isotopes, in cleaning cast iron, copper and brass, in removing effloresence from brick and bone, in removing sand from metallic castings, in frosting and etching glass and enamel, in polishing crystal, in enameling and galvanizing iron, in working silk, in dye, and analytical chemistry, and to increase the porosity of ceramics. Fluorides are used as an electrolyte in aluminum manufacture, in smelting nickel, copper, gold, and silver, as a catalyst for organic reactions, a wood preservative, a fluoridation agent for drinking water, a bleaching agent for cane seats, in pesticides, rodenticides, and as a fermentation inhibitor. They are utilized in the manufacture of steel, iron, glass, ceramics, pottery, enamels, in castings for welding rods, and in cleaning graphite, metals, windows, and glassware. Exposure to fluorides may also occur during preparation of fertilizer from phosphate rock."

When I wrote to the National Academy of Sciences asking for the source of the 20 to 80 mg/day figures in the ADA pamphlet, they said the figures came from Harold C. Hodge, Ph.D., who was formerly Chairman of the NAS/NRC Committee on Toxicology. Dr. Hodge was also a consultant to several industries, involved in the development of the atomic bomb, worked with the Atomic Energy Commission, and participated in panels convened by NAS/NRC in 1951 and 1953. Panel chairman, Kenneth Maxcy, was consultant to the Secretary of War and editor for one of the leading industrial health journals. Panel member Francis Heyroth was Assistant Director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati -- source of the abstracts used by the ADA as well as the Dental Division of the Public Health Service. Kettering's sponsors included aluminum, steel, petroleum, and chemical companies; and Kettering's director, Robert Kehoe, was medical director of the Ethyl Corporation, consultant to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission, the U.S. Air Force, and the Division of Occupational Medicine of the Public Health Service. He was a primary spokesman for the safety of fluoridation, and also testified for the safety of atmospheric lead from auto exhausts.

Hodge prepared a chart of fluoride effects for NAS/NRC in 1953, naming Roholm as his data source; and offered it in testimony before Congress in 1954, as they considered a bill to outlaw water fluoridation.

However, in order to convert the original data into a milligram per day figure, Hodge had to apply the mg/kg figures to a typical range in body weight. He chose 100 to 229 pounds. . . multiplying 100 times 0.2 to get 20 mg/day, and then multiplying 229 times 0.35 to get 80 mg/day -- the dosage in his chart and in the ADA pamphlet. Hodge had neglected to convert pounds to kilograms; and in doing so, he created an artificial margin of safety for water fluoridation. The erroneous figures found their way into hundreds of pamphlets, magazine articles, journals, and textbooks; unchecked for forty years.

The fluoride that is added to community water supplies does not come from a clean laboratory -- it comes with the rest of the scrubber water from the smokestacks of the fertilizer or aluminum industry. . . contaminated with other poisons in small but measurable quantities that industry considers safe. Just think of the savings!

The erroneous 20-80 mg figures created by the alliance of dentistry, industry, and national security made this possible. However, the error was corrected by the National Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology in the 1993 review for EPA titled Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. (page 59)

Although the new figures are 10 to 20 mg/day for 10 to 20 years, the total quantity of fluoride ingested is the single most important factor in determining the clinical course of skeletal fluorosis. The severity of symptoms correlates directly with the level and duration of exposure, so that the advanced crippling stages can occur at any age, and has been reported even in pediatric age groups. If the time span is expanded to 40 to 80 years, the intake producing crippling would be 2-1/2 to 5 mg/day.

The symptoms of phase one skeletal fluorosis include sporadic pain and stiffness of joints, with minor osteosclerosis of the pelvis and vertebral column. Phase two is described as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, slight calcification of ligaments, increased osteosclerosis of cancellous bones, with or without osteoporosis of the long bones; and phase three, limitation of joint movement, calcification of ligaments in the neck and vertebral column, crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, muscle wasting, and neurological defects with compression of the spinal cord. The condition has been observed in many countries throughout the world, but has never been a "reportable disease" in the United States.

This, then, is the risk we face with excess fluoride; and since fluoride is the 13th most abundant element and widely distributed throughout the earth, arthritis from fluoride has been a threat since the earliest times.

There is also the strong possibility of a connection between fluoride intake and kidney stones. In 1987 the fifth edition of Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition was published by Academic Press; edited by Walter Mertz, U.S. Department of Agriculture. It describes symptoms including headache, gastrointestinal problems, and the arthritic complaints mentioned earlier; adding, "Although the exact genesis of renal stones in fluoride toxicity is not known, it is conjectured that insoluble calcium fluoride is deposited in the urinary tract as a nucleus around which other salts are deposited." They also discuss "neighborhood fluorosis," caused by the discharge of fluoride in smokestack emissions, mentioning reports from Ohio, where Chi Vit, an enamel factory in Urbana, managed to avoid the purchase of smokestack scrubbers in the late 1970s. As is the custom, the American Dental Association provided speakers to assure residents that fluoride is harmless. Anyone who disagreed was obviously misinformed, they said. "Trust your dentist."

In 1977, NIOSH explained, "Substances that act chemically to produce injury to organs and tissues of the body usually do so by two basic means: either by depressing or by stimulating the activity of the enzyme systems. A single substance may have more than one pathway and site of action. Multiple pathways of action may be invoked simply by differing doses of the toxic agent; low doses may stimulate enzyme action, high doses depress and inhibit the same or different enzyme systems. This is a characteristic action of most, if not all, toxic substances, including arsenic, benzene, chloroform, cobalt, fluoride, and vanadium.

"Potentiation and synergism, the enhanced toxicity of two or more simultaneously acting substances, can be explained by the action of one preventing the elimination or the metabolism of the other, wholly or in part, thus maintaining elevated systemic levels of the toxic agent, resulting in an observed toxicity greater than the additive toxicity of the combined components.

NIOSH quotes: "A. Marier, in his report, Environmental Fluoride, states that 'In several surveys in which sulphur dioxide had been suspected as the primary air pollutant, fluoride was found to be the factor responsible for environmental blight.' He points out that industries that release fluoride effluents also use fossil fuel as an energy source, thereby emitting significant quantities of sulphur dioxide, and comments on possible synergistic effects. 'Synergistic' means that a substance stimulates and enhances the effect of another substance. Thus, if the two occur together, the combined effect would be greater than the sum of either occurring alone. It is a phenomenon well known in pharmacology, but it does not appear to have been seriously considered in connection with fluoride from the medical point of view. So far, only environmentalists have looked at it.

"A large number of pesticides, chiefly organic phosphates and carbamates, act in the body by blocking this enzyme action, thus allowing excessive amounts of the muscle stimulator to accumulate. The excessive stimulation results in paralysis of the host."

If all this comes as a surprise to you, it is precisely because too many civic leaders, and others, have trusted their dentists in matters that have nothing to do with dentistry. Even more alarming, according to William L. Marcus, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Office of Science and Technology, Environmental Protection Agency, "the levels of fluoride found in the bones of rodents who had osteosarcoma (bone cancer) was lower than the level found in human adults exposed to allowable levels of fluoride ... with the exception of fluoride, no other compounds including radioactive compounds, have been able to produce osteosarcomas in rodents."

Children have died in the dentist's chair after treatment with topical fluoride. Adults have died during kidney dialysis when fluoride spills occurred but were not reported. Household products, including toothpaste, have caused serious illness among unsuspecting consumers.

In February of 1972 the ADA reported that in fluoridated cities, the dentists reaped a net profit 17% higher than in nonfluoridated cities. And, today, although the vast majority of children are already showing clear signs of fluoride overdose, dentists follow the party line, arguing for universal mandatory water fluoridation, while ignoring current studies showing no significant difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas worldwide.

In summary: documents sent to me by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, describe increasing numbers of children whose teeth require complex dental treatment because of excess fluoride; and adults with headaches, back pain, gastro-intestinal problems, arthritic symptoms, and hyperparathyroidism; but no correlation between cavities and the fluoride incorporated into dental enamel, except that with increased dosage, cavities tend to increase as well.

In 1979, Edward Groth III, Senior Staff Officer, Environmental Studies Board, National Research Council, wrote: "...the politically minded zealots have used tactics of intimidation, professional and financial reprisals, derogatory personal attacks, and relentless public relations propaganda to silence scientific critics, to prevent the publication of adverse evidence, and to make politically untenable any interpretation except the official view, that fluoridation is absolutely safe. Can scientific evidence really be suppressed in the free world? Easily."

Obviously, things are not always what they seem. . . bargains not always bargains; and, as Francis Bacon observed, "Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise."


The Merck Index - An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals (1996) #8520 Sarin

Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride (1993) National Academy of Sciences

Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks (1991) U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services, p.17,46

Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition (1987) editor: Walter Mertz, U.S.D.A.

Occupational Diseases - A Guide to Their Recognition (1977) NIOSH, (U.S.Dept. H.E.W.)

Drinking Water and Health (1977) National Academy of Sciences, page 372

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1974) volume 27, pages 590-594

Fluorides - Biological Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants (1971) National Academy of Sciences, pp. 211,218

Fluorides and Human Health (1970) World Health Organization, pages 37,239,240

The Role of Fluoride in Public Health (1963) Kettering Laboratory, University of Cincinnati, Ohio

Fluoride Drinking Waters (1962) F. J. McClure, Editor, U.S.D.H.E.W.

Fluoridation: Facts, Not Myths (1957) American Dental Association

Fluoridation as a Public Health Measure (1954) James H. Shaw, Editor, page 49

American Journal of Public Health (December 1952) volume 42, page 1568

Fluorine Intoxication (1937) K. Roholm, H.K. Lewis & Co., Ltd., London, page 319

Journal of Dental Research (1933) volume 13, page 139,140

Fluoridation Facts, American Dental Association

Who is Darlene Sherrell?

The Detroit News headline for March 28, 1978 read, "State study to find out if we're fluoride OD's. The article quoted Craig Ruff, an aide to Governor Milliken: "It's a good example of what one citizen on a white horse can do." On the previous day, in the capitol, the State Journal quoted Dr. Maurice Reizen, Director of the Michigan Department of Public Health, who said "There is nobody more knowledgable or dedicated on this subject than Darlene Sherrell."

In a recent talk, she described herself as follows:

Ladies and Gentlemen. I have often been asked questions about my credentials . . . my background . . . my qualification to speak or write about fluoride . . . my right, so to speak, to disagree with a dentist or physician.

So, let's get it over with. Beyond what I learned at my mother's knee, plus a few of the tricks of arithmetic from my father, I am largely self-educated. Take a look at my school records and you'll find I missed a great deal of time because of illness.

However, at twenty-seven I was the administrative assistant to the Chief Judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals, in charge of preparing the budget, maintaining the library, checking the citations in opinions, recruiting new law clerks, purchasing, public relations, etc. I had a large office to myself, with my name on the door, a state car and expense account, and was expected to keep the other judges on their toes with respect to getting their opinions written on time.

After leaving the court I worked as research associate for the American Business Men's Research Foundation, an educational organization concerned with beverage alcohol. We produced educational materials for schools and helped bring about recognition of fetal alcohol syndrome.

Still later, my concern for the environment and growing knowledge of nutrition and agricultural practices caused me to gather a group of people together for the purpose of establishing a new 501c3 -- a non-profit tax-exempt foundation -- which I called Orenda. We taught classes in natural foods cooking, co-op buying, organic gardening methods, solar and wind power, identifying wild edible plants, herbal remedies, etc. I published a monthly newsletter called The Golden Thread. With the exception of $15.00 to file the original papers, everything was done by the barter method. . . with contributions paying for postage and materials costs.

During my early youth I suffered with arthritis, asthma, gastrointestinal problems, and chemical sensitivities. When I was eighteen an episode with anaphylactic shock almost killed me. Within a year, there were two others, less severe. Until the age of twenty five, my medical problems were a mystery.

I began to study nutrition, and within a year, every sign of arthritis, allergies, chronic fatigue, etc. were gone. . . but still, I had no knowledge of fluoride. Without realizing it, I was avoiding fluoride.

In 1976, while living in Lansing, Michigan, I met our local typical little old lady in tennis shoes, carrying a large paper shopping bag full of tattered newspaper clippings and copies of magazine articles about fluoride. She told me fluoride caused cancer and was put into our water to keep us docile. I was 35, she was in her mid- 60s, and I immediately classified her as a nutcase.

Then, one day, I got curious and looked in my pharmacology book to see what I could find about fluoride. What I found changed my life.

I learned that when the drinking water contained about one part per million of fluoride, 10 to 15 percent of the children would show a faint change in the appearance of their teeth called dental fluorosis; but with 2 or 3 parts per million, nearly all will be affected by this first and only visible sign of fluoride poisoning. I also learned that fluoride is the key ingredient in a widely used cancer drug called 5-FU. The cells die because fluorine enters into one of the molecules in DNA -- the genetic material.

At that time, I lived very near to Michigan State University, was not employed, and was able to spend as much time as I needed at the science library. Not having gone to college, I was unaware of the indexing which makes a search of the literature much easier. I began my study with the year 1930, and the dental journals. This was before computers took over. I pulled each book off the shelf and looked at the index in the back, searching for anything mentioning fluoride. With each article I found references to other articles, and the names of other journals. I carried rolls of nickels and made copies to read at home. There were well over a thousand, spanning the years to 1976, and have been many more since then.

Now, let me tell you. When a person of my age sees The Atomic Energy Commission listed as the sponsor of an article about tooth decay, it brings up a red flag. . . and when an article called Toxicological Evidence for the Safety of Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies is based on studies involving "a man, or six people in South Africa, two people, heights and weights, pediatric exams, rabbits, sheep, cattle, swine, pooled urine samples, and x-rays," it doesn't require much intelligence to suspect that something is wrong. Comments such as "we excluded everyone with symptoms of disease, no matter how mild," will grab the attention. After all, what were they looking for, if not symptoms of disease. These were safety studies!

During the early years, before anyone suggested adding fluoride to the water supply, everyone seemed hell-bent on removing it.

H. Trendley Dean, who later became known as the "father of fluoridation" wrote about an apparent tendency to a higher incidence of gingivitis, and a greater proportion of filled teeth lost due to their brittleness. He wrote "The same amount of fluorine that causes a mild toxic reaction in one individual may cause a severe reaction in another. In other words, we are dealing with a low-grade chronic poisoning of the formative dental organ, . . . some authors have called attention to an apparent delay in the eruption of permanent teeth of children living in endemic areas."

In 1942, an article in The Lancet reported, "The family derived their water from a surface well containing at different times 0.3 to 1.2 ppm fluorine. All the children show severe dental fluorosis with pitting of the teeth." In another article, in the journal Radiology, skeletal fluorosis is described in an area having just 1.2 ppm fluoride in the water supply. . . though most reviews describe this case with the erroneous figure 12 ppm.

The Journal of the American Dental Association reported that at 1.6 to 4 ppm, 50% or more past age 24 have false teeth because of fluoride damage to their own. . . and the journal Oral Surgery reported mottled enamel at 0.5 ppm fluoride. This was at a time when the food supplied only 0.2 to 0.3 milligrams of fluoride daily, and there was no such thing as fluoride toothpaste or mouthwash.

I noticed that after 17 years of fluoridation in Grand Rapids, 19.3% of continuous resident white children, and 40.2% of continuous resident black children had dental fluorosis.

In poverty areas of Puerto Rico, according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there was relatively little reduction in dental caries, but dental fluorosis was common.

I learned that the original suggestions for benefits from fluoride came from industries being sued for fluoride pollution, and that fluorides have caused more damage to crops and livestock than any other airborne pollutant . . . and learned that the fluorides added to city water supplies are not naturally occurring calcium or magnesium fluoride, but the contents of smokestack scrubber water -- difficult to dispose of because they are so corrosive, and so deadly to all living things.

In the areas of Texas, where dental health was good, the soil and water contained elements which help to de-toxify fluorides. An article in Caries Research reported that 42 elements can be incorporated into developing enamel. The Journal of the American Dental Association reported that "There was no significant difference in the fluoride content of high and low caries individuals," and strontium was more closely associated with dental health. The journal Archives of Oral Biology reported: "Studies which show that there are substantial differences in caries prevalence between localities which have equivalent fluoride concentrations in water supplies substantiate the possible role of other trace elements."

I found several reports of skeletal fluorosis -- from areas having less fluoride in the water supply than EPA considers safe today. . . and in reading the Occupational Health journals, noticed that over the years the pre-employment physicals included measurements of fluoride in urine which were higher and higher as the years passed. The rules for Workmens Compensation were established to eliminate anyone whose exposure to fluoride was below the 20 to 80 milligram per day mark, for 10 to 20 years -- an erroneous figure established by Harold Hodge in 1953.

Each time I wrote to the Michigan Department of Public Health asking about a particular point, the answer contained references to journal articles, but the articles themselves failed to support the answers.

Eventually, I learned that the Public Health Service used abstracts -- not journal articles -- and that was the difference between my opinion and theirs. They were following industries' version, which often included the movement of decimal points or significant differences in describing study methods. . . and with these side-by-side examples, easy enough for a child to see and understand; I was able to convince the Governor of my State, as well as several legislators, to abandon their faith in the advice of the experts at Public Health.

One day, in a fruitless attempt to instruct the chief of the dental division, I showed him several dozen examples of the side-by-side discrepancies -- using only the most obvious. After looking at the fraudulent abstracts, he said, "Look, lady, if the abstracts don't agree with the originals, there must be something wrong with the originals." He went on to explain that he had been involved when fluoridation began in Grand Rapids . . . they had always used the abstracts from the Kettering Laboratory, he said, . . . they must be right!

Now, as I said earlier, I did not go to college, and have no claim to superior intelligence regarding water fluoridation; but, when I see studies involving rats that show increasing cavities with increasing doses of fluoride, or studies involving pooled urine samples which have been controlled for fluoride content ahead of time, or see the major proportion of the data rejected in order to support a pre-determined conclusion, and see that almost all of the books used by the Public Health Service have been funded by industries threatened with litigation due to fluoride pollution; my nose knows. . . something smells of deception.

I have kept up a correspondence with the U.S. Public Health Service for over twenty years, asking in vain for the name of just one safety study in which the researchers actually looked for the symptoms of skeletal fluorosis. According to all that I can find, these occur prior to the advanced crippling stage of the disease when x-rays are useful. I have asked to know why no physicians have ever been allowed to report cases of skeletal fluorosis. I have asked why EPA's maximum contaminant level for fluoride in drinking water does not take into account the fluoride ingested from foods, dental products, or other beverages -- which, today, usually represent three-quarters of the daily dosage in a fluoridated area. I've asked why, with all the mounting evidence of overdosage, they still want to add more fluoride to our diet.

In 1989 I began writing to the National Academy of Sciences, asking for the basis of their 20 to 80 mg/day threshold dosage for skeletal fluorosis. These figures appear in the American Dental Association's pamphlet, Fluoridation Facts, as well as in numerous magazine articles, journals, textbooks, etc. After more than two years, the Academy identified Hodge's interpretation of Roholm as the data source.

Roholm studied the effects of fluoride on cryolite workers who were exposed to 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day for several years. Although some developed crippling skeletal fluorosis in a very short time, in general, after 2-1/2 years, the first stage of the disease appeared. After 4-1/2 years, the second stage; and after 11 years, crippling skeletal fluorosis appeared.

Simple arithmetic told me that either Hodge was assuming that these men weighed as much as 1600 pounds, or he was severely challenged mathematically. It was obvious he had neglected to convert pounds to kilograms when he applied Roholm's data to a typical range in body weight (100 to 229 pounds). He simply multiplied 0.2 times 100 to get 20, and multiplied 0.35 times 229 to get 80 milligrams. Then, rather than say 11 years or less, he said 10 to 20 years.

Because this error involved arithmetic, rather than scientific opinion, and because I had the support of Dr. Robert J. Carton, who was, at that time, a senior official at EPA, and Senator Bob Graham of Florida; the National Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology was forced to correct the 40-year old error.

Their new figures agree with the data source, and are equivalent to 2-1/2 to 5 milligrams of fluoride daily for 40 to 80 years. With approximately half the daily dosage, or half the time, the second stage of fluorosis can be expected. . . but the symptoms are not considered "adverse health effects," and are not currently included in regulations governing the amount of fluoride allowed in water -- or anything else. These early symptoms are not crippling, but simply arthritis and osteoporosis.

Over the years, everything I have written about fluoride has been confirmed in official documents published by Uncle Sam. In 1976, without knowing the term itself, I wrote about hyperparathyroidism -- the effect of fluoride on the calcium content of our blood. . . which is regulated very closely by the parathyroid gland, and results in osteoporosis. I was concerned about increasing numbers of children whose teeth would need expensive dental treatment because of fluoride damage, and concerned about people whose arthritis would be caused by excess dietary fluoride. I managed to change the law in Michigan, giving people the right to vote on the issue of water fluoridation. Michigan was the first state to repeal their mandatory fluoridation law.

However, to this day, I read about "experts" speaking for the American Dental Association or the Public Health Service, who appear before groups shouting that fluorides do not accumulate, cannot harm anyone, and are essential to life. I often wonder what it would mean to have those letters attached to my name, indicating that I'm qualified as a professional, but suspect I'd rather not. I think, perhaps, they would only mean that I'd have to keep my mouth shut if I wanted to keep my job.

[Home] [EvoluLog] [Search] [GuestBook]


Feedback, thoughts and questions are always welcome at

No copyright! (but be nice please...) composed by OfeK.

Fluoridation is a bad medical practice

1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment. All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do.

2) Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients.

Put another way: Does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it is against that neighbor’s will)?

3) The dose cannot be controlled. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water. Being able to control the dose a patient receives is critical. Some people (e.g., manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink substantially more water than others.

4) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability. According to Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology and one of the scientists who helped keep fluoridation out of Sweden:

“Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication — of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day — to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy” (Carlsson 1978).

5) People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water. Fluoridated water is not the only way people are exposed to fluoride. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996; Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products (Bentley 1999; Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), tea (Levy 1999), and pesticide residues (e.g., from cryolite) on food (Stannard 1991; Burgstahler 1997). It is now widely acknowledged that exposure to non-water sources of fluoride has significantly increased since the water fluoridation program first began (NRC 2006).

6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease, not even tooth decay, is caused by a “fluoride deficiency.”(NRC 1993; Institute of Medicine 1997, NRC 2006). Not a single biological process has been shown to require fluoride. On the contrary there is extensive evidence that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes. Fluoride interferes with numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978). In combination with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with signals from growth factors, hormones and neurotransmitters (Strunecka & Patocka 1999; Li 2003). More and more studies indicate that fluoride can interfere with biochemistry in fundamental ways (Barbier 2010).

7) The level in mothers’ milk is very low. Considering reason #6 it is perhaps not surprising that the level of fluoride in mother’s milk is remarkably low (0.004 ppm, NRC, 2006). This means that a bottle-fed baby consuming fluoridated water (0.6 – 1.2 ppm) can get up to 300 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. There are no benefits (see reasons #11-19), only risks (see reasons #21-36), for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).

8 ) Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride they ingest each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001). Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80% of ingested fluoride into their bones (Ekstrand 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC 2006).

9) No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects. No regular measurements are being made of the levels of fluoride in urine, blood, bones, hair, or nails of either the general population or sensitive subparts of the population (e.g., individuals with kidney disease).

10) There has never been a single randomized clinical trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007). Randomized studies are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”

Swallowing fluoride provides no (or very little) benefit

11) Benefit is 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 benefit of fluoride is 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).

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 (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 found no significant correlation. A multi-million dollar, U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study found no significant relationship between tooth decay and fluoride intake among children. (Warren 2009) This is the first time tooth decay has been investigated as a function of individual exposure (as opposed to mere residence in a fluoridated community).

15) 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, and Pittsburgh). In addition, research has repeatedly found fluoridation 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).

16) Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped. Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has generally continued to decrease (Maupomé 2001; Kunzel & Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000; Seppa 2000).

17) Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation started. Modern research 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. (Colquhoun 1997; Diesendorf 1986). As the following figure indicates, many other factors are responsible for the decline of tooth decay that has been universally reported throughout the western world.

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).

Children are being over-exposed to fluoride

19) Children are being over-exposed to fluoride. The fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e., to lower dental decay rates while limiting the occurrence of dental fluorosis (a discoloring of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its very mild form) to10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). In 2010, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 41% of American adolescents had dental fluorosis, with 8.6% having mild fluorosis and 3.6% having either moderate or severe dental fluorosis (Beltran-Aguilar 2010). As the 41% prevalence figure is a national average and includes children living in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, the fluorosis rate in fluoridated communities will obviously be higher. The British Government’s York Review estimated that up to 48% of children in fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms, with 12.5% having fluorosis of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).

20) The highest doses of fluoride are going to bottle-fed babies. Because of their sole reliance on liquids for their food intake, infants consuming formula made with fluoridated water have the highest exposure to fluoride, by bodyweight, in the population. Because infant exposure to fluoridated water has been repeatedly found to be a major risk factor for developing dental fluorosis later in life (Marshall 2004; Hong 2006; Levy 2010), a number of dental researchers have recommended that parents of newborns not use fluoridated water when reconstituting formula (Ekstrand 1996; Pendrys 1998; Fomon 2000; Brothwell 2003; Marshall 2004). Even the American Dental Association (ADA), the most ardent institutional proponent of fluoridation, distributed a November 6, 2006 email alert to its members recommending that parents be advised that formula should be made with “low or no-fluoride water.” Unfortunately, the ADA has done little to get this information into the hands of parents. As a result, many parents remain unaware of the fluorosis risk from infant exposure to fluoridated water.

Evidence of harm to other tissues

21) Dental fluorosis may be an indicator of wider systemic damage. There have been many suggestions as to the possible biochemical mechanisms underlying the development of dental fluorosis (Matsuo 1998; Den Besten 1999; Sharma 2008; Duan 2011; Tye 2011) and they are complicated for a lay reader. While promoters of fluoridation are content to dismiss dental fluorosis (in its milder forms) as merely a cosmetic effect, it is rash to assume that fluoride is not impacting other developing tissues when it is visibly damaging the teeth by some biochemical mechanism (Groth 1973; Colquhoun 1997). Moreover, ingested fluoride can only cause dental fluorosis during the period before the permanent teeth have erupted (6-8 years), other tissues are potentially susceptible to damage throughout life. For example, in areas of naturally high levels of fluoride the first indicator of harm is dental fluorosis in children. In the same communities many older people develop skeletal fluorosis.

22) Fluoride may damage the brain. According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” In a review of the literature commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), fluoride has been listed among about 100 chemicals for which there is “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent (Mullenix 1995). In total, there have now been over 100 animal experiments showing that fluoride can damage the brain and impact learning and behavior. According to fluoridation proponents, these animal studies can be ignored because high doses were used. However, it is important to note that rats generally require five times more fluoride to reach the same plasma levels in humans (Sawan 2010). Further, one animal experiment found effects at remarkably low doses (Varner 1998). In this study, rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water (the same level used in fluoridation programs), using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta-amyloid deposits which are associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Other animal studies have found effects on the brain at water fluoride levels as low as 5 ppm (Liu 2010).

23) Fluoride may lower IQ. There have now been 33 studies from China, Iran, India and Mexico that have reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. One of these studies (Lin 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g., 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency. Other studies have found IQ reductions at 1.9 ppm (Xiang 2003a,b); 0.3-3.0 ppm (Ding 2011); 1.8-3.9 ppm (Xu 1994); 2.0 ppm (Yao 1996, 1997); 2.1-3.2 ppm (An 1992); 2.38 ppm (Poureslami 2011); 2.45 ppm (Eswar 2011); 2.5 ppm (Seraj 2006); 2.85 ppm (Hong 2001); 2.97 ppm (Wang 2001, Yang 1994); 3.15 ppm (Lu 2000); 4.12 ppm (Zhao 1996). In the Ding study, each 1 ppm increase of fluoride in urine was associated with a loss of 0.59 IQ points. None of these studies indicate an adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking artificially fluoridated water from this affect. According to the National Research Council (2006), “the consistency of the results [in fluoride/IQ studies] appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” The NRC’s conclusion has recently been amplified by a team of Harvard scientists whose fluoride/IQ meta-review concludes that fluoride’s impact on the developing brain should be a “high research priority.” (Choi et al., 2012). Except for one small IQ study from New Zealand (Spittle 1998) no fluoridating country has yet investigated the matter.

24) Fluoride may cause non-IQ neurotoxic effects. Reduced IQ is not the only neurotoxic effect that may result from fluoride exposure. At least three human studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired visual-spatial organization (Calderon 2000; Li 2004; Rocha-Amador 2009); while four other studies have found an association between prenatal fluoride exposure and fetal brain damage (Han 1989; Du 1992; Dong 1993; Yu 1996).

25) Fluoride affects the pineal gland. Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) show that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis, Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997). Consistent with Luke’s findings, one of the earliest fluoridation trials in the U.S. (Schlesinger 1956) reported that on average young girls in the fluoridated community reached menstruation 5 months earlier than girls in the non-fluoridated community. Inexplicably, no fluoridating country has attempted to reproduce either Luke’s or Schlesinger’s findings or examine the issue any further.

26) Fluoride affects thyroid function. According to the U.S. National Research Council (2006), “several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.” In the Ukraine, Bachinskii (1985) found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3 ppm fluoride in water. In the middle of the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid) (Stecher 1960; Waldbott 1978). According to a clinical study by Galletti and Joyet (1958), the thyroid function of hyperthyroid patients was effectively reduced at just 2.3 to 4.5 mg/day of fluoride ion. To put this finding in perspective, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS, 1991) has estimated that total fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities ranges from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day. This is a remarkable fact, particularly considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in the United States and other fluoridated countries. Symptoms of hypothyroidism include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease. In 2010, the second most prescribed drug of the year was Synthroid (sodium levothyroxine) which is a hormone replacement drug used to treat an underactive thyroid.

27) Fluoride causes arthritic symptoms. Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis (a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa), mimic the symptoms of arthritis (Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation published in Chemical & Engineering News, “Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed” (Hileman 1988). Few, if any, studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis – CDC, 2002) and other fluoridated countries is related to growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. Even when individuals in the U.S. suffer advanced forms of skeletal fluorosis (from drinking large amounts of tea), it has taken years of misdiagnoses before doctors finally correctly diagnosed the condition as fluorosis.

28) Fluoride damages bone. An early fluoridation trial (Newburgh-Kingston 1945-55) found a significant two-fold increase in cortical bone defects among children in the fluoridated community (Schlesinger 1956). The cortical bone is the outside layer of the bone and is important to protect against fracture. While this result was not considered important at the time with respect to bone fractures, it did prompt questions about a possible link to osteosarcoma (Caffey, 1955; NAS, 1977). In 2001, Alarcon-Herrera and co-workers reported a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in both children and adults in a high fluoride area in Mexico.

29) Fluoride may increase hip fractures in the elderly. When high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a higher number of fractures, particularly hip fractures (Inkovaara 1975; Gerster 1983; Dambacher 1986; O’Duffy 1986; Hedlund 1989; Bayley 1990; Gutteridge 1990. 2002; Orcel 1990; Riggs 1990 and Schnitzler 1990). Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, often leading to a loss of independence or a shortened life. There have been over a dozen studies published since 1990 that have investigated a possible relationship between hip fractures and long term consumption of artificially fluoridated water or water with high natural levels. The results have been mixed – some have found an association and others have not. Some have even claimed a protective effect. One very important study in China, which examined hip fractures in six Chinese villages, found what appears to be a dose-related increase in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8 ppm (Li 2001) offering little comfort to those who drink a lot of fluoridated water. Moreover, in the only human epidemiological study to assess bone strength as a function of bone fluoride concentration, researchers from the University of Toronto found that (as with animal studies) the strength of bone declined with increasing fluoride content (Chachra 2010). Finally, a recent study from Iowa (Levy 2009), published data suggesting that low-level fluoride exposure may have a detrimental effect on cortical bone density in girls (an effect that has been repeatedly documented in clinical trials and which has been posited as an important mechanism by which fluoride may increase bone fracture rates).

30) People with impaired kidney function are particularly vulnerable to bone damage. Because of their inability to effectively excrete fluoride, people with kidney disease are prone to accumulating high levels of fluoride in their bone and blood. As a result of this high fluoride body burden, kidney patients have an elevated risk for developing skeletal fluorosis. In one of the few U.S. studies investigating the matter, crippling skeletal fluorosis was documented among patients with severe kidney disease drinking water with just 1.7 ppm fluoride (Johnson 1979). Since severe skeletal fluorosis in kidney patients has been detected in small case studies, it is likely that larger, systematic studies would detect skeletal fluorosis at even lower fluoride levels.

31) Fluoride may cause bone cancer (osteosarcoma). A U.S. government-funded animal study found a dose-dependent increase in bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in fluoride-treated, male rats (NTP 1990). Following the results of this study, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed national cancer data in the U.S. and found a significantly higher rate of osteosarcoma (a bone cancer) in young men in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas (Hoover et al 1991a). While the NCI concluded (based on an analysis lacking statistical power) that fluoridation was not the cause (Hoover et al 1991b), no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey (Cohn 1992) found osteosarcoma rates to be up to 6 times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. Other epidemiological studies of varying size and quality have failed to find this relationship (a summary of these can be found in Bassin, 2001 and Connett & Neurath, 2005). There are three reasons why a fluoride-osteosarcoma connection is plausible: First, fluoride accumulates to a high level in bone. Second, fluoride stimulates bone growth. And, third, fluoride can interfere with the genetic apparatus of bone cells in several ways; it has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage, and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in both cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993; Mihashi 1996; Zhang 2009). In addition to cell and tissue studies, a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans has also been reported (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997; Joseph 2000).

32) Proponents have failed to refute the Bassin-Osteosarcoma study. In 2001, Elise Bassin, a dentist, successfully defended her doctoral thesis at Harvard in which she found that young boys had a five-to-seven fold increased risk of getting osteosarcoma by the age of 20 if they drank fluoridated water during their mid-childhood growth spurt (age 6 to 8). The study was published in 2006 (Bassin 2006) but has been largely discounted by fluoridating countries because her thesis adviser Professor Chester Douglass (a promoter of fluoridation and a consultant for Colgate) promised a larger study that he claimed would discount her thesis (Douglass and Joshipura, 2006). Now, after 5 years of waiting the Douglass study has finally been published (Kim 2011) but in no way does this study discount Bassin’s findings. The study, which used far fewer controls than Bassin’s analysis, did not even attempt to assess the age-specific window of risk that Bassin identified. Indeed, by the authors’ own admission, the study had no capacity to assess the risk of osteosarcoma among children and adolescents (the precise population of concern). For a critique of the Douglass study, click here.

33) Fluoride may cause reproductive problems. Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system – it damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of different species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a,b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002; Zakrzewska 2002). In addition, an epidemiological study from the US found increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 ppm or more fluoride in the water (Freni 1994), two studies have found increased fertility among men living in high-fluoride areas of China and India (Liu 1988; Neelam 1987); four studies have found reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Hao 2010; Chen P 1997; Susheela 1996; Barot 1998), and a study of fluoride-exposed workers reported a “subclinical reproductive effect” (Ortiz-Perez 2003). While animal studies by FDA researchers have failed to find evidence of reproductive toxicity in fluoride-exposed rats (Sprando 1996, 1997, 1998), the National Research Council (2006) has recommended that, “the relationship between fluoride and fertility requires additional study.”

34) Some individuals are highly sensitive to low levels of fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies. In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions. Many individuals have reported suffering from symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, rashes and stomach and gastro intestinal tract problems, which disappear when they avoid fluoride in their water and diet. (Shea 1967; Waldbott 1978; Moolenburgh 1987) Frequently the symptoms reappear when they are unwittingly exposed to fluoride again (Spittle, 2008). No fluoridating government has conducted scientific studies to take this issue beyond these anecdotal reports. Without the willingness of governments to investigate these reports scientifically, should we as a society be forcing these people to ingest fluoride?

35) Other subsets of population are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. In addition to people suffering from impaired kidney function discussed in reason #30 other subsets of the population are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993) these include: infants, the elderly, and those with diabetes mellitus. Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g., calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodine deficiencies and protein-poor diets) and those who have diabetes insipidus. See: Greenberg 1974; Klein 1975; Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin 1991; Chen 1997; Seow 1994; Teotia 1998.

No Margin of Safety

36) There is no margin of safety for several health effects. No one can deny that high natural levels of fluoride damage health. Millions of people in India and China have had their health compromised by fluoride. The real question is whether there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses shown to cause harm in published studies and the total dose people receive consuming uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and non-water sources of fluoride. This margin of safety has to take into account the wide range of individual sensitivity expected in a large population (a safety factor of 10 is usually applied to the lowest level causing harm). Another safety factor is also needed to take into account the wide range of doses to which people are exposed. There is clearly no margin of safety for dental fluorosis (CDC, 2010) and based on the following studies nowhere near an adequate margin of safety for lowered IQ (Xiang 2003a,b; Ding 2011; Choi 2012); lowered thyroid function (Galletti & Joyet 1958; Bachinskii 1985; Lin 1991); bone fractures in children (Alarcon-Herrera 2001) or hip fractures in the elderly (Kurttio 1999; Li 2001). All of these harmful effects are discussed in the NRC (2006) review.

Environmental Justice

37) Low-income families penalized by fluoridation. Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition, and thus more likely to be more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects, are the poor, who unfortunately, are the very people being targeted by new fluoridation programs. While at heightened risk, poor families are least able to afford avoiding fluoride once it is added to the water supply. No financial support is being offered to these families to help them get alternative water supplies or to help pay the costs of treating unsightly cases of dental fluorosis.

38) Black and Hispanic children are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. According to the CDC’s national survey of dental fluorosis, black and Mexican-American children have significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than white children (Beltran-Aguilar 2005, Table 23). The recognition that minority children appear to be more vulnerable to toxic effects of fluoride, combined with the fact that low-income families are less able to avoid drinking fluoridated water, has prompted prominent leaders in the environmental-justice movement to oppose mandatory fluoridation in Georgia. In a statement issued in May 2011, Andrew Young, a colleague of Martin Luther King, Jr., and former Mayor of Atlanta and former US Ambassador to the United Nations, stated:

“I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist…My father was a dentist. I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies. So it is with fluoridation.”

39) Minorities are not being warned about their vulnerabilities to fluoride. The CDC is not warning black and Mexican-American children that they have higher rates of dental fluorosis than Caucasian children (see #38). This extra vulnerability may extend to other toxic effects of fluoride. Black Americans have higher rates of lactose intolerance, kidney problems and diabetes, all of which may exacerbate fluoride’s toxicity.

40) Tooth decay reflects low-income not low-fluoride intake. Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for low-income families. The highest rates of tooth decay today can be found in low-income areas that have been fluoridated for many years. The real “Oral Health Crisis” that exists today in the United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.

The largely untested chemicals used in fluoridation programs

41) The chemicals used to fluoridate water are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they largely come from the wet scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these silicon fluorides are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000). Arsenic is a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level. This one contaminant alone could be increasing cancer rates – and unnecessarily so.

42) The silicon fluorides have not been tested comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. Proponents claim that once the silicon fluorides have been diluted at the public water works they are completely dissociated to free fluoride ions and hydrated silica and thus there is no need to examine the toxicology of these compounds. However, while a study from the University of Michigan (Finney et al., 2006) showed complete dissociation at neutral pH, in acidic conditions (pH 3) there was a stable complex containing five fluoride ions. Thus the possibility arises that such a complex may be regenerated in the stomach where the pH lies between 1 and 2.

43) The silicon fluorides may increase lead uptake into children’s blood. Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000, 2007), and to a lesser extent Macek (2006), show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children’s blood. Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the developing brain, this is a very serious finding. Nevertheless, it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries. This association received some strong biochemical support from an animal study by Sawan et al. (2010) who found that exposure of rats to a combination of fluorosilicic acid and lead in their drinking water increased the uptake of lead into blood some threefold over exposure to lead alone.

44) Fluoride may leach lead from pipes, brass fittings and soldered joints. In tightly controlled laboratory experiments, Maas et al (2007) have shown that fluoridating agents in combination with chlorinating agents such as chloroamine increase the leaching of lead from brass fittings used in plumbing. While proponents may argue about the neurotoxic effects of low levels of fluoride there is no argument that lead at very low levels lowers IQ in children.

Continued promotion of fluoridation is unscientific

45) Key health studies have not been done. In the January 2008 issue of Scientific American, Professor John Doull, the chairman of the important 2006 National Research Council review, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s Standards, is quoted as saying:

What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long really—and now we need to take a fresh look . . . In the scientific community people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the top 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on.

The absence of studies is being used by promoters as meaning the absence of harm. This is an irresponsible position.

46) Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. Many of those promoting fluoridation rely heavily on a list of endorsements. However, the U.S. PHS first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed and before any significant health studies had been published (see chapters 9 and 10 in The Case Against Fluoride for the significance of this PHS endorsement for the future promotion of fluoridation). Many other endorsements swiftly followed with little evidence of any scientific rational for doing so. The continued use of these endorsements has more to do with political science than medical science.

47) Review panels hand-picked to deliver a pro-fluoridation result. Every so often, particularly when their fluoridation program is under threat, governments of fluoridating countries hand-pick panels to deliver reports that provide the necessary re-endorsement of the practice. In their recent book Fluoride Wars (2009), which is otherwise slanted toward fluoridation, Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr concede this point when they write:

There is one anti-fluoridationist charge that does have some truth to it. Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the costs and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favor of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together reports by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1941, 1944 and 1954; the National Academy of Sciences in 1951, 1971, 1977 and 1993; the World Health Organization in 1958 and 1970; and the U.S. Public Health Service in 1991 are rife with the names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous.

The most recent examples of these self-fulfilling prophecies have come from the Irish Fluoridation Forum (2002); the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2007) and Health Canada (2008, 2010). The latter used a panel of six experts to review the health literature. Four of the six were pro-fluoridation dentists and the other two had no demonstrated expertise on fluoride. A notable exception to this trend was the appointment by the U.S. National Research Council of the first balanced panel of experts ever selected to look at fluoride’s toxicity in the U.S. This panel of twelve reviewed the US EPA’s safe drinking water standards for fluoride. After three and half years the panel concluded in a 507- page report that the safe drinking water standard was not protective of health and a new maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) should be determined (NRC, 2006). If normal toxicological procedures and appropriate margins of safety were applied to their findings this report should spell an end to water fluoridation. Unfortunately in January of 2011 the US EPA Office of Water made it clear that they would not determine a value for the MCLG that would jeopardize the water fluoridation program (EPA press release, Jan 7, 2011. Once again politics was allowed to trump science.

More and more independent scientists oppose fluoridation

48) Many scientists oppose fluoridation. Proponents of fluoridation have maintained for many years— despite the fact that the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists—that the only people opposed to fluoridation are not bona fide scientists. Today, as more and more scientists, doctors, dentists and other professionals, read the primary literature for themselves, rather than relying on self-serving statements from the ADA and the CDC, they are realizing that they and the general public have not been diligently informed by their professional bodies on this subject. As of January 2012, over 4,000 professionals have signed a statement calling for an end to water fluoridation worldwide. This statement and a list of signatories can be found on the website of the Fluoride Action Network. A glimpse of the caliber of those opposing fluoridation can be gleaned by watching the 28-minute video “Professional Perspectives on Water fluoridation” which can be viewed online at the same FAN site.

Proponents’ dubious tactics

49) Proponents usually refuse to defend fluoridation in open debate. While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they usually refuse to defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the U.S. EPA (Bryson 2004). According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, “Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics’ view” (Easley, 1999). In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that, “the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues” (Martin 1991).

50) Proponents use very dubious tactics to promote fluoridation. Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991). Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain (Mullenix 1995); and Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004). Many dentists and even doctors tell opponents in private that they are opposed to this practice but dare not speak out in public because of peer pressure and the fear of recriminations. Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific and ethical grounds.


When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, vested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a sixty-year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials and dental leaders have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science, not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it’s called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children’s teeth have not suffered, while their public’s trust has been strengthened.

Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child’s mouth?

While fluoridation may not be the greatest environmental health threat, it is one of the easiest to end. It is as easy as turning off a spigot in the public water works. But to turn off that spigot takes political will and to get that we need masses more people informed and organized. Please get these 50 reasons to all your friends and encourage them to get fluoride out of their community and to help ban this practice worldwide.


Further arguments against fluoridation, can be viewed at and in the book The Case Against Fluoridation (Chelsea Green, 2010). Arguments for fluoridation can be found at

The Fluoride Truth and It's Bizarre History - Full Documentary

re-upload from: UMakeTheConnection - Thank you!!! subscribe @

Fluoride: The Bizarre Truth - Full Documentary

Music: Steve Phillips - "Dumbing Down"

*** I N F O R M A T I O N ___ L I N K S ***

FLUORIDATION: Mind Control of the Masses - by Ian E. Stephen (1995)

Fluoride Action Network

Scientific Facts on the Biological Effects of Fluorides

Why EPA'S Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation

FLUORIDE ... The Aging Factor

How to Recognize and Avoid the Devastating Effects of Fluoride

John A. Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. (1943-2000)

The Greatest "Scientific" Fluoride Fraud Yet?

50 Reasons to Avoid Fluoridation


Governmentally Approved Poison

Fluoride does not reduce cavities and does causes brittle bones and a soft brain

Fluoride: A Chronological History

Oregon Federal Judge Hands Darlene Sherrell a Major Victory Anti-Fluoridation Milestone

Michigan Mandatory Fluoridation Law Repealed

Frequently Asked Questions about Fluoride

Is Fluoride and Fluoridation Causing/Contributing To Cancer & Other Diseases

Dare to Think -- A Message About Fluoride, written by Darlene Sherrell

Fluoride Poisoning Symptoms

Fluoride Health Effects Database

How to Detox Fluorides from Your Body

Friday, September 21, 2012

NYPD's message to the public

Take a close look at what the NYPD is putting up on the streets of NYC these days. What do you really see?

Missles being fired by drones to FAMILIES. See the Dad, mom, and little girl?

They are flat out telegraphing that they are first spying on families, then hunting them down.

Not terrorists, bank robbers, or whatever...BUT FAMILIES.

The message is clear. In the USA, the family is the enemy to be hunted down and destroyed.

Welcome to any major US city, year 2012.

Your tax dollars at work, killing kids

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Matt's first go at pen and ink drawings

Matt is in his second year in college as an Art Major. The drawings below is his freehand first attempt at a new medium he's been aching to get into.

click on pic for larger size

Walmart: The High Cost Of Low Prices

Four suspended HPD officers used ticket scheme to earn overtime pay

Four veteran Houston police officers who collected nearly $1 million in overtime pay combined since 2008 were recently suspended for listing one another as witnesses on traffic tickets to help themselves get overtime for testifying in court, according to records obtained Wednesday.

From 2008 to the present, the four officers who specialize in writing tickets together were paid $943,000 in overtime, city payroll records show.

The punishments handed down Sept. 4 by Police Chief Charles McClelland range from 20 to 45 days off without pay, concluding a lengthy investigation by HPD internal affairs triggered by tickets issued in April 2011.

An audit of traffic tickets written by the four officers showed they "unnecessarily listed other officers on tickets issued to citizens, or (were) unnecessarily listed on tickets issued to citizens by other officers, after writing multiple citations," according to disciplinary records.

As a result of the investigation, each officer admitted to breaking various rules, including failure to use sound judgment. They also acknowledged violating HPD rules against assigning themselves or other officers on citations "for the sole purpose of obtaining or accruing court overtime compensation," the records state.

The documents do not detail the number of tickets the four wrote or how many times they listed each other as witnesses.

HPD public information officer John Cannon declined to discuss the facts of the ticket case and results of the audits.

$347,000 for 1 officer

The lengthiest punishment was given to Sgt. Paul S. Terry, 44, an officer since February 1994, who agreed to 45 days off without pay. Terry has four previous punishments, including a reprimand in 2000 for an extra job violation, a two-day suspension in 2002 for not completing a report on a call, and a three-day suspension in 2006 for falsifying records to show he checked city jail cellblocks during his shift.

Terry, reached at home, declined to comment.

Senior police officer Matthew L. Davis, 40, who became an officer in February 1997, agreed to a 30-day suspension. Last year, Davis was suspended for a day for improperly voiding traffic citations for a woman at the request of a Houston city official. He was reprimanded for causing many cases to be dismissed in municipal court.

Davis has earned $347,000 in overtime alone since 2008. He did not return calls for comment.

Police officer Steven L. Running, 41, sworn in as an officer in August 1998, also received a 30-day suspension. Running has four previous disciplinary actions, including a two-day suspension in 2003 for releasing a burglary suspect who falsely claimed he had permission to be in a burglarized residence, two minor auto accidents and skipping a municipal court appearance. Running could not be reached by phone for comment.

Senior police officer Kenneth L. Bigger, 39, who became an officer in March 1999, agreed to a 20-day suspension. In 2002, Bigger was suspended for two days for not filing charges against a suspect arrested for credit card abuse after he transported him to jail. Calls left at his residence were not returned.

Internal affairs began investigating the officers after there were apparent inconsistencies in two traffic stops that all four officers were involved in. In one stop, an officer drove himself to the city jail where a suspect had already been taken, but listed himself as a witness to one traffic violation he did not observe, his disciplinary record noted.

Last-chance agreement

The four officers agreed to the suspensions under a "last chance agreement," which means McClelland agreed not to fire them in hopes of salvaging their careers.

In exchange, the officers give up their right to appeal the suspensions and signed documents acknowledging any another offense could result in termination.

Ray Hunt, president of the Houston Police Officer's Union, said defense attorneys often challenge citations if not all officers involved in the offense are not listed on the citation. "I'm confident none of those officers put (themselves) on it for the sole purpose of getting overtime," Hunt said.

Anita Hassan contributed to this report.