Proof that the Govt Adds Untreated Toxic Waste to Our Water

From www.fluoridealert.org...

They call them "wet scrubbers" - the pollution control devices used by the phosphate industry to capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer.

In the past, when the industry let these gases escape, vegetation became scorched, crops destroyed, and cattle crippled.

Today, with the development of sophisticated air-pollution control technology, less of the fluoride escapes into the atmosphere, and the type of pollution that threatened the survival of some communities in the 1950s and 60s, is but a thing of the past (at least in the US and other wealthy countries).

However, the impacts of the industry's fluoride emissions are still being felt, although more subtly, by millions of people - people who, for the most part, do not live anywhere near a phosphate plant.

That's because, after being captured in the scrubbers, the fluoride acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid), a classified hazardous waste, is barreled up and sold, unrefined, to communities across the country. Communities add hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water supplies as the primary fluoride chemical for water fluoridation.

Even if you don't live in a community where fluoride is added to water, you'll still be getting a dose of it through cereal, soda, juice, beer and any other processed food and drink manufactured with fluoridated water.

Meanwhile, if the phosphate industry has its way, it may soon be distributing another of its by-products to communities across the country. That waste product is radium, which may soon be added to a roadbed near you - if the EPA buckles and industry has its way.

2) Effects of Fluoride Pollution (back to top)

Central Florida knows it well. So too does Garrison Montana, Cubatao Brazil, and any other community where phosphate industries have had inefficient, or non-existent, pollution control: Fluoride.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) called the phophate industry a "pandora's box." That, while it brought wealth to rural communities, it also brought ecological devastation. The CBC described the effects of one particular phosphate plant in Dunville, Ontario:

"Farmers noticed it first... Something mysterious burned the peppers, burned the fruit, dwarfed and shriveled the grains, damaged everything that grew. Something in the air destroyed the crops. Anyone could see it... They noticed it first in 1961. Again in '62. Worse each year. Plants that didn't burn, were dwarfed. Grain yields cut in half...Finally, a greater disaster revealed the source of the trouble. A plume from a silver stack, once the symbol of Dunville's progress, spreading for miles around poison - fluorine. It was identified by veterinarians. There was no doubt. What happened to the cattle was unmistakable, and it broke the farmer's hearts. Fluorosis - swollen joints, falling teeth, pain until cattle lie down and die. Hundreds of them. The cause - fluorine poisoning from the air."

Fluoride has been, and remains to this day, one of the largest environmental liabilities of the phosphate industry. The source of the problem lies in the fact that raw phosphate ore contains high concentrations of fluoride, usually between 20,000 to 40,000 parts per million (equivalent to 2 to 4% of the ore).

When this ore is processed into water-soluble phosphate (via the addition of sulfuric acid), the fluoride content of the ore is vaporized into the air, forming highly toxic gaseous compounds (hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride).

In the past, when the industry had little, if any, pollution control, the fluoride gases were frequently emitted in large volumes into surrounding communities, causing serious environmental damage.

In Polk County, Florida, the creation of multiple phosphate plants in the 1940s caused damage to nearly 25,000 acres of citrus groves and "mass fluoride poisoning" of cattle. It is estimated that, as a result of fluoride contamination, "the cattle population of Polk County dropped 30,000 head" between 1953 and 1960, and "an estimated 150,000 acres of cattle land were abandoned" (Linton 1970).

According to the former president of the Polk County Cattlemen's Association:

"Around 1953 we noticed a change in our cattle... We watched our cattle become gaunt and starved, their legs became deformed; they lost their teeth. Reproduction fell off and when a cow did have a calf, it was also affected by this malady or was a stillborn" (ibid).

In the 1960s, air pollution emitted by another phosphate plant in Garrison, Montana was severe enough to be branded "the worst in the nation" by a 1967 National Air Pollution Conference in Washington, D.C.

As in Polk County, and other communities downwind of fluoride emissions, the cattle in Garrison were poisoned by fluoride. As described in a 1969 article from Good Housekeeping:

"The blight had afflicted cattle too. Some lay in the pasture, barely able to move. Others limped and staggered on swollen legs, or painfully sank down and tried to graze on their knees... Ingested day after day, the excessive fluoride had caused tooth and bone disease in the cattle, so that they could not tolerate the anguish of standing or walking. Even eating or drinking was an agony. Their ultimate fate was dehydration, starvation - and death."

3) Litigation from Fluoride Damage (back to top)

Damage to vegetation and livestock, caused by fluoride emissions from large industry, has resulted, as one might expect, in a great deal of expensive litigation. In 1983, Dr. Leonard Weinstein of Cornell University, stated that "certainly, there has been more litigation on alleged damage to agriculture by fluoride than all other pollutants combined" (Weinstein 1983). While Weinstein was referring to fluoride pollution in general, his comments give an indication of the problem facing the phosphate industry - one of the most notorious emitters of fluoride - in its early days.

So too does an estimate from Dr. Edward Groth, currently a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union. According to an article written by Groth, fluoride pollution between the years 1957 to 1968, "was responsible for more damage claims against industry than all twenty (nationally monitored air pollutants) combined."

The primary reason for the litigation against fluoride emitters was "the painful, economically disastrous, debilitating disease" that fluoride causes to livestock (Hodge & Smith 1977). As noted in a 1970 review by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA),

"Airborne fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant" (Lillie 1970).

Another review on air pollution reached the same conclusion. According to Ender (1969):

"The most important problem concerning damage to animals by air pollution is, no doubt, the poisoning of domestic animals caused by fluorine in smoke, gas, or dust from various industries; industrial fluorosis in livestock is today a disorder well known by veterinarians in all industrialized countries."

According to a review discussing "Fluorine toxicosis and industry", Shupe noted that:

"Air pollution damage to agricultural production in the United States in 1967 was estimated at $500,000,000. Fluoride damage to livestock and vegetation was a substantial part of this amount" (Shupe 1970).

4) Scrubbing away the problem (back to top)

Due to the inevitable liabilities that fluoride pollution presented, and to an increasingly stringent set of environmental regulations, the phosphate industry began cleaning up its act.

As noted by Ervin Bellack, a chemist for the US Public Health Service:

"In the manufacture of super-phosphate fertilizer, phosphate rock is acidulated with sulfuric acid, and the fluoride content of the rock evolves as volatile silicofluorides. In the past, much of this volatile material was vented to the atmosphere, contributing heavily to pollution of the air and land surrounding the manufacturing site. As awareness of the pollution problem increased, scrubbers were added to strip particulate and gaseous components from the waste gas..." (Bellack 1970)

A 1979 review, published in the journal Phosphorous & Potassium, added:

"The fluorine compounds liberated during the acidulation of phosphate rock are now rightly regarded as a menace and the industry is now obliged to suppress emissions-containing vapors to within very low limits in most parts of the world...

In the past, little attention was paid to the emission of gaseous fluorine compounds in the fertilizer industry. But today fluorine recovery is increasingly necessary because of stringent environmental restrictions which demand drastic reductions in the quantities of volatile and toxic fluorine compounds emitted into the waste gases. These compounds now have to be recovered and converted into harmless by-products for disposal or, more desirably, into marketable products" (Denzinger 1979).

5) A Missed Opportunity: Little Demand for Silicofluorides (back to top)

Considering the great demand among big industry for fluoride chemicals as a material used in a wide variety of commercial products and industrial processes, the phosphate industry could have made quite a handsome profit selling its fluoride wastes to industry. This was indeed the hope among some industry analysts, including the authors of the review noted above (Denzinger 1979).

However, the US phosphate industry has thus far been unable to take advantage of this market. The principal reason for this failure stems from the fact that fluoride captured in the scrubbers is combined with silica. The resulting silicofluoride complex has, in turn, proved difficult for the industry to separate and purify in an economically-viable process.

As it now stands, silicofluoride complexes (hydrofluorosilicic acid & sodium silicofluoride) are of little use to industry.

Thus, while US industry continues to satisfy its growing demand for high-grade fluoride chemicals by importing calcium fluoride from abroad (primarily from Mexico, China, and South Africa), the phosphate industry continues dumping large volumes of fluoride into the acidic wastewater ponds that lie at the top of the mountainous waste piles which surround the industry.

In 1995, the Tampa Tribune summed up the situation as follows:

"The U.S. demand for fluorine, which was 400,000 tons, is expected to jump 25 percent by next year... Even though 600,000 tons of fluorine are contained in the 20 million tons of phosphate rock mined in Florida, the fluorine market has been inaccessible because the fluorine is tied up with silica, a hard, glassy material."

Of course, not all of the phosphate industry's fluoride waste is disposed of in the ponds. As noted earlier, the phosphate industry has found at least one regular consumer of its silicofluorides: municipal water-treatment facilities.

According to recent estimates, the phosphate industry sells approximately 200,000 tons of silicofluorides (hydrofluorosilicic acid & sodium silicofluoride) to US communities each year for use as a water fluoridation agent (Coplan & Masters 2001).

6) Fluoridation: "An ideal solution to a long-standing problem"? (back to top)

In 1983, Rebecca Hanmer, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water at the US Environmental Protection Agency, described the policy of using the phosphate industry's silicofluorides for fluoridation as follows:

"In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as the source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them." (See letter)

Another EPA official, Dr. J. William Hirzy, the current Senior Vice-President of EPA Headquarters Union, recently expressed a different view on the matter. According to Hirzy:

'"If this stuff gets out into the air, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it's a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing... There's got to be a better way to manage this stuff" (Hirzy 2000).

ok I wont post the rest of this article (its quite long)but I will post their references
14) REFERENCES (back to top)

Full citations of the studies listed above, can be accessed at:

www.fluoridealert.org...

Note: Full-text copies of all newspaper articles cited in this article can be accessed by clicking on the links within the text.

15) PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY (back to top)

Photographs of the phosphate industry are available at: www.fluoridealert.org...

16) FURTHER READING (back to top)

(Many thanks to Anita Knight for continually supplying FAN with newspaper articles on the phosphate industry in Florida.)

Fluoride Pollution Issues

* Wastewater Dump Seen As `Lesser Of Two Evils' The Tampa Tribune February 19, 2005
* Tribes object to Simplot plan Idaho State Journal January 14, 2005
* Cattle Suffered Due to Fluoride The Ledger June 21, 2004
* Medical Mystery The Tampa Tribune April 18, 2004
* Emotional week for area residents Fort Saskatchewan Record March 5, 2004
* Heartland: “a pollution ghetto" Fort Saskatchewan Record February 27, 2004
* Residents fight Agrium expansion; want controls Edmonton Journal February 24, 2004
* Companies skewed Pensacola pollution evidence Fort Worth Star September 9, 2003
* Official Urges Coronet Probe The Tampa Tribune July 18, 2003
* What Lies Beneath May Affect Rising HomeTampa Tribune July 13, 2003
* Neighbors fear health effects of blowing gypsum The Edmonton Journal June 14, 2003
* Fears over level of toxic fluoride: Homegrown produce threatened by emissions Otago Daily Times (New Zealand) June 9, 2003
* Concerns over high levels of fluoride - Otago Daily Times (New Zealand) June 4, 2003
* Oswal Phosphate Plant facing Closure due to Fluoride Contamination - India Business Insight June 13 & 18, 2002
* Investigation into Buffalo deaths near Phosphate plant - The Hindu December 9, 2002
* Superfund site might pose greater risk, legal fight shows Pensacola News Journal (Florida) September 15, 2002
* Air of Death Canadian Broadcasting Company 1967
* The Town that Refused to Die Good Housekeeping January 1969.
* Death in the Air: Air Pollution from Phosphate Fertilizer Production Synthesis/Regeneration Fall 2002
* Terracide: America's Destruction of Her Living Environment Ron M. Linton, Little, Brown and Company, 1970
* Fluoride-tainted Pasture Grass May Harm Cattle The Tampa Tribune February 16, 1984
* Air Pollution from Stauffer Chemical Phosphate Plant Ombudsman Report, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, December 29, 2000
* Old plant may contaminate Anclote River, report says Tampa Tribune March 21, 1994
* EPA Amends Phosphoric Acid and Fertilizer Rules Chemical Engineering Progress August 1, 2002
* A host of roasted daffodils - The Guardian (UK) December 15, 1988
* Technology Developed to Capture HF Emissions from Phosphate Ponds Tampa Tribune April 17, 1993
* Keysville air quality to be monitored East Hillsborough Tribune January 20, 1986
* Assessment of the vegetation risk by fluoride emissions from fertiliser industries at Cubatao, Brazil Science of the Total Environment 1996
* Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lymphocytes of workers at a phosphate fertilizer factory Mutation Research, Volume 393, 1997
* Sedimentary Fluorite in Tampa Bay, Florida Environmental Letters, Vol. 60, 1974
* Fluorine Recovery in the Phosphate Industry: a review Phosphorous & Potassium #103 SEPT/OCT 1979, pages 33-39.
* Recovery of fluosilicic acid and fluoride bearing waters for the production of a mixture of silica and precipitated calcium fluoride usable for the production of cement International Fertilizer Industry Association's 2000 Technical Conference in New Orleans

Fluoridation Chemicals

* What's in the Water? - Salt Lake Tribune June 16, 2002
* Dartmouth Researcher Warns of Chemicals Added to Drinking Water Dartmouth News March 15, 2001
* EPA Admits to Having No Studies on the Health Effects of Silicofluorides Letter from EPA's Robert Thurnau to Roger Masters, November 16, 2000
* Fluoridation Chemicals Have Not Been Safety Tested - Here's the Proof National Pure Water Association (UK) August 2002
* A Resolution on the Silicofluoride Controversy Dr. Robert Carton & Myron Coplan, 2001 (Resolution submitted to the American Public Health Association for consideration at October 21-25, 2001 conference in Atlanta, Georgia)
* The Official Spinning of Pollution into an Elixir George Glasser 2000
* Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, EPA's Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, 1983. .

Phosphogypsum Stacks

* Will EPA Rethink Gypsum Policy? The Ledger October 11, 2004
* About Phosphogypsum US Environmental Protection Agency
* Frequently Asked Questions US Environmental Protection Agency
* Waste bypasses federal regulation despite radioactivity Tampa Tribune July 21 1991
* Tally conference will debate use of phosphate byproduct Tampa Tribune December 3, 1995
* Gypsum finds ecological concerns stacked against it The Tampa Bay Business Journal December 6, 1996

Wastewater Issues

* Wastewater Dump Seen As `Lesser Of Two Evils' The Tampa Tribune February 19, 2005
* An unacceptable breach St Petersburg Times September 8, 2004
* Cargill Was Told Thin Berm A Threat The Tampa Tribune September 8, 2004
* Spill corrodes reputation for aiding environment St. Petersburg Times September 8, 2004
* Wastewater Spill Is Worrisome Tampa Tribune September 7, 2004
* Cargill Scrambles To Mitigate Wastewater's Effect On Creek Tampa Tribune September 6, 2004
* Piney Point: An ecological powder keg Sarasota Herald-Tribune July 16, 2003
* DEP says Piney Point biggest threat to environment - The Herald Tribune June 25, 2003
* Waste Water Heading To Gulf With Federal OK - Tampa Tribune April 11, 2003
* 500-million gallons of acidic waste heading to gulf - St. Petersburg Times April 5, 2003
* Gypsum Stacks Cleanup Costly - Tampa Tribune March 15, 2003
* Dumping Acidic Water In Gulf Is Best Of Dismal Alternatives - Tampa Tribune February 22, 2003
* DEP Aims To Up Dump In Bay - Tampa Tribune January 10, 2003
* DEP let phosphate waste flow into preserve - St. Petersburg Times November 22, 2001
* Phosphate Discharge to Resume Tampa Tribune December 14, 200

*
* Gypsum Stacks Cleanup Costly - Tampa Tribune March 15, 2003
* Dumping Acidic Water In Gulf Is Best Of Dismal Alternatives - Tampa Tribune February 22, 2003
* DEP Aims To Up Dump In Bay - Tampa Tribune January 10, 2003
* DEP let phosphate waste flow into preserve - St. Petersburg Times November 22, 2001
* Phosphate Discharge to Resume Tampa Tribune December 14, 2001
* Groups seek solution for wastewater woes - Bradenton Herald December 11, 2001
* Mulberry bailout tops $1M - Herald Tribune Newscoast June 17, 2001
* Phosphate plants under close eye Tampa Tribune March 17, 2001
* Sinkholes and Stacks; Neighbors claim Florida's Phosphate Mines are a Hazard US News & World Report June 12, 1995
* Coronet Working to Control Arsenic Tampa Tribune December 30, 2002
* Phosphate industry hits another low Tampa Tribune December 19, 1997

Fluoride & Radon Air Emisions from Waste Ponds

* Neighbors fear health effects of blowing gypsum The Edmonton Journal June 14, 2003
* Regional planners OK phosphate gypsum stack Tampa Tribune August 23, 1994
* Fluoride-tainted Pasture Grass May Harm Cattle The Tampa Tribune February 16, 1984
* Gaseous Fluoride Emissions from Gypsum Settling and Cooling Ponds Florida Scientist Vol. 50 No. 2 Spring 1987 No. 2
* Technology Developed to Capture HF Emissions from Phosphate Ponds Tampa Tribune April 17, 1993

Radiation Hazards

* Will EPA Rethink Gypsum Policy? The Ledger October 11, 2004
* Cancer mystery deepens: Uranium secret, long ago in Joliet area, prompts questions - The Herald News October 1, 2001
* Building 55: Was a killer in our midst? - The Herald News September 17, 2000
* Radiation victims urged to file claims - The Herald News July 19, 2001
* Workers share stories about health woes - The Herald News April 3, 2001
* Waste bypasses federal regulation despite radioactivity Tampa Tribune July 21, 1991
* Tally conference will debate use of phosphate byproduct Tampa Tribune December 3, 1995
* Sinkholes and Stacks; Neighbors claim Florida's Phosphate Mines are a Hazard US News & World Report June 12, 1995
* Phosphate mining legacy feared Sarasota Herald Tribune June 14, 1995
* About Phosphogypsum US Environmental Protection Agency
* Frequently Asked Questions US Environmental Protection Agency
* Yellowcake Production at Stauffer Chemical from Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Ombudsman Report of Findings and Recommendations Regarding the Stauffer Chemical Company Site Tarpon Springs, Florida, December 29, 2000
* Handling of radium and uranium contaminated waste piles and other wastes from phosphate ore processing Nuclear Science and Technology, Report EUR 15448 EN European Commission, Luxembourg 1995.
* Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Superfund Site Assessment Branch, October 21, 1998
* A Study of Radium-226 and Radon-222 Concentrations in Ground Water Near a Phosphate Mining and Manufacturing Facility The Water Resources Research Institute March 1984

Mining Issues

* A mining showdown at Horse Creek - St. Petersburg Times November 12, 2001
* Opposition builds to stop mine - St. Petersburg Times June 18, 2001
* Campaign to protect creek has few allies - St. Petersburg Times July 20, 1999
* Mining Threat - St. Petersburg Times June 20, 2001
* Reclaimed mine is not as safe as once thought - Tallahassee Democrat February 17, 2002
* One Third of Fish Species in Peace River May be History Sun Herald February 9, 2002
* Sheep Herd Dies from Contamination at Phosphate Mine Articles from Idaho State Journal July 2001
* A Study of Radium-226 and Radon-222 Concentrations in Ground Water Near a Phosphate Mining and Manufacturing Facility The Water Resources Research Institute March 1984

Politics/Greenwashing

* Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Accused of Whitewashing The Ledger January 14, 2002
* Phosphate industry aims to be corporate neighbor Herald Sun (Florida) December 2, 2002
* Mining Threat - St. Petersburg Times June 20, 2001

Other

* Phosphate Fertilizer Pollution in Israel (Haifa Chemical) Greenpeace June 8, 1998
* Greenpeace Action Alert on Phosphate Industry Pollution in Mediterranean Greenpeace Mediterranean September 21, 2000

Fluoride is added to the water supply to reduce tooth decay, and is believed by the WHO, CDC, and other prominent mainstream medical organizations to be effective. There are harmful and lethal doses of literally every single substance that exists. These are not the levels of fluoride that are put into the water. Unprocessed gaseous compounds are not the same as what is being put into the water. To present the information in the way that you have is irresponsible, because fluoride added to the water in the ways that it is and in the quantities that it is is not dangerous. It is easy to tell this scary story of how totally different forms of fluoride at drastically different concentrations have been harmful when released into the environment, but that is hardly relevant to what is happening with our water. This stuff only scares people that don't understand the realities, and that is what you are taking advantage of. Please stop being misleading, and start by not being mislead yourself. I encourage you read about the actual implementation of fluoride additives to water - and the related medical studies - and then write a thread about that(but be careful because there is a lot of ignorant, misleading BS out there).

Originally posted by OnceReturned
Fluoride is added to the water supply to reduce tooth decay, and is believed by the WHO, CDC, and other prominent mainstream medical organizations to be effective. There are harmful and lethal doses of literally every single substance that exists. These are not the levels of fluoride that are put into the water. Unprocessed gaseous compounds are not the same as what is being put into the water. To present the information in the way that you have is irresponsible, because fluoride added to the water in the ways that it is and in the quantities that it is is not dangerous. It is easy to tell this scary story of how totally different forms of fluoride at drastically different concentrations have been harmful when released into the environment, but that is hardly relevant to what is happening with our water. This stuff only scares people that don't understand the realities, and that is what you are taking advantage of. Please stop being misleading, and start by not being mislead yourself. I encourage you read about the actual implementation of fluoride additives to water - and the related medical studies - and then write a thread about that(but be careful because there is a lot of ignorant, misleading BS out there).

Im sorry but you dont seem to know what your talking about.
even at 1ppm actual fluoride added to only 20% of the water supplies still has been shown to cause many diseases in peer reviewed journals.

www.fluoridealert.org...

but what is being added in 80% of the cases has never had a test done on a human being before...thats not my opinion...thats the facts....see the above report.

Originally posted by Amenti
even at 1ppm actual fluoride added to only 20% of the water supplies still has been shown to cause many diseases in peer reviewed journals

Care to show us those articles in peer reviewed journals?

There are many, many more legitimate sources claiming fluoride(when added it water in the quantities that it is) is safe than claiming it is a hazard.

www.cdc.gov...

This link provides most of the sources that the CDC bases their policy on. This includes assessments by the National Academy of Sciences(multiple reports based on many studies over many years), the National Institute of Medicine, and the United States Public Health Service Review, among others.

The website "fluoridealert.com" clearly has an agenda. Their claims are based on very liberal interpretations of tangentially related scientific papers from questionable sources as far back as 50 years ago.

You can find people saying anything on the internet, and some of them are right. The best way to go about forming your belief about who is right is to weigh the evidence. In this case, the evidence is very strongly stacked on the side of fluoride in drinking water being safe. Any fairly objective review of the availible literature will lead you to the same conclusion(don't just google "dangers of fluoride in drinking water," please, you will find many people who have devoted a lot of time and energy to a misguided cruisade and very little science).

Edit to add: I did a little bit more reading the site you linked above. I found a great example of what I mean by "liberal intrepretations of tangentially related scientific papers." From fluoridealert.com:

2. The evidence provided by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2005 that 32% of American children have dental fluorosis – an abnormal discoloration and mottling of the enamel. This irreversible and sometimes disfiguring condition is caused by fluoride. Children are now being overdosed with fluoride, even in non-fluoridated areas, from water, swallowed toothpaste, foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water, and other sources. Fluoridated water is the easiest source to eliminate.

So, here they are using CDC research to suggest that fluoride is dangerous. In fact, this is their #2 reason to take action against fluoride in the water supply. They site a CDC document, and imply that the CDC has drawn conclusions that are in line with the fluoridealert.com agenda.

The reality is that the opening statement about fluoride in water on the relevant CDC page is this:

Community water fluoridation prevents tooth decay safely and effectively. CDC identifies it as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century..

[edit on 17-1-2010 by OnceReturned]

[edit on 17-1-2010 by OnceReturned]