Health Ministry Finds that Fluoridation Does Not Reduce Tooth Decay

Another great thread from Dimensional Detective. It's outrageous that industrial toxic waste from phosphate fertilizer plants is dumped in our drinking water.

This is a letter from a man who has several health problems related to his exposure to fluorides in the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is addressed to our government and is a plea to stop using toxic waste as a fluoridation agent:

Dangers of Fluoridating Drinking Water with fluorosilic acid (H2SiF6)/sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6)

Author: Gary O. Pittman
Rt. 1, Box 85-A
Jennings, FL 32053
Tel: 904-792-3975
email: [email protected]
November 18, 1998

Dear Congressman or Senator:

I worked in the phosphate fertilizer industry for about twenty-one years. My last position was supervising one-third of the evaporation and purification processes at the Occidental Chemical Corporation, Swift Creek Chemical Complex. That position required a thorough knowledge of almost every facet of producing phosphoric acid for fertilizer and animal feed supplement.

Today, I am disabled and suffer from toxic brain syndrome, emphysema, heart arrhythmias and other health problems due to chemical exposure. Many of my co-workers also suffer from similar illnesses. Of the eight original people in my support group, two are dead from cancers. One man had lung and liver cancer, and the second man died from myeloma (bone cancer); neither man had ever smoked and seldom, if ever, consumed alcoholic beverages according to their wives and friends. Another man has leukemia which is presently in remission. Many of my co-workers have developed brain cancers/tumors and stomach cancers. Myopathy, arthritis, liver dysfunctions, lung problems, symptoms of toxic brain syndrome, etc. are also very common health problems among my co-workers and myself. Toxic brain syndrome and heart problems seem to be the most common problems among the workers. Hamilton County also has the highest rate of cancer in Florida due to pollution from phosphoric acid manufacturing.

The doctors at Shands Hospital, Gainesville, FL (specializing in cancer research and treatment) said that the type of lung and liver cancer one man died from were unidentifiable; they had never seen it before.

You might say that I should be contacting my own U.S. Representative and Senator because this is a regional problem, and it is not in your back yard. However, this is not the case. We were exposed to the same chemicals that the USEPA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend as fluoridation agents to fluoridate the drinking water for over 100,000,000 people. It is likely that your constituents are consuming the pollution, and you might be drinking it because Washington, D.C. is fluoridated.

Over 50% (now 70%) of the communities in the United States use fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) or sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) to fluoridate drinking water. Neither the USEPA nor U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can provide one safety study proving the product is safe for long-term, low-level consumption. Not one clinical study with animal models has ever been done with the products.

Both fluorosilicic acid (FSA) and sodium fluorosilicate (SFS) are derived from pollution scrubbing operations from phosphoric acid production. The pollution scrubber liquor is a unique product derived from a specific process with unique toxicological characteristics. The presence of chlorides, amines, diesel fuel, kerosene, sulfides, reagents, metals (including arsenic, lead, aluminum, uranium-238 and its decay rate products, etc.), phosphorus and other toxic reactants create a specific product in which FSA is the active ingredient. FSA only comprises about 23% of the total pollution concentrate. It is a highly corrosive acid which can react with most organic and inorganic substances to form many different complex and possibly very toxic fluorides. I state again, not one safety study has been done with these particular products.

There are many factors involved in the creation of the FSA. Once an insight is gained about how the phosphoric acid is made, the FSA becomes even more frightening. Other chemicals are added such as oil based defoamers (possibly containing dioxins), polymers, petroleum products, naphthalene, chlorides, sulfides, Synspar and various reagents. During the phosphoric acid concentration processes, these added chemicals and inherent toxic contaminants common in phosphate rock are boiled off the acid in a partial vacuum at very high temperatures, about 500 degrees F. The vapors from all these chemicals are washed and captured in the pollution scrubbers along with the fluorine and fluorosilicate gases...

EPA scientists have opposed water fluoridation for over a DECADE:

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
CHAPTER 280
P.O. BOX 76082
WASHINGTON, DC 20013
202-260-2383(V)
202-401-3139(F)

May 1, 1999
WHY EPA'S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.1

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others4 reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix's finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm.

In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China5, 6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.

Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke7 has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston.8

From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue.9 The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey12 , Washington and Iowa13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997.14 Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.15a, b, c, d, e. Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.16 The latest publication17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston...

Oh, snap! You mean it's just rat poison?

]

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

I have stopped consuming Sodium Fluoride as much as possible. I say as much as possible because I'm sure it can be found in our foods that are processed using water. What about vegetables that absorb large amounts of water? Some people have argued with me that Fluoride is found in nature but it is Calcium Fluoride that is from nature not Sodium. I also stopped using antiperspirant in deodorants. The chemical Aluminum Zirconium can be found in 95 percent of underarm deodorants. The Aluminum helps stops perspiration but it's also absorbs into the body this way. That can't be good.

At least this post have some knowledge to it. Though I should remind you that just because it is Calcium Fluoride as oppose to Sodium Fluoride, that will not change the toxicity of the Fluorine.

Sodium Fluoride is more soluble than Calcium Fluoride, this is true. This means that Hypoglycemia will result much fast with Sodium Fluoride than Calcium Fluoride. But when ingested the first way Fluoride compounds will effect you is by turning into Hydrofluoric acid in the stomach. This will cause irritation and GI tract problems. This will happen whether its Calcium Fluoride or Sodium Fluoride.

After that they will be absorbed and the Fluorine ions will bond with the calcium anions causing low calcium levels (hypoglycemia). This will result quicker when it comes to sodium fluoride since its soluble, thus making the fluorine more accessible.

Basically, Calcium Fluoride is slightly less dangerous than Sodium Fluoride but I must stress the slightly part. Calcium Fluoride is less soluble so that means you won't suffer from hypoglycemia as quickly, but it will still happen if enough is ingested. When I say enough, it is not all that much more than Sodium Fluoride.

In saying that, the levels that we ingest are so small that it doesn't reach that point, not even close. You are actually more likely to get Fluoride poisoning with untreated water simply because it could have 2-5-even 10 times as much Calcium Fluoride as our water supplies have Sodium Fluoride. Even though Sodium Fluoride is a bit more soluble, its more so about the amount you ingest.

Now, whether there are any BENEFITS, that I will agree is up for debate. It is pretty certain that Fluorine is NOT something the body needs, so we definitely don't want it. But, they aren't treating the water with Fluorine but Fluoride compounds. I mean we don't want the element sodium or chloride being introduced into our system by themselves, but together they are hardly poisonous.

We need Sodium to survive. Introducing straight sodium orally would be bad on multiple levels. One being it is a metal and two being it is highly reactive with water.

So I can't stress how important it is to remember that compounds are VERY different from elements.

I want to apologize for mixing up hypoGLYcemia and hypoCALcemia. One has to do with low sugar levels the other low calcium levels. Although I said low calcium levels result from fluoride compound overdoses, I said Hypoglycemia. I forgot exact spelling and the google correction gave me hypoglycemia probably because it is a more popular search. Again I apologize.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by grimreaper797]

There's a very ecological and orders of magnitude more healthy alternative to fluoride. Twigs from trees....

Most of the middle east and Africa use these as tooth brushes, with all the diseases in Africa tooth decay is a rarity.

I have been using twigs called miswak for over half a year now and my mouth has been really healthy. No more sensitive teeth, no more bleeding gums, no more decaying teeth.

Now imagine what this could mean to the dental industry which became as big and corrupt as any other industry. Tree twigs replacing plastic brushes, tooth paste, and making a lot of bored dentists.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


The letter just shows that the guy did not really understand how chemistry worked. He may have understood what he was told to do, how many parts x and how many parts y must be, but he never understood why these things were.

Just because this byproduct came from things that are hazardous has NOTHING to do with how hazard said compound is. It doesn't matter what it came into contact with, it matters what the formula is and what effects that chemical formula is.

Being a worker for these places is VERY different from being exposed to Fluorosilicic Acid in drinking water. If he was involved in combining products that resulted in Fluorosilicic Acids there are MANY other compounds that could have caused all his problems, as well as all the others.

Simple point, Fluorine exposure would have killed them much quicker and there would have been immediate effects. Fluorine poisoning results when there is more fluorine than the body can get rid of. If the levels were low enough, it would have went right through their system.

The only possible result I could possibly see may be bone degeneration, but even that is questionable. Point blank, Fluorine poisoning is not something that results in chronic illnesses. It results in acute illnesses.

Fluorine resulting in cancers? Sorry, I don't buy it. Fluorine will bond with calcium and then be absorbed into bones or excreted via urine. It doesn't sit around in the lungs, heart, and brain causing cancers.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

The letter just shows that the guy did not really understand how chemistry worked.

Based on your comments in this thread, I'm afraid it's YOU who doesn't understand the chemistry of fluoride or how the industrial toxic waste product fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is produced.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Fluorine resulting in cancers? Sorry, I don't buy it. Fluorine will bond with calcium and then be absorbed into bones or excreted via urine. It doesn't sit around in the lungs, heart, and brain causing cancers.

So you know more than the EPA scientists and researchers quoted in the letter above?

I think not...

As mentioned by grimreaper797 your drinking water includes SOME chemicals, depending on who/what provides your tap water. The "tooth decay" solution through drinking water is a conspiracy but most toxic chemicals added to the water are mainly there to kill the microbes, clean the water that is.

Purifying your water is a long and complex process and differs depending on the country. There are lots of biological and chemical components in the process.

Here's more info where you will learn stuff:
Water Purification
Water Treatment
Water Treatment Technologies
Drinking Water
Bottled Water
Solar Disinfection

The water pipes for the drinking water are dirty and usually old, with god knows what dwelling in there. Only some of them in only some rich countries are actually checked and regulated. So having some chemicals flowing through to help kill stuff in the way is always a "good" thing.

[edit on 1/5/2010 by SassyCat]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Okay, Ill make it easy for you, so that this doesn't take long and get lost upon you.

How many people involved in that study weren't brushing their teeth? I'm going to bet I already know the answer to that question.

Point? Adding Fluoride to the water is only suppose to help those not caring for their teeth. Nobody said Fluoride is going to improve tooth enamel in people who brush their teeth regularly.

So lets be honest, how many people do you honestly think weren't brushing their teeth at all?

reply to post by SassyCat

What does water purification have to do with dumping toxic industrial waste in municipal water supplies?

reply to post by grimreaper797

Spare me the condescending remarks. I have no idea what study you're referring to. Your comments are disjointed and all over the board. I'll make it simple for YOU. Fluoride is a POISON that's more toxic than lead and slightly less than arsenic. It's derived from the pollution scrubbers of phosphate fertilizer plants (FSA) and has NO effect on tooth decay other than destroying numerous essential enzymes in the body.


[edit on 5/1/2010 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Based on your comments in this thread, I'm afraid it's YOU who doesn't understand the chemistry of fluoride or how the industrial toxic waste product fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is produced.

Then go ahead, break that knowledge down for me then. Educate me. I'm interested to see how you spin this.

There are plenty of water sources that contain flouride naturally, though I don't understand why the government would allow flouride to be introduced into the public water system that doesn't contain it naturally. Tooth decay??? Are they serious? I can't believe that they American people accept this. They are willing to drink poison for what they government says will prevent tooth decay! This is absolutely crazy.
Notice how on children's toothpaste, it has a huge warning for the children not to swallow the toothpast because it contains flouride and could be very harmful, yet parents have no problem what-so-ever with feeding their children this same toxic chemical in their water. I think the general masses are beyond any hope.
--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


This is the second time I have heard this in this thread and it baffles me. Just because children are at higher risk for OVERDOSE does not make something poison.

It's like the mere concept of 'parts per' is a myth on ATS. Advil must be poison because if kids ingest too much it's dangerous. Come on.

reply to post by alaskan_pwner


many factors to take into consideration, diet is a big factor, some areas consume larger quantaties of either juices or sodas containing high sugar levels.
dental hygene also plays a part, Fluoride is a topical treatment which means that it works on the outside and not the inside, the only benefit from fluoride in water supply is the time to water is in the mouth and once it is swallowed it has no benefit at at reducing tooth decay at all, it can however cause dental fluorosis of the teeth, not to mention the brain and bone damage.

It is a cheap way for poison to be disposed of as well from industry.

reply to post by grimreaper797


I was merely talking only of children in my post but now that you mention it, I certainly don't think it is healthy for adults either. To me, any percieved benefit of warding off tooth decay, doesn't justify the possible health risks. If I wanted to injest flouride to ward off tooth decay, I think it should be my choice. It just doesn't seem right that they would add any chemical that wasn't absolutely necessary to our water supply, much less flouride.

My uncle, who was a medical doctor, used to be so adamant about us not drinking tap water because of what he used to say was added. I have remembered that my entire life. I have also heeded is warning out of habit and I don't even let my own children drink tap water, though I can't control what they injest outside of our home. Could he have been talking about flouride? Most likely.
--airspoon

Edited to add 2nd paragraph.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by airspoon]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Spare me the condescending remarks. I have no idea what study you're referring to. Your comments are disjointed and all over the board. I'll make it simple for YOU. Fluoride is a POISON that's more toxic than lead and slightly less than arsenic. It's derived from the pollution scrubbers of phosphate fertilizer plants (FSA) and has NO effect on tooth decay other than destroying numerous essential enzymes in the body.

Fine I'll save those remarks and get straight to the point, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. I am referring to the study you quoted. The study on how fluoride in the water had no effect. Like I said, how many were brushing their teeth? Don't try to dodge the question.

Fluoride what? What are you talking about, do you even understand chemistry. There is no such thing as "fluoride". There is Sodium Fluoride, Calcium Fluoride, Hexafluorosilicic acid, Sodium Hexafluorosilicate, Sulfur Hexafluoride, Aluminum Fluoride, and the list just goes on and on.

As I have already said, Aluminum Fluoride is DEFINITELY very toxic. Calcium Fluoride isn't nearly as toxic. I could go on and on about the varying degrees of toxicity about different chemical compounds, but it all goes back to my basic point that you don't know what you are talking about.

The way you throw around the words toxic and poison shows you don't really understand that terms. Anything can be toxic or poison in the right amounts. If I give you too much insulin, I cause hypoglycemia and could kill you. If your body doesn't produce any insulin, you end up with hyperglycemia and again could kill you.

In simple terms, body sugar levels can have you feeling a bit sluggish or they can kill you, all depending on the amount. Sugar is not poison or toxic. Not all fluorides are toxic or poison, that doesn't mean they don't all have the capability of killing you if there is too much in your system.

Just don't come on here talking about poison this and toxic that when you don't really grasp what those terms mean, or even have a good idea of what you are referring too.

You named off hexafluorosilicic acid as toxic and poison though, so I'm interested to hear your reasoning for this. Also I would like to know what amount you would classify as toxic or poison.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by grimreaper797]

reply to post by airspoon


Ill address your second half of the post first. There is no way I will ever drink tap water. It has nothing to do with fluoride though. It has everything to do with the estrogen levels, the anti-depressants, etc. that they have found in numerous water supplies around the country. That is very different from fluoride, and much more dangerous.

Now as for the first half. Have you taken any medication for anything ever? If yes, was it life threatening? If you have ever taken aspirin, Advil, benadryl, NyQuil, etc. etc. (you get my point), you are taking something that can be lethal if take in the wrong dose. Take too much NyQuil and your liver will fail. It is much easier to overdose on NyQuil than it is to overdose on water treated with a fluoride compound.

Truth be told, everything is lethal depending on the dose. Some things are more lethal than others at the same doses. Thing is that the fluoride compound you are being exposed to in tooth paste is Sodium Fluoride. Most places don't even use that in water treatment. Trying to avoid all Fluorides is not only impossible, but pointless as the body does not retain Fluorine. It retains things like Calcium Fluoride in the bones, which helps with bone health. (in the right dose, I must stress that. Too much will damage bone growth.) It also retains things like Aluminum Fluoride in the brain which is very BAD. Aluminum should be avoided whenever possible. It has no benefit and never in our history did we come into contact with it when it came to ingesting or inhaling it. It exists as Aluminum ore in nature, not something that gets eaten or breathed in. Fluorine and Fluoride compounds we came into contact with throughout our entire history as a species. Our body has ways of dealing with fluoride compounds and fluorine naturally, the same cannot be said for aluminum and its compounds.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by alaskan_pwner
i don't believe that this is entirely true because in the villages of Alaska most of the squaws have really jacked teeth and decaying but in anchorage were there is fluoride in the water people have not so decayed teeth. why would the "government" or whoever spend money on fluoride to slowly poison people just to make them less educated or slower? if they wanted people dumber there wouldn't be school funding.

So you think that all my countrymen have decaying teeth?
Fluridating water is retarded..

Why wouldn't they? In the eyes of a ruler stupid and docile masses is a desirable outcome. Tyranny 101 should tell you that, or common sense, failing that maybe your 'dark side' would understand.

Imagine yourself the world without any schools at all, no chance in hell we'd be able to have this standard of living without them, besides the efficiency of public education seems to be on the decline anyway, at least in the US, but I'd wager it's all over the western world.

reply to post by TheLaughingGod


I wish. If only fluoride could do something like that. It would have such numerous applications. Unfortunately, calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride, hexafluorosilicic acid, basically any water treated fluoride compound, doesn't have such capabilities. Why? Because none of those compounds stay in the brain or even effect the brain. They may damage your physical health if high enough in does which could make you unhappy cause you feel sick to your stomach or your body aches. Unfortunately, my experience tells me that sick people are more unruly, not less.

Aluminum Fluoride is one compound that does effect the brain, but that will only happen if you ingest aluminum or manage to absorb it through the skin (antiperspirants containing aluminum) and that stuff does build up and can wreck havoc later in life. Maybe if you drank a great deal of tap water AND used a great deal of antiperspirants, MAYBE there is some risk involved, but we are talking a very big number. unless of course you are mixing tap water with antiperspirants then drinking it. But then you are an example of Darwinism.