Arsenic in floridated water CDC admits yes..

The CDC reports, tests by National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) revealed arsenic was present in sample batches of FSA. When trace amounts were present, the treated water had an average of 0.43 parts per billion (ppb) of arsenic, with a high of 1.66 ppb attributable to the fluoride additive. (2)

The NSF sets the allowable level of arsenic in fluoridation chemicals at 2.5 ppb. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) of arsenic in treated water is 10 ppb, set by the Environmental Protection Agency. But the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of arsenic in drinking water is zero (5) and is based on health risks; however, the actual level permitted (MCL) is above 0, to account for difficulty in removing it or in measuring it. (6)


Trace levels of arsenic in drinking water increase a person's risk of developing cancer, according to a report from the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences. “People drinking water containing just one part per billion of arsenic have an increased risk of developing bladder or lung cancer of one in 1,000,” reports New Scientist magazine. (3)

In an analysis of 25 states, the National Resources Defense Council found about 8,000 U.S. water systems, serving 57,000,000 people, contained arsenic levels at 1 ppb or higher.(4)

http://www.businessportal24.com/en/Arsenic_Fluoride_CDC_Yes_148089.html

when I first graduated, I will tell you point-blank that the risk/benefit ratio of fluoridation is not excellent...it's SUPERB. Since everyone's on a 'health' kick these days, consider that even if you don't use mercury-containing restorations (amalgams) in your practice, there is no question that the porcelain/composite restorations break down faster, have more endodontic (root canal) sequelae, leading to early tooth loss, periodontal disease, bite collapse, and concomitant systemic responses including but not limited to, changes in the autoimmune system. I could go on and on but it's dull to most readers. Suffice it to say that minimizing the additives which accompany fluoridation processes is important, but we must never lose sight of the importance of this chemical in the water.

And implants are not always the answer. There are many contraindications for their placement and BTW, do you have 20-30 thousand dollars you weren't planning to use on anything else? and then do it again 15 years later?

Easier and safer to drink the water when you're a kid.

how can we save them from the red menace of FLOURIDATION?

Ex---cellent!

These anti-fluorodationists can take a hike as far as I'm concerned. I've been doing this for over 30 years and I for one am speaking from clinical competence.

it's not like non-fluoridated water is 100% pure virgin h2o....

true where folks do not use fluoride in water - indeed the group does no science as to the increase in any measurement due to fluoride being added to water.

This press release is being posted on DU every 24 hours it seems - why?

Because I came across it outside DU and my dislike for the * admin raising the level (years ago) was key to my posting it, I didn't pull out my calculator, my msha or niosh exposure level references prior to posting.

and got a lot of "HO HUM", so I gave up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x405259