Sunday, September 23, 2007

Monday, September 17, 2007

The Glorious Toothbrush !

Recent studies have compared dental cavity rates in areas that do not fluoridate versus those that do. Although the incidents of bone fractures, thyroid abnormalities, Alzheimer's, fibromyalgia, childhood cancers, and so on, has increased; the communities that fluoridate show a marginal benefit in reduced cavities over those that do not. If the benefits are marginal today, then what has changed ?

We must remember that the levels of fluoride we're being exposed to has only been since our current lifetime, or specifically since WWII. I truly believe that we have improved dental hygiene in the last fifty years, but it was due to the Army (which had only years earlier introduced the first military dentist) and the introduction of nylon in the 1930's. Oral hygiene was mandated on the enlisted men during the war, and when they returned home this became affordable with the mass production and assembly of nylon toothbrushes.

Not that the toothbrush was new, as hand assembled boar hair brushes had been popular amongst the wealthy; but it became widely available and accepted, along with prepared toothpaste. If you think it couldn't be that simple, stop to realize that many households prior to the end of WWII did not have toothbrushes. Oral hygiene was very basic and usually consisted of tooth powders and a rag, or fingertip, to cleanse. But even as late as the 1950's, many dentist did not recommend nylon toothbrushes because they had the opinion it was too harsh for the enamel, so it was a gradual conversion.

Of course during the campaign to popularize fluoride, overall oral hygiene was taught to the masses through public school programs. Fluoridation coincides with improved dental care through nationwide programs to dispense toothbrushes to school-age children in rural communities.

So I do not think it is unreasonable to think that the toothbrush is responsible for the improved oral hygiene, and not fluoride as we have been taught. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, the popularity of the toothbrush after WWII and consequent oral hygiene is the reason for fewer cavities ?! Perhaps we have been praising the wrong thing ! It is time for science to stop looking through the microscope and look at a simpler explanation - one that is statistically, if not scientifically, appropriate.

Original content written by : Tina Elmore-Wright

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Fibromyalgia and Fluoride

I recently discovered that fluoride toxicity has the same "symptoms" as the very allusive fibromyalgia diagnosis. Fluoridation is also being blamed for the rise in thyroid problems because it interferes with iodine absorption. Fluoride was once used to treat thyroid problems and many of today's medications contain levels of fluoride, such as Cipro and Prozac.

While most experts believe water fluoridation to be associated with minimal risk, a handful of scientists disagree. This growing group believe fluoridation to be associated with an unacceptable risk of skeletal damage. In exchange for a modest dental benefit, the risks include fractures and bone tumors. Personally, I know this has been debated since AT LEAST around 1993-1994. While working in a hospital, I happened onto an article in one of the radiology trade magazines. The article correlated the percentage of cities with fluoridation versus those without, and the relative percentage of hip fractures and low bone density. The findings revealed that cities having the lowest bone density and highest bone fractures also fluoridated the water.

Also interesting is how fluoride is linked to the aluminum industry and Teflon, which I did not know. I read recently that fluoride is theorized to assist aluminum in crossing the brain-blood barrier because of how they bind once ingested. This is interesting because of the Alzheimer's and aluminum connection.

Many believe that fluoride was the worst mistake of the century, me being one of them.

I will be editing this post as I collect information on the subject, so stay tuned !

Original content written by: Tina Elmore-Wright

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Organic Rating Over-rated ???

I recently found out that USDA Certified Organic is not considered credible enough for many foreign markets. Foods exported as "organic" have to be certified by European guidelines for those markets.

Also, according to a recent article in the LA Times (June 9,2007), the USDA is considering allowing 38 additional non-organic ingredients to be used in organic prepared foods. And yes, the term "additional" was correct !

Under the agency's proposal, as much as 5% of a food product could be made with these ingredients and still get the "USDA organic" seal. Additionally, manufacturers can use nonorganic ingredients if organic versions are not "commercially available." That concerns me because the amount large companies demand can exceed the small supply of organic equivalents, and in turn, gain approval to use nonorganic ingredients.

For example, according to the LA Times article, Anheuser-Busch said it simply couldn't find enough organic hops for their Wild Hop Lager, made with 100% organic barley malt, but less than 10% of the hops they use is organic. It has the organic blessing from federal regulators, even though they use hops grown with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides. Because the beverage is mostly water, less than 5% of the final product is made from hops, a major component of beer's flavor. I guess it's okay if they "intended" to use organic . . .

So what's the point ??? To what degree is it organic ??? Is it acceptable to substitute ingredients and still claim the organic classification ???

Personally, I look for the term "certified naturally grown". That language is being used by the independent, local farmer because BIG businesses like Dole and others can afford to pay for the license agreement fee to be "organic" and they usually cannot.

For more information go to and do a little research on the subject.