Over the years I have based many of my articles on questions and/or comments from readers around the world. Many have commented on the wonderful advances in the world of technology, over the past two/three decades in particular. But some have pointed out that along with the advances there have come great concerns as well. For instance, a reader from England suggested I google Barrie Trower on the internet. Mr. Trower at one time worked for the government and it is suggested he is an expert on microwaves. Our reader mentioned that in the past, he has warned officials of the dangers of phone masts and Wi-Fi, but has been totally ignored.

I always appreciate getting feedback, so thank you England. I did find Barrie Trower on the internet. Indeed, a search brought up many different articles. I also watched him on youtube.com. He seems especially concerned right now with the effects these microwaves are having on young boys, but especially young girls, as it relates to their having children in the future. He says Wi-Fi has not been tested enough for use around small children. Their small bodies cannot handle the microwaves. In particular, he notes that the DNA in a young girl’s eggs can be damaged by Wi-Fi. A pregnant woman can also be affecting her baby from radiation using Wi-Fi. As well, the reproduction organs in the baby can be damaged.

I think all parents with small children should investigate for themselves. It is certainly food for thought as it could well affect our future generations.

Here is another concern expressed by a parent of a young person who has been advised by her dentist to begin using fluoride on her teeth. And the natural question that follows is “Is it Safe”?

Of course, I am not a scientist nor a dentist so I could only suggest that it is another of those treatments that one should investigate before simply accepting. I have a personal opinion, however, and this is simply that I would not use it. I am a great proponent of natural medicine and in examining this question, I discovered an article on naturaldentistry.us called The Dangers of Fluoride. It gives some insight for avoiding its use. For example:

The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an “unapproved drug”. The proper use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is too much.

The chemicals used for fluoridation are not high purity, pharmaceutical quality products. Rather they are byproducts of aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing and contain a high concentration of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. All proven to be carcinogens.

Newsweek Magazine advised the public that “political decisions [about fluoridation] were at odds with expert advice” and “fluoride from your tap may not do much good-and may cause cancer.” Then, in 1992, Newsweek published another fluoride safety related article, “Is Science Censored?”, a look at how political considerations influence what scientific studies get published.”

The first noticeable signs of excessive exposure to fluoride in contaminated water, air, and food products include discolorations of the enamel. Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds. Abnormalities in mineralization processes affect by and large the osteoarticular system and are associated with changes in the density and structure of the bone presenting as irregular mineralization of the osteoid.*

Children’s sodium fluoride anti-cavity supplements were never found safe or effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were never even tested.

So, it must be asked, “why are these prescription drugs allowed despite no FDA approval?” Is it because fluoride supplements were “grandfathered in” before the 1938 law was enacted requiring drug testing.

So, products on the market before 1938 were presumed safe by the FDA who allowed grandfathered drugs to be sold without any testing. Once a drug is on the market for any reason, doctors can use them to treat any disease or condition.

Sodium fluoride was on the market pre-1938, but not to stop cavities and not for any medical reason. Sodium fluoride sold as a rat poison.

Consequently, in effect, the FDA says – since sodium fluoride safely and effectively killed rats before 1938, the FDA considers it is safe to give to little children to prevent tooth decay. From a 1951 American Dental Association brochure:

“There is no proof that commercial preparations such as tablets, dentifrices, mouthwashes or chewing gum containing fluorides are effective in preventing dental decay. Unfortunately such preparations are being offered to the public without adequate scientific evidence of their value.”

97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, Western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and ’50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride’s “predominant effect is posteruptive and topical” (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.

Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride’s benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

There is so much more I could add on this subject but will leave it at this, “Before you say “yes” to your dentist, let your fingers do the walking through that wealth of information, “The Internet””.

Oh, by the way, for those who wrote to say they enjoyed my article on GMO foods but now don’t know which brands to buy as they don’t always say whether they are GMO, next month I will provide a list of a number of companies with Non-GMO brands.