Share:




"We have only started using H2Only in October 2008 and love the water! The service has been wonderful; very polite, caring and helpful. The value is wonderful, we were paying a lot more for our water before October and it was quite a bit of difference. Ordering is easy - just send an email and it is done, and I have usually had delivery the same day which is even better! We are very satisfied here at Tele-Cable with H2Only and their service and water!!"
Tele-Cable - St. Catharines, Ontario

Sign up for our "free but definitely not worthless" newsletter!

Voir en français
Vista in italiano

Dental Hero or Toxic-Waste Dumping?

Author: John Snippe
September, 2006

I've had a few tooth cavities filled. It’s likely most of us older than 35 have. It’s certainly not an enjoyable experience. So if there is science out there that will promise me that at it can reduce the number of cavities I get by more than half, and do so completely painlessly and for next to nothing financially... well, I'd have to be a fool to say 'no thank you', wouldn't I? Absolutely! And that is exactly how the story went back in the 1950's. A wonderful new chemical could be put in the tap water that would reduce tooth decay by 12.5 - 60%, depending on which study one reads. Not bad… really very good, even!

However.. I have always been more than a bit leery of chemical additives. I was raised during the DDT scare, and am well-versed in PCBs, dioxins, zinc poisoning. Like all of you, I've read about asbestos, Agent Orange, etc. 21st century western civilization may be a technological marvel, but that has come at a high ecological price, a price we all pay daily. I’m in the water business largely because I have an awareness of these matters, after all, and because I wanted to make sure my family was at least partially shielded from the poisons out there.

So I did some research of my own. I was not prepared for what I found, let me assure you. At it’s worst, I guessed that the numbers on cavity-reduction would be inflated. They are, by current standards. I knew that there would be the usual cancer-scare statistics along the lines of "soak 1000 rats in fluoride for a month, and 6 will develop cancer of the spleen" or some such as we read in the paper every few days. And yes, those I found as well. I even found a number of really rather odd conspiracy theories on the whole municipal fluoridation issue. So naturally, I had to do some sifting. Any time one does research online, one has to be careful. Yet even so, what I found out ended up being really quite disturbing.

The first thing I researched was the historical precedent: who’s idea was it to fluoridate tap water, where did this science actually come from, and how good is it actually? I have to tell you that where the whole fluoridated-water came from isn't going to give much comfort: the original source was the "Manhattan Project" of WWII, which created the first A-bomb. One of the waste by-products of the manufacture of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium is, yes... fluoride, a highly toxic compound. And as it turns out, a number of people who worked on and lived around that project indeed got poisoned, and were in the process of suing the US federal government. It was decided to create evidence proving that fluoride was a safe product, and as a consequence atomic scientists helped design and implement ‘science’ that is still being quoted as normative and valid to this day [1] | [1A]

Next : Fluoride... what is it?