Gratis proefperiode van Amazon Prime
Om deze bestelling snel en gratis te laten bezorgen, vink "Ja, ik wil GRATIS bezorging met Amazon Prime" en bevestig je Prime-lidmaatschap.
Amazon Prime biedt de volgende voordelen:- Gratis en snelle bezorging van miljoenen producten
- Onbeperkt toegang tot duizenden tv-series en films
- Gratis in-game-content en beveiligde foto-opslag
Download de gratis Kindle-app en begin direct Kindle-boeken te lezen op je smartphone, tablet of computer. Geen Kindle-apparaat vereist.
Lees direct in je browser met Kindle voor Web.
Gebruik de camera van je mobiele telefoon om de onderstaande code te scannen en de Kindle-app te downloaden.
Afbeelding niet beschikbaar
kleur:
-
-
-
- Om deze video te bekijken, download Flash Player
The Case Against Fluoride: How hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there Paperback – 7 oktober 2010
Aankoopopties en uitbreidingen
When the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950, there was little evidence of its safety. Now, six decades later and after most countries have rejected the practice, more than 70 percent of Americans, as well as 200 million people worldwide, are drinking fluoridated water. The Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association continue to promote it--and even mandatory statewide water fluoridation--despite increasing evidence that it is not only unnecessary, but potentially hazardous to human health.
In this timely and important book, Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck, and Dr. H. Spedding Micklem take a new look at the science behind water fluoridation and argue that just because the dental and medical establishments endorse a public health measure doesn't mean it's safe. In the case of water fluoridation, the chemicals that go into the drinking water that more than 180 million people drink each day are not even pharmaceutical grade, but rather a hazardous waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is illegal to dump this waste into the sea or local surface water, and yet it is allowed in our drinking water. To make matters worse, this program receives no oversight from the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency takes no responsibility for the practice. And from an ethical standpoint, say the authors, water fluoridation is a bad medical practice: individuals are being forced to take medication without their informed consent, there is no control over the dose, and no monitoring of possible side effects.
At once painstakingly documented and also highly readable, The Case Against Fluoride brings new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to the brain, bones, and endocrine system, and argues that the evidence that fluoridation reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak.
- Printlengte384 pagina's
- TaalEngels
- UitgeverChelsea Green Publishing Co
- Publicatiedatum7 oktober 2010
- Afmetingen15.24 x 2.54 x 22.86 cm
- ISBN-109781603582872
- ISBN-13978-1603582872
Vaak samen gekocht

Veiligheids- en productbronnen
Probleem bij het laden van de informatie
- Afbeeldingen over productveiligheidInformatie over de fabrikantVerantwoordelijke persoon
Probleem bij het laden van de informatie
Probleem bij het laden van de informatie
Probleem bij het laden van de informatie
Productbeschrijving
Recensie
Booklist, Starred Review-
"On the eve of the new millennium, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), listed water fluoridation as one of the twentieth-century's 10 greatest public-health achievements. Yet according to the authors of this painstakingly researched exposé of fluoridation's overall ineffectiveness and toxicity, endorsements such as these from the CDC and other health organizations are motivated more by face-saving politics than credible research. Fluoridation advocates who have previously branded detractors as conspiracy theorists and shills for "junk science" will be hard pressed to debunk the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning presented here. In demonstrating fluoridation's ineffectiveness, the authors cite exhaustive evidence proving fluoride's only benefits are topical, as in toothbrushing, as opposed to swallowing. But the case against fluoride's alleged safety, even in small doses, is more alarming, with multiple studies showing fluoride's probable complicity in lowered intelligence scores, thyroid dysfunction, hip fractures, and the ominously rising incidence of osteosarcoma in boys. The authors' academic, hyperbole-free writing style serves them well in marshaling a series of facts that, all by themselves, expose fluoridation as a false panacea. It remains to be seen, however, whether the public-health community will give this landmark work due credit or continue to rubber stamp an outdated policy that, like bloodletting and trepanation, properly belongs on the scrap heap of sham medical interventions."
"Alfred North Whitehead said the scientific method means leaving 'options open for revision.' An ancient Roman adage says that 'whatever touches all must be approved by all.' These characterizations of science and democracy are the reasons for reading this book. Especially if you and your family are drinking administratively mandated fluoridated water."--Ralph Nader
"For anyone who has ever wondered why cities add fluoride to water-and questioned whether they should. Written with clear and easy-to-read prose, and supporting citations, The Case Against Fluoride carefully lays out the arguments against fluoridation and reasons why it should be discontinued. The authors examine the evidence on fluoridation and conclude convincingly that it should now be considered 'harmful and ineffective.'"--Dr. Hardy Limeback, Professor and Head of Preventative Dentistry, University of Toronto
"Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s and, in this excellent book, these three scientists have confirmed the wisdom of that decision. Our children have not suffered greater tooth decay, as World Health Organization figures attest, and in turn our citizens have not borne the other hazards fluoride may cause. In any case, since fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, you don't have to force it on people."--Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology (2000) and Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, University of Gothenburg
"This book clearly shows that water fluoridation is poor public policy and must end. As a concerned citizen, I applaud the authors for bringing this issue to the world's attention."--Ed Asner
Wise Traditions-
"The insanity of intentional water fluoridation is examined from every angle in this book. International law forbids dumping fluoride waste into the sea but it is accepted in American drinking water. As stated in the toothpaste disclaimer above, the FDA officially considers fluoride to be a drug. This drug has never been approved by the FDA. Contaminating drinking water with fluoride can be most charitably characterized as an experiment which violates the Nuremburg Code prohibiting experimental human treatment without informed consent. China, India, Japan and most of Europe do not fluoridate their water. Toward the end of the book the authors pull out one of my all-time favorite quotes from the late Michael Crichton. 'Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled ... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus . . . There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.' THUMBS UP."
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Newsletter-
"At once painstakingly-documented and also highly-readable, The Case Against Fluoride brings new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to the brain, bones, and kidneys, and argues that while there is possible value in topical applications like brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, the evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak. The Case Against Fluoride doesn't question the good intentions of dentists who support fluoridation, but rather explores the poor science, bizarre tactics, biased reviews, and puzzling motivations of a relatively small number of influential people who continue to push this practice on a largely ill-informed public."
Choice Magazine-
Water fluoridation is a major controversy pitting prevention (dental caries) against ethics (involuntary drug exposure). Connett (emer., St. Lawrence Univ.), Beck (emer., Univ. of Calgary), and Micklem (emer., Univ. of Edinburgh) present compelling but not always convincing arguments for discontinuing fluoridation. They emphasize systemic treatment's low efficacy, alternative preventive approaches, the public's involuntary exposure, and potential toxicity. Although not uniquely American, water fluoridation is more popular in the US than in most countries. If ingestion of fluoride were very effective in preventing caries, the authors would still argue against the practice on ethical grounds. Six parts cover ethical arguments, lack of evidence of efficacy, the policy gamble, toxicity, the precautionary principle, and vested interests. Some inconsistencies are evident. The book emphasizes uncertainties in epidemiologic studies of efficacy, but deemphasizes uncertainties in toxicity reports, creating an imbalance appropriate for a polemic but not for a scientific treatise. Fluoridation advocates will interpret this as evidence that the antifluoridation point of view is exaggerated, whereas sympathetic readers will find their resolve strengthened. Alternatives such as fluoride supplements exist, but would not reach the poor populations that need them. This is a thought-provoking work for students of environmental policy and public health. Summing Up Recommended. Lower-level undergraduates through graduate students; general readers.
Over de auteur
Dr. Paul Connett, a retired professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at St. Lawrence University, has given more than 2,000 presentations in forty-nine states and fifty-two countries on the issue of waste management. He holds a bachelors degree from the University of Cambridge and a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College. He lives in Canton, New York.
Dr. James S. Beck is a Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary and holds doctorates in medicine from Washington University School of Medicine and biophysics from the University of California, Berkeley. He lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
H. Spedding Micklem is a Professor Emeritus in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. He holds a D.Phil from the University of Oxford. He lives in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Productgegevens
- ASIN : 1603582878
- Uitgever : Chelsea Green Publishing Co; Eerste editie (7 oktober 2010)
- Taal : Engels
- Paperback : 384 pagina's
- ISBN-10 : 9781603582872
- ISBN-13 : 978-1603582872
- Afmetingen : 15.24 x 2.54 x 22.86 cm
- Plaats in bestsellerlijst: #654.625 in Boeken (Top 100 in Boeken bekijken)
- #1.634 in Volksgezondheid
- #2.117 in Milieukunde
- #7.234 in Aardwetenschappen
- Klantenrecensies:
Klantenrecensies
- 5 sterren4 sterren3 sterren2 sterren1 ster5 sterren91%7%2%0%0%91%
- 5 sterren4 sterren3 sterren2 sterren1 ster4 sterren91%7%2%0%0%7%
- 5 sterren4 sterren3 sterren2 sterren1 ster3 sterren91%7%2%0%0%2%
- 5 sterren4 sterren3 sterren2 sterren1 ster2 sterren91%7%2%0%0%0%
- 5 sterren4 sterren3 sterren2 sterren1 ster1 ster91%7%2%0%0%0%
Klantenrecensies, inclusief sterbeoordelingen voor producten, geven klanten meer informatie over het product en helpen bij de beslissing of dit het juiste product voor hen is.
Om de algehele sterbeoordeling en procentuele uitsplitsing per ster te berekenen, gebruiken we niet een gewoon gemiddelde. Maar ons systeem houdt rekening met zaken als hoe recent een recensie is en of de beoordelaar het item op Amazon heeft gekocht. Het systeem heeft ook recensies geanalyseerd om de betrouwbaarheid te verifiëren.
Meer informatie over hoe klantenrecensies op Amazon werkenBeste recensies uit andere landen
If you believe that, then you probably don't know that the original reason for adding fluoride to our drinking water over 60 years ago, was to limit the liability of the federal government due to severe illnesses suffered by workers who were exposed to fluoride while working on the Manhattan project. It was also to limit phosphate fertilizer and other fluoride producing companies' liabililies for the same reasons. After all, if fluoride is safe enough to be in our drinking water, it certainly couldn't have caused all of the physical ailments the workers suffered while working with fluoride.
One of the chief proponents of water fluoridation was Harold Hodge, who was the chief toxicologist for the Manhattan project. If he were in this position, you could certainly take him at his word, couldn't you? If the government trusted his creditials, then all of America certainly could. Back in the day, he appeared on TV stating "There is no health hazard that justifies postponing fluoridation." He is then shown writing these words on a chalkboard while reading them: "Fluoridation is safe at 1 part per million." His commanding presence and strong delivery must have inspired everyone with confidence. Before you answer whether you'd trust this guy or not though, just answer this question: Would you trust the word of ANYONE who led a team that injected plutonium into the veins of patients without their knowledge? Well, this is exactly what Harold Hodge did. He wanted to know what effect it would have on the human body. Nice guy, huh? I wouldn't trust this guy with my garbage.
The other goal of water fluoridation was to get rid of toxic waste. Prior to the introduction of water fluoridation, this toxic waste was expensive to dispose of. After water fluoridation began, not only did the government and corporations no longer have to pay to dispose of this toxic waste, they started making millions as municipalities bought their toxic waste from them.
Think about this: If a phosphate fertilizer or aluminum producer company dumped a bag of hexafluorocilicic acid into a lake or the ocean, it would be considered an environmental disaster. But if my city of St. Peters, Missouri, buys that same bag of toxic waste and adds it to our drinking water in the same concentration as the example above, it's no longer regulated or considered hazardous waste. What's wrong with that picture?
Read this book to find out. The three doctors who wrote this book cite study after study showing the profoundly negative effects of fluoride ingestion. You can also go to the Fluoride Action Network's website at [...] to learn more. This is a website established by one of the authors, Paul Connett, PhD. But start with the book - you won't be disappointed. But do beware! Once you read this book, you will have taken the red pill, and you'll truly find out how far down the rabbit hole goes!

