|
A syndicated eco-advice
column
"Making it easy to be green!" |
|
|---|
"Look - it's a bird, it's a plane ... no, it's EcoGirl!"
|
A syndicated eco-advice
column
"Making it easy to be green!" |
|
|---|
Should We Fluoridate Our Water?
|
|
PDF VERSION OF THIS COLUMN -- formatted with the EcoGirl logo and ready to print! (Click here to download a PDF reader.) |
|
|
ASK ECOGIRL'S HOME PAGE -- for more information, including how she can appear in your publication. |
|
Should We Fluoridate Our Water?
Over the past few years, a controversy has been brewing in Sonoma County over the proposed addition of fluoride to the water supply for most of our homes, schools, businesses, and restaurants. This issue is coming before the Board of Supervisors again in the next month or two, when they'll discuss the feasibility study and recommendations. So you might be thinking, "But isn't fluoride a good thing?" And the well-meaning proponents do make appealing claims of public dental health benefits, especially for lower-income people. Unfortunately, though, these claims don't match the facts. This isn't the quick fix some want it to be! So here's what I see as the core problems with fluoridation. I hope that this helps us reject it and pursue more sensible solutions. (I've put my sources and more information at www.patriciadines.info/EcoGirl6h.html. [That's this page!]) Key facts First, I want to say that I do feel that fluoride can promote dental health -- when it's (1) pharmaceutical-grade, (2) applied topically to tooth surfaces via toothpaste or a dentist, (3) in small controlled doses, and (4) in ways that match a person's needs and choices. [Note 1] However, putting fluoride into our public water fails on all four of these counts. There are vital differences between fluoride in dental products and in municipal water. Specifically: 1) The fluoride used in municipal water fluoridation is not pharmaceutical grade. It's not even the same fluorine compound. Plus it's often industrial waste that's otherwise illegal to discard in the environment and contaminated with toxics like arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury -- even radioactive particles! [Note 2] 2) Putting fluoride in the water does not apply it topically but systemically (in the whole body). It's like drinking sunscreen to try to prevent sunburn! Ingestion of fluoridated water has been linked to significant health harm, even at low levels, including: increased hip and other bone fractures, bone cancer, arthritis-like symptoms, lowered fertility, decreased IQ, dementia-like effects -- and mottled and brittle teeth (called dental fluorosis). Yes, drinking fluoridated water can actually harm teeth! [Note 3] 3) Water fluoridation does not offer small controlled doses, and can easily push people over safe exposure levels. That's especially true since we're also exposed through our toothpaste, food, beverages, and industrial pollution. [Note 4] 4) Many "non-target" people would be consuming fluoride against their will. This includes those medically advised to avoid fluoride (e.g., infants and kidney patients) and those sensitive to it at low levels (who'd suffer fatigue, headaches, rashes, and gastrointestinal problems). But the most important point is that fluoridating water is actually not proven to improve dental outcomes. The Fluoride Action Network says, "There has never been a single randomized clinical trial to demonstrate fluoridation's effectiveness or safety." The studies that launched fluoridation decades ago have been dismissed by experts for highly unscientific methodology. Over the past 50 years, tooth decay has dropped at similar rates in all western countries, most of which never fluoridated. [Note 5] The bottom line is that quality fluoride compounds can be helpful as medicine but only when administered in professional ways, not broadcast in our shared water. That's why most developed countries do not fluoridate their water supplies, including Japan and nearly all of western Europe. [Note 6] Additional harmful impacts 1) Fluoridation would burden, not help, low-income folks. People with inadequate nutrition are more vulnerable to fluoride's harmful effects. Plus, low-income people can't afford expensive water systems to remove fluoride, for instance to avoid giving it to infants. [note 7] 2) Nearly all fluoridated water ends up in the environment, through direct use and sewer systems, and at levels shown to harm salmon and other water creatures. Fluoride is also known to hurt crops, livestock, trees, and plants. [Note 8] What you can do 1) Sign, forward, and Facebook this petition against Sonoma County fluoridation. www.change.org/petitions/sonoma-county-board-of-supervisors-stop-planning-for-fluoridation-of-public-water-supply [Note 9] 2) Tell your Supervisor that you're opposed to fluoridation. Speak in respectful fact-based ways, to show that this isn't a wacky fringe issue. http://supervisors.sonoma-county.org. [Note 10] 3) Watch for and participate in the upcoming Board of Supervisors meeting. I hope you find this information helpful. I invite you to share it with others! Ask EcoGirl is written by Patricia Dines, Author of The Organic Guides, and Editor and Lead Writer for The Next STEP newsletter. Email your questions about going green to <EcoGirl [at] AskEcoGirl.info> for possible inclusion in future columns. View past columns at <www.AskEcoGirl.info>. You can also become a Facebook fan of "Ask EcoGirl", to show your support and stay in touch! Join at www.facebook.com/AskEcoGirl. "EcoGirl: Encouraging the eco-hero in everyone." © Copyright Patricia Dines, 2013. All rights reserved. |
|
>> The Supervisors' meeting mentioned in this column did occur. Many folks came out to speak their opposition in fact-based ways. Nevertheless, the Supervisors voted to pursue the next step of implementation. Unfortunately most seem to hold the outdated belief that fluoridation is good for dental health. Here's the Press Democrat's coverage of this meeting. "Supervisor vote to move ahead with fluoridation studies
after lengthy hearing," By Derek Moore, Press Democrat,
February 26, 2013
>> I invite you to read my April column, which offers more information on CWF, with citations, at www.patriciadines.info/EcoGirl6j.html. You can also download a PDF of each of these columns on their webpages, then print them double-sided for a handout. (I give this permission for limited copies and non-commercial use.) >> I've created an easy actions page, for you to read and share. www.healthyworld.org/StopSCFAction.html >> Here are some good general resources on this topic: Fluoride Action Network www.fluoridealert.org "[Water fluoridation] is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete. No doubt about that. I think those nations that are using it should feel ashamed of themselves. It's against science…. "In modern pharmacology it's so clear that even if you have a fixed dose of a drug, the individuals respond very differently to one and the same dose. Now, in this case, you have it in the water and people are drinking different amounts of water. So you have huge variations in the consumption of this drug. So, it's against all modern principles of pharmacology. It's obsolete, I don't think anybody in Sweden, not a single dentist, would bring up this question anymore." - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, famed pharmacologist at
Gothenburg University, |
In this article, I've sought to
present what I think are the core arguments that undermine
the case for water fluoridation. By core I mean this: If
these concerns are in fact true and not disproven, then we
should not proceed with fluoridation. That is -- if the
material is toxic, if this mode of action is not proven
effective for our goals, if we can easily get too much, if
it's shown to cause harm to people and the planet -- then we
shouldn't do it. There are lots more details,
evidence, and arguments against fluoridation. And I'll give
you some links. Books have been written and there's lots of
supporting evidence for each point. But I think it's also vital that
we not get too lost in the details that we forget the key
points. The fluoridation opponents have provided more
than enough evidence of floridation's harm and lack of
effectiveness. Now it's up to the proponents to provide
persuasive evidence on the above points that is sufficient
to override our right to choose what goes in their bodies. I
just don't think the evidence is there to do that. We should
not poison our shared water for unproven goals, even if
they're well-meaning. I think the most difficult thing
about this topic is that the American Dental Association
(ADA) make unproven claims that water fluoridation helps
dental health. But they are just repeating mantras built
on stories that are decades old that have been disproven and
discredited. I know it can be difficult for
some people to question an expert, but we have a right to do
so. Their word alone is not evidence. Our well-being is
at stake, our money being used, our democratic bodies
deciding. We shouldn't just have blind obedience to
authority. And other experts are among
those making the strong fact-based cases against
fluoridation -- even those who used to be proponents!
But they looked at the facts and realized that the facts go
against fluoridation, not for it. So why hasn't the ADA engaged in
the fact-based conversation, or adjusted their story to
reflect it? People like to speculate about motives, some
pretty dark. The truth is that we don't know. The most
generous thing I can say is that they're working off
outdated perceptions and have their egos invested in their
stories. But it concerns me that they are so adamantly
unwilling to engage in fact-based debates about the reality
of putting this material in our shared water. I believe they
are failing in their duty to society. Unfortunately, we've seen this
before in our culture, where institutions get fixed in
incorrect beliefs that do harm for decades before they're
forced to change their ways. Just look at DDT, PCBs,
DES, etc. Many people suffer as a result of this failure to
look beyond the hopes and claims to the harmful side of
these technologies. We need to get better at learning our
lessons from these experiences! The bottom line is that we have
a right to take care of our own health, and not be forced to
be exposed to unproved toxics. Fluoride is not a
nutrient. It is not required for health. It is not necessary
for delivering water. It is a medicine, and to
work it needs to be delivered correctly to the right people
in the right way. And we have a right not to be exposed
against our will. What would you think if someone
proposed putting cholesterol drugs in the water -- and not
even pharmaceutical grade? Wouldn't you object? We
should not be putting drugs in our water, especially in
scenarios such as this. There's also a significant
financial cost for the fluoridating system and
maintenance. Why should the community pay for something
that is proven to be harmful not helpful, and that many
people do not want? Budgets are tight and we must spend our
money wisely. If our concern is the dental
health of low-income people, there are other smarter actions
we can take. For instance - how much fluoride toothpaste
would this buy? - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd
ARTICLE
NOTES Here's some of the key information and links that
support the information in my article. [1] FLUORIDE CAN PROMOTE DENTAL
HEALTH IN TOPICAL DENTAL PRODUCTS [2] THE FLUORIDE USED IN
FLUORIDATION IS A DIFFERENT COMPOUND THAN DENTISTRY Fluoride is a gas element that is not found as fluorine
in the environment. We use it in combination with other
elements. So -- * Fluoride in toothpaste -- "Sodium fluoride
(NaF) is the most common source of fluoride, but
stannous fluoride (SnF2), olaflur (an organic
salt of fluoride), and sodium monofluorophosphate
(Na2PO3F) are also used. Stannous fluoride has been
shown to be more effective than sodium fluoride in reducing
the incidence of dental caries[3] and controlling
gingivitis.[4]" Also notice that the medical field has spent time
experimenting with fluoride compound they use, and refining
that choice. It matters! BUT * Fluoride used for fluoridation -- "Cities all
over the US purchase hundreds of thousands of gallons of
fresh pollution concentrate from Florida -- fluorosilicic
acid (H2SiF6) -- to fluoridate water. "Fluorosilicic acid is composed of tetrafluorosiliciate
gas and other species of fluorine gases captured in
pollution scrubbers and concentrated into a 23% solution
during wet process phosphate fertilizer manufacture. ... "Fluoridating drinking water with recovered pollution
is a cost-effective means of disposing of toxic waste. The
fluorosilicic acid would otherwise be classified as a
hazardous toxic waste on the Superfund Priorities List of
toxic substances that pose the most significant risk to
human health and the greatest potential liability for
manufacturers." FLUORIDE IN WATER IS NOT PHARMACEUTICAL GRADE BUT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE "The silicon fluorides have not been tested
comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal
studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not
industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. Proponents claim that
once the silicon fluorides have been diluted at the public
water works they are completely dissociated to free fluoride
ions and hydrated silica and thus there is no need to
examine the toxicology of these compounds. However, while a
study from the University of Michigan (Finney et al., 2006)
showed complete dissociation at neutral pH, in acidic
conditions (pH 3) there was a stable complex containing five
fluoride ions. Thus the possibility arises that such a
complex may be regenerated in the stomach where the pH lies
between 1 and 2." For more about fluoride use in industry, read this
article. It discusses that it's a known toxic pollutant
there, that it's challenging for them to discard it, and the
history. For more information on this point, see: "The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environmental
Overview," By Michael Connett, Fluoride Action Network, May
2003, www.fluoridealert.org/articles/phosphate01 "Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection," by George C.
Glasser, www.purewatergazette.net/fluorideandphosphate.htm [3] TOPICAL VS. SYSTEMIC "Fluoride & Tooth Decay: Topical Vs. Systemic
Effect", By Michael Connett, Fluoride Action Network, June
2012. www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries04 "The process of fluoride absorption works only by direct
contact (topical treatment). Fluoride ions that are
swallowed do not benefit the teeth.[126]" ^ Pizzo
G.; Piscopo, M. R.; Pizzo, I.; Giuliana, G. (2007).
"Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a
critical review". Clinical Oral Investigation 11 (3):
189-193. doi:10.1007/s00784-007-0111-6. PMID 17333303. "Fluoride Is Not An Essential Nutrient," By Michael
Connett, Fluoride Action Network, Aug. 2012. www.fluoridealert.org/studies/essential-nutrient == Just think about the fact that the labels of fluoridated
toothpaste are legally required to contain a warning
not to swallow it. That's because it is not healthy to
consume! HEALTH PROBLEMS "Dental fluorosis is a developmental disturbance
of dental enamel caused by excessive exposure to high
concentrations of fluoride during tooth development. The
risk of fluoride overexposure occurs between the ages of 3
months and 8 years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis Our use of fluoride in water is probably why 41% of
American children had dental fluorosis in 2010, versus less
than 10% in the 1940s. Although some experts minimize dental fluorisis as "just
cosmetic," it can quite dramatically impact the look of
teeth, permanently. It is not just a minor thing! See
pictures here. http://www.google.com/search?q=dental+fluorosis&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=u&rls=en&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=L3UJUdyHOJHRigLzr4DgBw&ved=0CEYQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=829 If the whole point of fluoridating is to help dental
health -- shouldn't it matter that it's hurting it!? == Plus, they don't mention that this reflects what's
happening to all the bones in the body, which affirms
that studies that show links between fluoridation and
increased bone fractures -- including in children and the
elderly. That's because excess exposure to fluoride can compromise
the integrity of bones, which diminishes bone strength and
increases the risk of bone fractures. Hip fractures in the
elderly can often lead to a loss of independence or
shortened life. "The costs and health effects of osteoporotic fractures
in the US are enormous. The total cost of fracture care is
now about $9 billion/year. It is estimated that about
350,000 hip fractures occur per year and the
incidence is rising…. "Conclusion: All studies of fracture rates relative to
long-term fluoridation exposure indicate a significant
increase in fracture risk from fluoridation. The
increased fracture risk due to fluoridation appears to range
from 40-100%, depending on the age of the subjects studied.
For women in their seventh decade who have been exposed to
life-long fluoridation, the risk of hip fracture is
approximately doubled. The risk increases with fluoride
concentration at all levels over 0.11 ppm." - John R. Lee,
M.D. The full text of this article was published in the
research journal, Fluoride (Vol. 26 No. 4, pages 274-277,
1993). Fluoridation and Hip Fractures, by John R. Lee, M.D. == "A review of recent scientific literature reveals a
consistent pattern of evidence - hip fractures, skeletal
fluorosis, the effect of fluoride on bone structure,
fluoride levels in bones and osteosarcomas - pointing to the
existence of causal mechanisms by which fluoride damages
bones…. [Fluoridation] proponents must come to
grips with a serious ethical question: is it right to put
fluoride in drinking water and to mislead the community that
fluoride must be ingested, when any small benefit is due to
the topical action of fluoride on teeth." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,
1997 == * Fluoride accumulates in the body, "largely in
calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland, and
steadily increases over a lifetime." (NRC 2006). == HARVARD STUDY, FLUORIDE IN WATER LOWERS IQ == There is no margin of safety for several health effects.
"No one can deny that high natural levels of fluoride damage
health. Millions of people in India and China have had their
health compromised by fluoride. The real question is whether
there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses
shown to cause harm in published studies and the total dose
people receive consuming uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated
water and non-water sources of fluoride. This margin of
safety has to take into account the wide range of individual
sensitivity expected in a large population (a safety factor
of 10 is usually applied to the lowest level causing harm).
Another safety factor is also needed to take into account
the wide range of doses to which people are exposed. There
is clearly no margin of safety for dental fluorosis (CDC,
2010) and based on the following studies nowhere near an
adequate margin of safety for lowered IQ (Xiang 2003a,b;
Ding 2011; Choi 2012); lowered thyroid function (Galletti
& Joyet 1958; Bachinskii 1985; Lin 1991); bone fractures
in children (Alarcon-Herrera 2001) or hip fractures in the
elderly (Kurttio 1999; Li 2001). All of these harmful
effects are discussed in the NRC (2006) review." [4] THE DOSE IS NOT CONTROLLED;
WE ALREADY ARE EXPOSED MULTIPLE WAYS Do we really want to worry about drinking too much water?
One of the key known reasons for dental caries is the
consumption of soda, including by children, including in low
income areas. Thus it seems a smart strategy would be to
education the population about those impacts. Of course,
then you'd suggest as an option that they drink -- water!
Let's not make that harmful to teeth too! Fluoride is also be absorbed through skin in the shower.
Plus there have been incidents where too much fluoride has
mistakenly been put in municipal water, causing dramatic
illnesses and even deaths before it was caught. Fluoride is
odorless and tasteless, so unlike chlorine for instance, you
can't tell when you're being exposed. See: Sources of Fluoride, Flouride Action Network
www.fluoridealert.org/issues/sources * No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring
fluoride exposure or side effects in the population overall
or the sensitive subsets. www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons [5] FLUORIDE IS HARMFUL+NOT
PROVEN SAFE IN WATER "Although fluoride advocates have claimed for years
that the safety of fluoride in dentistry is exhaustively
documented and "beyond debate," the Chairman of the National
Research Council's (NRC) comprehensive fluoride review, Dr.
John Doull, recently stated that: "when we looked at the
studies that have been done, we found that many of these
questions are unsettled and we have much less information
than we should, considering how long this
[fluoridation] has been going on. I think that's why
fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after
it began." "In this section of the website, we provide overviews of
the scientific and medical research that implicates fluoride
exposure as a cause or contributor to various chronic health
ailments." == Fluoride is more toxic than lead, is only slightly less
toxic than arsenic. == This article walks through the studies, both those used
by proponents and those that disprove them. [6] OTHER COUNTRIES + EXPERTS
HAVE REJECTED FLUORIDATION The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water
fluoridation. "Yet, according to comprehensive data from the
World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just
as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates
in the US." Also, "comprehensive data from the World Health
Organization reveals that there is no discernible difference
in tooth decay between the minority of western nations that
fluoridate water, and the majority that do not. In fact, the
tooth decay rates in many non-fluoridated countries are now
lower than the tooth decay rates in fluoridated ones." == Many scientists, doctors, and dentists oppose
fluoridation. They've looked beyond the claims to the actual
studies and facts. As of January 2012, over 4,000
professionals have signed a statement calling for an end to
water fluoridation worldwide. == In the United States, the union representing EPA
professionals (NTEU-280) has called for a moratorium on
fluoridation of America's drinking water. You can read their
reasons, including many of the items above, at www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouridestatement.htm == "Civil Rights Leaders Call for Halt to Water
Fluoridation," PRNewswire-USNewswire, NEW YORK, April 14,
2011, http://envirocentersoco.org/enviroupdates/?p=533 [7] WATER FLUORIDATION
ESPECIALLY HARMS THE LOWER-INCOME PEOPLE IT CLAIMS TO
SERVE [8] FLUORIDE IN WATER HARMS THE
ENVIRONMENT According to the NTEU-280, 99.97% of fluoridated water is
released directly into the water at around 1ppm, 10 times
Canada's water quality protection guideline of 0.12ppm. "The problems associated with fluoride pollution are
significant in Oregon and the entire Columbia River basin.
Excess fluoride in Northwest water negatively impacts salmon
and other aquatic species. Fluoride does not break down and
therefore accumulates in the environment. "While it would be valuable to strengthen regulation of
fluoride emitted into the environment from all sources, the
problem of additional fluoride pollution can at least be
partially addressed through a simple solution that costs
nothing and can be implemented immediately: "just say no" to
efforts to add fluoride compounds, plus the host of other
toxic contaminants that come with them, to our drinking
water." You can also read and forward Fluoride Action Network's
"10 facts about fluoride," which offers more details and
citations on these points. Also see: * Fluoride Action Network ("Broadening Public Awareness
on Fluoride") www.fluoridealert.org * NoFluoride.com ("Citizens for Safe Drinking Water")
www.nofluoride.com I've created an easy actions
page, focused on Sonoma County, for you to read and
share. www.healthyworld.org/StopSCFAction.html
For folks outside of Sonoma County, here's a link where
you can see the status of fluoridation in your state and
town -- including towns that have rejected it -- as well as
pollution sources of fluoride.
OVERALL
COMMENTS ABOUT THIS COLUMN, WITH FURTHER EVIDENCE AND
CITATIONS
"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a
vehicle for drugs.
Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious
effects on a
long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is
deplorable."
Past President of the American Medical Association
(www.nofluoride.com)
For instance, see this review of studies -- "Fluoride
toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and
adolescents." Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S.,
2003, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes
of Health.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535435
www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/
"The chemicals used to fluoridate water are not
pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they largely come from the
wet scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and
fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes
contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the
National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of
arsenic in these silicon fluorides are relatively high (up
to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of
potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000). Arsenic is a
known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level.
This one contaminant alone could be increasing cancer rates
-- and unnecessarily so." www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons
www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons
"Fluoride: Industry's Toxic Coup," by Joel Griffiths, Food
& Water Journal, Summer 1998
www.nofluoride.com/food_and_water.cfm
"When water fluoridation first began in the 1940s, dentists
believed that fluoride's main benefit to teeth came from
being swallowed during the tooth-forming years. This belief
that fluoride's primary benefit was "systemic" and
"pre-eruptive." … Although this "systemic" paradigm was
the premise that launched water fluoridation and fluoride
supplementation programs, it has now been discarded by the
dental research community. Today, as noted by the following
studies, the overwhelming consensus by dental researchers is
that fluoride's primary effect is topical, not systemic...
As the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated in 1999
"fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after
eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions
primarily are topical for both adults and children." The
National Research Council has concurred, stating in 2006
that "the major anticaries benefit of fluoride is topical
and not systemic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine#cite_note-Pizzo-127
Sources of Fluoride, Fluoride Action Network, www.fluoridealert.org/issues/sources
www.nofluoride.com/Hip_fractures_Lee.cfm
www.nofluoride.com/Hip_fractures_Lee.cfm
www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons
"July 24, 2012 -- Harvard University researchers' review of
fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results support the
possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on
children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July
20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal."
www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons
www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health
Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 5th Edition,
1984, pp. ll4, ll -112, ll-138, ll-129)
"Fluoride: A Statement of Concern," by Paul Connett, Ph.D,
Waste Not #459, January 2000
www.slweb.org/connett.html
www.fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-facts
www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement
www.fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-facts
(See #9)
www.fluoridealert.org/issues/ej
(Environmental Justice)
www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouridestatement.htm
www.safewateroregon.org/environmental.html
www.fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-facts
www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/states
I'm delighted to offer you my Ask EcoGirl booklets,
"Healthier Housecleaning" and "Detoxing Your Life."
These unique, handy, and cheerful resources bring
together key information you need to create a healthier home
for your family and the planet. They make a great gift, and
quantity discounts and wholesale prices are available. Plus
all sales support my eco-healing community work. Tell a
friend! Find out more at www.askecogirl.info/booklets.html. Sign up for my low-volume writing announcement list
(1-3 emails a month), to get emails when my new print
articles are published, at www.patriciadines.info/EList. Explore and sign up for my blog at www.patriciadines.info/LTEblog. Editors: Please contact me if you'd like to publish
any of these articles in your periodical, or discuss an
article that I might write for you.
MY ASK ECOGIRL
BOOKLETS
For more information on this and
related eco-topics, see my other Ask
EcoGirl columns.
STAYING
CONNECTED
This entire website is (c) Patricia
Dines, 1998-2013. All rights reserved.
Page last updated 4/9/13
www.patriciadines.info/EcoGirl6h.html
