Midnight Politico

a_picazo's picture
Alheli Picazo is a retired elite athlete who's still passionate about health, fitness and human kinetics. After the conclusion of her athletic career, Picazo became keenly interested in politics and is now actively involved in promoting and contributing to the progressive cause. Picazo's goal is to engage in a meaningful political debate and combat apathy by shedding light on the information and stories that traditional media sources don't always provide.

Facts matter in the debate over water fluoridation

| January 7, 2011

It's known as one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century; a "classic example of clinical observation leading to epidemiological investigation and community-based public health intervention;" Remaining "the most equitable and cost-effective method of delivering [health benefits] to all members of most communities, regardless of age, educational attainment, or income level."

It's a service that has benefitted Calgarians for two decades, backed by peer reviewed research and conclusive scientific data demonstrating the undeniable role it plays in the field of preventive medicine.

Raise a glass to Community Water Fluoridation (CWF), that is, while you still can. Because Monday, City Council will vote on Ald. Druh Farrell's regressive motion to scrap Calgary's water fluoridation program.

Armed with unsubstantiated claims and assertions gleaned from sources such as the discredited Fluoride Action Network, (or perhaps from the uninformed, and clearly unresearched, editorial in the Calgary Herald), Farrell and other luddites on city council are on the verge of rescinding an effective program based entirely on conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Claim: It's not cost effective / other sources of fluoride do a better job at protecting teeth.

Fact: Despite the increase exposure to other sources of fluoride, "particularly from fluoride-containing dentifrices," water fluoridation "continues to be the most far-reaching preventive [dental health] measure, [offering] an unmatched return on investment -- saving $38 in dental treatment costs for every dollar spent."

The U.S. Surgeon general reports that savings provided by CWF are "a rare characteristic for community-based disease prevention strategies. The mean annual per capita cost of fluoridation systems serving populations greater than 50,000 is [a mere]$0.68."

Claim: The overall downward trend in cavity rates is due factors such as better oral hygiene, not water fluoridation / It doesn't benefit adults.

Fact: Children living in communities with water fluoridation experience an 18% cavity reduction compared to those in communities without access to fluoridated water. Adolescents and adults in communities with fluoridated water experience an average of 25.6% and 20-40% respectively, than their counterparts living in communities without access to fluoridated water.

The U.S. Surgeon General reports "other evidence of the benefits of fluoridation comes from studies of populations where fluoridation has ceased ... In Wick, Scotland, which began water fluoridation in 1969 but stopped it in 1979, the [cavity] prevalence in 5- to 6-year-olds ... increased by 27 percent between 1979 and 1984. This was despite a national decline in [cavities] and increased availability of fluoride-containing [dental products]."

Claim: Studies show the risks of fluoridation outweigh the benefits / there is growing credible research demonstrating the dangers of ingesting fluoride.

Fact: Research into the effects of fluoridated drinking water "predates the first community field trials. Since 1950, opponents of water fluoridation have claimed it increased the risk for cancer, Down syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis and bone fracture, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, low intelligence, Alzheimer disease, allergic reactions, and other health conditions. The safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation [is regularly] re-evaluated, and no credible evidence supports an association between fluoridation and any of these conditions."

Specifically, from a study done by Dr. David Locker, Community Dental Health Services Research Unit - Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto:

Regarding acute toxicity: "Fluoride is a poison in large doses but toxic levels cannot be achieved by drinking fluoridated water."

Regarding bone health (osteoporosis; weak, brittle bones): "...the studies conducted to date do not provide systemic and compelling evidence of an adverse effect on bone."

Regarding cancer: "... there is no reason to believe that exposure to fluoridated water increases rates of cancer either of bone or other body tissues."

Regarding immune function: "...a review paper examined studies of fluoride and immune response ... and found no support for the suggestion that fluoride affects immunity."

Regarding mental development: "Recent studies emanating from China have claimed that children exposed to high levels of fluoride have lower IQ's than children exposed to low levels. The two studies claiming such an effect are deeply flawed and provide no credible evidence that fluoride obtained from water or industrial pollution affects the intellectual development of children."

The merits of water fluoridation are unmatched, and undeniable. Endorsed by Medical and Dental Associations worldwide, CWF is considered an investment in the future health and overall wellbeing of a given population.

Perhaps the most important, and overlooked, aspect of CWF is the extent to which it benefits the underprivileged members of society. As outlined in a 2009 report from the European Archives of Pediatric Dentistry, "water fluoridation is unmatched in its ability to reach all sectors of society, including those who are least likely to avail of other sources of fluoride or to access regular dental care ... water fluoridation seems to reduce inequalities in children's dental health across social classes in 5 and 12 year olds. Further research in this area has shown that water fluoridation benefits all social strata, and supports the finding that it may reduce inequalities in oral health, which is seen as one of fluoridation's greatest strengths."

This counteracts recent claims from Tea Party/Libertarians that CWF somehow deprives them of their choice to consume un-fluoridated water; that it violates their ‘personal freedoms'.

Unlike the disadvantaged who have neither the money for, nor the access to, expensive dental procedures, those demanding ‘freedom' and ‘choice' are the very one who have the opportunity to exercise it.

If Calgarians are unsatisfied by the water provided by the city, they can opt to invest in a water filtration system, or chose to consume bottled water. It really is that simple.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi, a fellow fan of scientific research and hard evidence, has expressed his desire for input from the scientific community, medical experts, and the general public, regarding the future of Calgary's water fluoridation program.

It's my hope that the medical, dental, and scientific communities heed the Mayor's call for expert, and informed, opinion. Whether City Council votes to end Calgary's fluoridation program or not, it's important that votes are based on accurate information and conclusive evidence.

Three months ago, Calgarians opted for progress and advancement when they elected Nenshi as mayor; let's hope the 14 Aldermen chosen to represent the will of the people will continue to do just that, and keep the much beneficial water fluoridation program.

embedded_video

Comments

Alheli,

I see a healthy discussion has taken place since I last logged in. But I wanted to say two things: first, thank you for your dedication to reason and science - it's refreshing; second, thank you for not responding with ad hominem attacks even though they were launched at you (for those of you who challenged Alheli's evidence and conclusions, you must meet her where she stands; that is, provide solid evidence and not resort to calling her names like "naive").  

Keep blogging Alheli! I'm a fan. 

Eric 

TinaK, please explain how the following are "political organizations" - World Health Organization, American Medical Association, Canadian Medical Association, British Medical Association, American Dental Association, Canadian Dental Association, Centres for Disease Control, Pew Research Centre, Surgeon General, Nursing Associations around the world, State and Provincial Dental and Medical health Associations ... just to name a few.

Exactly what do they have to gain by Community Water Fluoridation, other than the health of the public?

 

And once again, Thank you JimD, for continuing to bring logic to this discussion!

Yes indeed Fluoridation is ineffective and wasteful: so is most of what we call preventive medicine. We do things for people, most of whom would not get the disease, so that a few will benefit. For example immunisation. Only  few people would get severe measles and die from it. Tetanus was relatively uncommon, but now has disappeared. Even when there were epidemics, only a small number of babies were born with congenital rubella syndrome: but we really prefer that there were none, so all those mothers and babies get painful injections, mosly for no benefit to themselves.But we do not know in advance which ones, so we treat them all to reduce their probability of disease from low to extremely low.

 

To turn to TinaK's expertise, we put chlorine in the water: a terrible poison, and indeed most of the water gets used to flush down toilets, for washing, etc. much is boiled for tea, coffee etc, and the taste would be better without the chlorine. Only a small amount is drunk cold, and actually needs chlorine. In Hong Kong, they have two water supplies: fresh water, and seawater that is used for toilets, so as not to waste the fresh water. Much more efficient, but still not perfect. Perhaps we should stop chlorinating, and let every householder install their own chlorination plant, or just boil all their water, as happens in many aboriginal settlements. But that is even more inefficient, and those at highest risk, like in aboriginal settlements, would end up using a high proportion of their income on treating their water.

Yes, I choose to drink "poisons", because a small amount of chlorine is good to avoid infectious disease, and fluorine for my teeth.

Thank you TinaK for helping us to think through your foolish arguments.

Honestly Alheli, why would anyone seek answers from a political organization like the CDC or a "fluoride task force"?
You seem thoroughly naive at best. Regardless, the days of fluoridation are numbered if only to discourage an onslaught of lawsuits. If you feel very much saddened by this I am sure you can find a way to spike your home water supply as you please.

Thank you JimD once again for your invaluable insight.

 

And TinaK, I encourage you to read the studies hyperlinks in my article -- or perhaps just re-read my article --as the assertions you make are thoroughly debunked with hard evidence and conclusive scientific analysis of data over the past 50 years.

I am a retired professor of civil engineering, so I am quite familiar with public water systems. In addition to being ineffective and dangerous to health, fluoridation is extremely inefficient and wasteful of public funds. People only drink 1/2% (or even less) of the water provided by the community. 99 1/2% goes directly down the drain, together with 99 1/2% of the chemical added to the water. For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly flushed down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 would be consumed by children, who is the target population. Can anyone think of a more wasteful government program? All of this chemical is then deposited in the environment, in rivers, lakes, etc. It is illegal for the companies to dump their toxic waste fluoride into the rivers, but somehow it becomes legal if they run it through the public water system first--- INSANITY.

"You mean they want to drink poison, on purpose!?" "Oh it gets better... They think it's good for them!!!" "I don't believe it! Using their own bodies as Fluoride Filters, well that's disgusting, ...oh well have a good day now." (Shaking head in complete disbelief.)

I note that antifluoridationists believe that all white blotches on teeth are due to fluoride, becasue dentists label them as "fluorosis". However, they also occur in a substantial proportion when there is no fluoride in the water. So most such discolorations on teeth in Calgary are not due to fluoride. Perhaps dentists need to find another name for them.

Besides the paranoid delusions about the communists causing it all, antifluoridationinsts confuse what they want to be true with what exists. For example they say most of Europe does not have fluoridation. True they do not have it in the water: they put it in the salt. So they still get it. And most European countries have strong public dental services especially focussed on the schools and disadvantaged. Do they intend to expand that service here from its current minimal state?

 

It is an important tool in tooth enamel protection. Here are a just a few in depth reports with full explanation on the matter (all of which are found in hyperlinks in my piece)

 

Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries

The Cost Of Delay: State Dental Policies Fail 1 in 5 Children

Centres for Disease Control: Fluoridation to Prevent Dental Caries

Water Fluoridation: Oral Health Services Research Centre

 

 

So why do they add it?

I'm guessing there is an attachment for spirit channel excuses.

 

 

Thank you JimD - I completely agree. Sadly, when I shared my research with Ald. Gian-Carlo Carra, this was his response: "Thanks but I'm honestly not approaching the Fluoride debate from a pro vs. con evidence perspective. Question of role of municipal government."

How sad ... Concerned not about evidence or merit, but about the Libertairan ideology. ("Big Government!")

 

Well said M. Spector! The ignorance of the anti-fluoride movement regarding how many other substances are added to our food/drink products for health benefits is almost comical.

How about starting a campaign to remove the iodine from table salt? Or a campaign to stop adding Vitamin D to milk?  Or to get the added Niacin out of wheat flour and bread? What about all that deadly chlorine they add to the drinking water - why is it mandatory for me to drink water laced with a known poison?

Fluoride: science or political ideology?

 

It is disturbing that the Calgary council is planning to have a debate on fluoride, on very short notice, when this was not a topic for discussion during the election. If this matter is to be dealt with properly, it needs full evidence to be brought forward, and it is inappropriate that this matter be decided by the opinions of councilors who did not bring up the topic and were not elected in regard to their opinions on this matter, nor with enough time for most of them to study the science.  

 

Fluoride arguments produce a great deal of heat and very little light, with much mixing of ideas and logical confusion. There are three main issues: one what are the benefits of fluoride, two what are the harms of fluoride addition to the water, and three a philosophical approach to whether fluoride should be added for a social benefit at the expense of individual “freedom”. In addition, there are those who subscribe to absurd conspiracy theories, mostly from US sources that have every sign of delusionary thinking.

 

On viewing the evidence the benefits of fluoride in preventing tooth decay are modest but positive. Assessing the science is difficult as much of it was done in the early days of fluoridation when understanding of how to assess the benefits of such a program was not well developed. Consequently many of the studies do not fulfill modern criteria for scientific perfection. Nonetheless we must try to interpret the imperfect evidence that is available. Earlier studies demonstrated greater effects, because the prevalence of tooth decay was much higher overall. Tooth decay has decreased in recent years so the effect is minimal when measured for the whole community but is still important for segments of populations that have high decay rates, because they do not use fluoride toothpaste, topical mouth treatments, and good mouth hygiene. Severe tooth decay is a substantial health problem and expensive for those who have it.

 

More recent studies have compared countries and provinces that are fluoridated or not fluoridated in regard to number of missing, filled or decayed teeth in children. These studies are helpful but one must be very careful of the samples used and whether the children most likely to have tooth decay were included in the samples. This is often difficult as those most at risk are the least likely to participate in such research surveys.

 

Detractors of fluoridation argue vehemently against it on several grounds. They assert fluoride is a poison and therefore should not be used at all. This argument is absurd as we use fluoride ion, not fluorine gas, the amount used is very tiny and at that dose it is not a poison. Chlorine used in the water supply and bromine used in swimming pools and hot tubs are also poisons but have huge benefits in preventing infection. Others argue that fluorosilicate is an industrial byproduct that should not be used. Once this is added to water it breaks down into fluoride irons. The body treats fluoride irons the same no matter where they came from, whether expensive sodium fluoride or cheap fluorosilicate. Other arguments as used in the Calgary Herald editorial on January 6, 2011 use selected evidence from studies that have usually examined many different possible associations and find one or two. Unfortunately these associations with bladder cancer in females in Taiwan or osteosarcoma in boys are not consistent. Assessments of the science need to be careful, and use the full range of evidence rather than simply selected pieces. Even the authors of these studies in their articles urge caution in interpretation without corroboration from other work. Alberta does not have a higher incidence of either of these two cancers.

 

Fluoride can cause dental fluorosis. At high doses this can weaken teeth and be unsightly, but at the low doses used in Calgary water, the effect occurs in few, and is barely detectable. It is only a cosmetic problem for those who are very concerned about the close up appearance of their teeth.

 

The main argument against the use of fluoride relates to political philosophy. Libertarians believe that adding a chemical, a “drug”, to water for everyone is an infringement of rights and ethics. Those who argue the opposite believe that the benefits to the community as a whole from improving dental health, particularly of the most vulnerable children, in the long term is worth the minimal harm from fluoride ingestion. This is a philosophical argument not a scientific one, and people should declare themselves in this regard, rather than pretending their arguments are scientific. However libertarians should also be consistent and argue to remove iodine from salt, enrichment from bread and cereals, Vitamins A and D from butter, milk and margarine and other such “unnatural” changes to our food, designed to prevent deficiency diseases. Such libertarians should also resign from their churches: their approach to the world is unchristian since they clearly do not want to be their brother's keeper.

 

Some suggest that we can compensate for taking fluoride out of the water by using the savings to assist those who are most vulnerable. Having brought up my own children in a non-fluoridated area I know how difficult it was to give them fluoride drops regularly to ensure they received the benefits of this tooth-strengthening agent. Families that have enough difficulty coping with the ordinary day to day activity of keeping food on the table and a roof over their heads are unlikely to be able to add this to their daily routine in a consistent way. The cost of accurately identifying and helping this particular group of people is likely to be enormous, and fraught with error.  It is an absurd argument.

 

There is a small proportion of very vocal people who are anti-fluoride on the basis of Libertarianism, or misunderstanding of the science, or frank delusions of conspiracy. A small number of us look at the science to support the cause of fluoride. However I suspect that the vast majority of the electorate are uninformed and indifferent. Even in Alberta most would probably agree it is worth helping vulnerable children who cannot make the decision for themselves.

 

If fluoride comes to a vote, I hope that councilors clarify that their stand is a matter of political philosophy, instead of hiding behind assertions of junk science. At least then we can respect them for their honesty, and we can vote for or against them on that basis rather than the pretence of caring for the population. 

 

 

I guess the cliche of leftists being condescending autocrats isn't that far from reality.

Would the author like to suggest any other medical treatments that should be mandatory for all citizens? Perhaps we should all be legally required to receive flu shots?

Or are cheapness and ease of application the only criteria for deciding whether or not we should be treated as adults and allowed to make our own decisions about our health and what we put into our bodies?

Firstly, I have not the time nor desire to waste my time with your fluoride games. Apparently you have been employed especially for this purpose. Me, I am simply a citizen unappreciative of forced water fluoridation, exactly like so many others.

The quantity reference was introduced to me by a dental friend and is supported in the link I provided, a point the chemist raises to the government without objection because it is -- apparently -- irrefutable. See the link for yourself, and, this being the Internet, feel free to scour it all night long to triple-validate that fact and countless others.

The arguments against water fluoridation are so manifold that for as long as it persists the "controversy" will never, ever go away.

The form/derivative of fluoride in water is entirely different than topical fluoride used in products such as toothpaste. Further, still waiting for ANY study or peer reviewed research to back up your statements.

"a pea-sized quantity of toothpaste is found in a single glass of fluoridated water."

No actually, that is simply not factual. But saying such this is easy when you don't provide evidence to support your claims.

"toothpaste fluoride content, which is in fact of a significantly higher grade than the chemical waste used for water fluoridation programs."

More fantastical claims without a shred of evidence -- and that, in fact, have been repeatedly disproven.

 

But keep them coming!

"Well Brently, since you are posting here on behalf of the discredited Fluoride Action Network, I suppose I should expect nothing less that continued cut and pastes from the site. Yes, if a child eats a tube of toothpaste it would be harmful. A person cannot ingest the amount of fluoride in a single tube of toothpaste from drinking ANY amount of fluoridated water." 

Please see my previous posting where I made it very clear indeed that the same quantity of fluoride that is found in but a pea-sized quantity of toothpaste is found in a single glass of fluoridated water.

Such is irrefutable. Such is also irrefutable that we require government warnings against the ingestion of toothpaste because of its fluoride content, which is in fact of a significantly higher grade than the chemical waste used for water fluoridation programs.

Again Brentley, activist for the FLuoride Action Network who jioned rabble 21 minutes ago to copy and paste things from the Fluoride Action Netwrk, instead of this back and forth, how about you link to a perr reviewed, scientific study to back up the statements you are posting. In my article, I have linked to multiple studies examining the issue for over 50 years. All have conclusive evidence for the safety and effectiveness of fluoridated water.

 

Fluoride policy, JCDA 73:10, 896

Comment directed to the JCDA on the editorial on Canada's "fluoride policy" (JCDA 73:10, p. 896):

The tone of your comment is misleading with respect to the status of opinion and evidence on uses of fluoride to promote dental health. It should be pointed out that over the last few years there has appeared substantial evidence of association of ingestion of fluoride ion and fluorine compounds such as used in fluoridation of public water supplies with serious abnormalities of several body systems and with abnormal development of the central nervous system in fetuses and young children. And there is considerable evidence from the past six decades that ingestion is not effective in reducing the incidence of caries. The comment that "universal access to fluoride is part of the basic right to health" moves us to point out that even if fluoridation were effective there is a superior right that disallows administering to people without their informed consent a substance not approved by a qualified body after appropriate testing for toxicity and efficacy, which testing and approval has not been done in this case.

James S. Beck, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics, University of Calgary

Dr.Robert C Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP
Calgary, AB  T3A-2M7

See also: The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There

About the Author

Dr Paul Connett, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry at St Lawrence University, has given more than 2000 presentations on the issue of waste management. He holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in chemistry from Dartmouth College. He is currently the director of the Fluoride Action Network and lives in Canton, New York. Dr James Beck is Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary and holds a doctorate in medicine from Washington University School of Medicine and biophysics from the University of California Berkeley. he lives in Calgary, Canada. Dr H. Spedding Micklem is a Professor Emeritus in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. He holds a DPhil from the University of Oxford. Dr Micklem lives in Edinburgh.

Well Brently, since you are posting here on behalf of the discredited Fluoride Action Network, I suppose I should expect nothing less that continued cut and pastes from the site. Yes, if a child eats a tube of toothpaste it would be harmful. A person cannot ingest the amount of fluoride in a single tube of toothpaste from drinking ANY amount of fluoridated water.

 

And William Hirzy, who works for the Fluoride Action Network, is no longer with the EPA, though he doesn't tell people that.

Dr. J. William Hirzy of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 26, 2001: "In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small--if there are any at all--that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behaviour on the part of governments."

Government warnings regarding fluoridated toothpaste and fluoridated mouthwash:

"Keep out of reach of children under 6 yrs of age. If you swallow more than used for brushing, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away"

"If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Centre right away"

"Never give fluoridated mouthwash or mouth rinses to children under six years of age, as they may swallow it"

"Use non-fluoridated toothpaste or no toothpaste for young children."

"Make sure that your children use no more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste on
their toothbrush"

Remember: A pea size amount of pharmaceutical grade fluoridated toothpaste contains about 0.25mg of fluoride. One glass of industrial grade fluoridated water contains the same amount of fluoride. We are told not to ingest the pharmaceutical grade fluoride in toothpaste. We are told to ingest the industrial grade fluoride in drinking water.

See here: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_243_e_30927.html

Fluoride is not a medication. I challenge you to try and get it from your doctor or dentist ... won't happen. Also, I link to about 10 different comprehensive medical studies and reports that have examined the issue over the past 50 years. I encourage you to thoroughly read each and every one of them to fully comprehend the issue.

As I said, facts matter. The Anti-Fluoride movement is akin to the Anti-vaccination movement. Lots of scary rhetoric but none of it is supported by science or fact.

Sorry, fluoride is toxic. Period. "Oh, that's only in large amounts." Seriously? That's the argument? Let's keep exporting asbestos while we're at it.

Also, using statistics from Wick, Scotland as proof of anything? The population is under 8,000. Sample size of 5-6 years olds must have been tiny.

I've always been dismayed at the idea of being medicated without my consent.

Wow ... A giant cut and paste from the very discredited conspiracy theorist organization I cite in my piece. How convincing. 

                                                      Fluoridation Opposition is Scientific, Respectable & Growing    More than 3,200 professionals (including over 290 dentists) urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html    Also, eleven Environmental Protection Agency employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people.
  The CDC reports that 225 less communities adjusted for fluoride between 2006 and 2008. Approximately, 90 US communities rejected fluoridation since 2008. New York State communities that stopped or rejected fluoridation include: Levittown, Canton, Corning, Johnstown, Oneida, Carle Place, Rockland County, Suffolk County, Western Nassau County, Albany, Beacon, Poughkeepsie, Central Bridge Water District, Homer, Ithaca, and Amsterdam. New York City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr is introducing legislation to stop fluoridation in New York City.     Since the professionals' statement was first issued , the following occurred:   -- Exposure to fluoride may lower children's intelligence says a study pre-published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (online December 17, 2010).  It’s the 24th study to do so.   -- Waterloo, Ontario, Canada stops decades of water fluoridation, November 2010
  -- In Alabama: 18 water systems in state stopped adding fluoride (reported Sept 12, 2010)   --  On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the "Top Ten Common Household Toxins" and described fluoride as both "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed."   --  Water fluoride chemicals  boosts lead absorption in lab animals’ bones, teeth and blood, was reported by Sawan, et al. (Toxicology 2/2010). Earlier studies already show children’s blood-lead-levels are higher in fluoridated communities, reports Sawan’s research team.   -- State University of New York  researchers found more premature births in fluoridated than non-fluoridated upstate New York communities, according to a presentation made at the American Public Health Association’s annual meeting on November 9, 2009 in Philadelphia.  

-- New York State Department of Health dentist J. V. Kumar published national statistics in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association which show similar cavity rates regardless of water fluoride content, However, dental fluorosis rates increased along with water fluoride levels.  See analysis “Fluoridation No Benefit; Definite Harm,” by Kathleen M. Thiessen, Ph.D., SENES Oak Ridge, Inc., Center for Risk Analysis here: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Clinch_2009_No_Benefit_Definite_Harm.pdf

--  The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Canada’s leading voice on environmental health issues, released a statement opposing fluoridation. <br><br> --  May 2009, Great Lakes United (GLU) supports the end of water fluoridation. GLU is made up organizations representing environmentalists, conservationists, hunters and anglers, labor unions, community groups, and citizens of the United States, Canada, and First Nations and Tribes.<br><br>
  -- The Green Party of Canada passed a resolution to work towards the elimination of artificially fluoridated water. (August 2010)   --  The National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation support replacing it with this caution: “Individuals with CKD  [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.” (3)   -- Researchers reported in the Oct 6 2007  British Medical Journal  that fluoridation  never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. <br><br>   --  “A qualitative review of ...studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ,”  concluded Tang el al., in "Fluoride and Children’s Intelligence: A Meta-analysis” in Biological Trace Element Research <br><br>   -- Scientific American editors wrote in January 2008, "Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland"   -- Dr. A. K. Susheela, a leading fluoride expert, explains in a video why US physicians overlook fluoride as a possible cause of diseases commonly caused by fluoride. http://tinyurl.com/Susheela   -- A study in the Fall 2008 Journal of Public Health Dentistry reveals that  cavity-free teeth have little to do with fluoride intake. Researchers report, "The benefits of fluoride are mostly topical…while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake."     -- Research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009).  indicates that blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups. (13)  Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults   -- All infant formula, whether concentrated or not, contain fluoride at levels that can discolor teeth - even organic, according to research published in the October 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association.   -- A Tennessee State legislator, Joey Hensley, who is also an MD is urging all Tennessee Water Districts to stop fluoridation, reported a Tennessee newspaper on 11/29/08. At least 30 Tennessee water districts have already complied with his request.   -- Fluoride avoidance reduced anemia in pregnant women, decreased pre-term births and enhanced babies birth-weight, concludes leading fluoride expert, AK Susheela and colleagues, in a study published in Current Science (May 2010). http://www.fluorideandfluorosis.com/Anemia/Current%20Science%20Reprint.pdf  
   
Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Arvid Carlsson in Medicine,  says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”
 
No one has discredited the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).  FAN simply delivers a message this write chooses to ignore.
  Adverse health effects of fluoride from the scientific literature and government reports: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health                                                                   
Login or register to post comments