|
|
Should We Fluoridate Sonoma County's Main Water Supply? |
By Patricia Dines, April 8, 2013
Should We Fluoridate
Sonoma County's Main Water Supply?
By Patricia Dines, April 8, 2013
|
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. In February, the Board of Supervisors moved a step closer to doing this by voting to do an engineering study. (See www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130226/ARTICLES/130229619/1350?p=all&tc=pgall.) This issue will probably be coming before the Board of Supervisors again this summer or early fall, as they get close to making their final decision on this. Thus, I think it's vital that all of us in Sonoma County get up to speed on what this might mean and if we want to allow it to go through -- or act to stop it. 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 for community water fluoridation (CWF), especially for lower-income people. I understand that these claims are attractive, and I wish it were in fact an easy remedy for community dental health. Unfortunately, though, I don't think that the claims match the facts and the science. I don't think it's the right approach for these goals. We need to be willing to look underneath the PR to the reality below. This isn't the quick fix some want it to be! However, some folks (including some decisionmakers) haven't been willing to look beyond the PR claims for CWF. And so, if we want CWF stopped, we're going to need to build a much larger public outcry against it, and within the next few months. If we don't, we'll be the ones paying the price -- in our health, environment, and pocketbooks. Note: When speaking against CWF, it's vital to do so in constructive, fact-based ways, to show that this isn't a fringe issue. So here's what I see as the core problems with CWF -- with notes and citations to back up each one -- then ways you can take action, and connect with others who are doing the same. I hope that this helps us reject CWF and pursue more sensible solutions. The Four Key Differences Between Dental Fluoride and CWF First, I want to say that I personally 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). Even top experts agree that fluoride provides dental benefit from topical not systemic application. CWF is like drinking sunscreen to try to prevent sunburn! [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. Many Americans already likely consume fluoride totals above safe levels! [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). [Note 5] Eight More Essential Facts 1) Studies have not proven CWF to be safe and effective. Fluoridating water is actually not proven to improve dental outcomes. Over the past 50 years, tooth decay has dropped at the same overall rate in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions. Modern large-scale studies show no meaningful difference in cavity rates in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. [Note 6] 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. [Note 7] The British government's Final Fluoridation Study (aka "The York Review") was a meta-study of studies and expected to confirm the effectiveness of CWF. Instead it found that none of the studies claiming to show CWF's safety and effectiveness were grade A level (i.e., "high quality, bias unlikely"). York Professor Trevor Sheldon, in an official statement, said, "The review did not show fluoridation to be safe... The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as as "just a cosmetic issue.".... There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health... Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation." [Note 8] 2) 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 9] 3) There's no minimum daily requirement for fluorine. It's not an essential nutrient. There's no such thing as a fluorine deficiency. This is stated clearly by the U.S. FDA, the U.S. Public Health Service, and even the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM), which says that its 1997 report is being incorrectly used to claim otherwise. [Note 10] 4) 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 11] 5) 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 12] 6) As a result of this information, most developed countries do not fluoridate their water supplies, including Japan and nearly all of western Europe. [Note 13] 7) The public opponents of CWF include thousands of scientists, dentists, doctors, former Public Health Ministers, Nobel Laureates, and more. Also objecting are the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC, the nation's oldest and largest Latino organization); African American leaders such as Andrew Young; and the EPA professionals union. Many opponents were proponents, until they saw the science! [Note 14] 8) The ADA is not a neutral adviser but an active CWF booster that refuses to consider contradictory facts -- just as it has for years with mercury amalgams. [Note 15] >> The bottom line is that quality fluoride compounds can be helpful as medicine, but only when administered in professional ways and controlled doses, if and when a dentist and patient choose it , not broadcast in our shared water. Fixing the Supervisors' Process Since this decision directly impacts so many of us, it's vital that we have an unbiased, fact-based community deliberation. But the Supervisors' current process seems strongly biased towards CWF. To fix that, I suggest the Board: 1) Give the public real notice when CWF comes before the Board again, so we can read, prepare, and attend. 2) Have an expert CWF opponent sitting on the dais next to DHS and answering Board questions as they deliberate, to balance DHS' clear pro-CWF bias. 3) Split the CWF proposal from the other dental health proposals during voting, so the votes can reflect its different character, scope, and impact. 4) Direct someone other than DHS to design a plan for distributing fluoride directly to just the low-income children that DHS says it aims to serve. Ideally, that would be in topical applications, such as toothpaste. But if people want to insist on systemic application, then this could be via free fluoridated water or tablets. But at least then people would have a choice about being exposed. And I suspect it would be a lot cheaper, and certainly more fair, than putting this material in our main water supply. 5) Require a very high standard before taking any more action towards CWF and putting this material into our shared water and environment. I believe that CWF should only be done if it's 100% conclusively proven safe, effective, and necessary -- and at a level that warrants the cost and unilaterally imposing it on the vast majority of our population. To me, CWF fails on all these counts. and thus should be rejected by this community. [Note 16] What you can do * Read this advice from Donna Westfall, a former City Councilperson in Crescent City, who was shocked to discover the reality of CWF and acted to stop it there. www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-DonnaWestf.html * I have a created an Action page with lots of local resources and action ideas for you. See www.healthyworld.org/StopSCFAction.html * Here are some good general resources on this topic: Fluoride Action Network www.fluoridealert.org * 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. * I often hear about top scientists and proponents of CWF looking deeper into the science, being stunned that it doesn't support the claims, and becoming opponents. For instance, you can also read the experience of Dr. J. Colquhoun, BDS, MPhil, PhD, DipEd. He was a strong proponent of CWF as Principal Dental Officer of Auckland, the largest town in New Zealand. He traveled and promoted CWF, and was appointed chairman of a national "Fluoridation Promotion Committee". But then he started looking deeper into the science, and found it just didn't support the claims being made about CWF. He now speaks out against CWF. Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation (Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41 29-44 1997) http://www.fluoridation.com/colquh.htm I hope you find this information helpful. I invite you to share it with others! Patricia Dines has been a freelance writer for nearly 30 years, and for the last 20 years has specialized in covering environmental and community issues. © Copyright Patricia Dines, 2013. All rights reserved. |
||
|
"My father was a dentist. I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies. So it is with fluoridation." Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador, former Atlanta Mayor, Inductee International Civil Rights Walk of Fame "It is time for the U.S., and the few remaining fluoridating countries, to recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended now." Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation, signed by over 4,000 medical, dental, scientific, and environmental professionals. www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement LONGER VERSION OF THE ABOVE QUOTE "We call upon all medical and dental professionals, members of water departments, local officials, public health organizations, environmental groups and the media to examine for themselves the new documentation that fluoridated water is ineffective and poses serious health risks. It is no longer acceptable to simply rely on endorsements from agencies that continue to ignore the large body of scientific evidence on this matter…. The untold millions of dollars that are now spent on equipment, chemicals, monitoring, and promotion of fluoridation could be much better invested in nutrition education and targeted dental care for children from low income families. The vast majority of enlightened nations have done this…. It is time for the U.S., and the few remaining fluoridating countries, to recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended now." Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation, signed by over 4,000 medical, dental, scientific, and environmental professionals. www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement |
||
|
Here's some of the key information and links that support the information in my article.
NOTE 1. FLUORIDE CAN PROMOTE DENTAL HEALTH IN TOPICAL DENTAL PRODUCTS 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 PD NOTE: I also understand that some people do not want to use fluoride even in their toothpaste. And that is their right to make that choice. The point is that we each have a right to make that choice. When fluoride is put into our water supply, that choice is taken away from us, and we're each forced to drink this material whether we want to or not -- or pay for an expensive house filtration system and otherwise take ongoing measures to avoid this toxic. Even still, 99% of the fluoride that goes into the water supply ends up in our shared environment, where it can do harm to plants and creatures, and back into our water supply. (I'll have more information about that later in the article.)
NOTE 2. THE FLUORIDE USED IN FLUORIDATION IS A DIFFERENT COMPOUND THAN DENTISTRY Fluorine is a gas element that is not found as a separate solid material in the environment. Rather, we use it in compounds 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
NOTE 3. TOPICAL VS. SYSTEMIC "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." "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!
NOTE 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 educate 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 likely to 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
NOTE 5. NON-TARGET PEOPLE ARE EXPOSED AGAINST THEIR WILL. EVEN MAINSTREAM EXPERTS AGREE SOME FOLKS SHOULDN'T DRINK FLUORIDATED WATER. For instance, it is generally recommended that babies not
get fluoride in the first year of their life. It is recommended that people with kidney problems not
consume fluoridated water, including those on dialysis.
That's because their kidneys are compromised in their
ability to excrete fluorine in the urine, and thus it builds
up in the bones and other parts of the body at a faster
rate, which can cause various specific health problems for
them. Fluoride can also worsen the kidney disease, creating
a negative spiral. "It is well known that individual susceptibility to
fluoride varies greatly across the population." Only certain water filters can remove fluoride from
water, and even then only probably up to 90% of the
material. [PD NOTE: Because it is so difficult and
expensive to remove, the easiest way to avoid fluoride is
not to put it in the water in the first place, and instead
distribute it in more targeted ways to people who can choose
if they want to be exposed.] Water fluoridation is especially harmful to the
lower-income people it claims to serve. That's for two key
reasons: "[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, 2000 winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology
NOTE 6: TOOTH DECAY DROPS AT THE SAME RATE IN FLUORIDATED AND NONFLUORIDATED AREAS For a good summary of the trends, including many expert and survey citations -- which show that tooth decay has declined at the same rate in fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries -- see "Tooth Decay Rates in Fluoridated vs. Non-fluoridated Countries," by Michael Connett. www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries02
NOTE 7. 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.
NOTE 8: CWF IS NOT PROVEN SAFE: YORK REVIEW In 2000, the British government's Final Fluoridation Study (conducted by York University and nicknamed "The York Review") was touted as "the study to end all studies into fluoridation" and expected to confirm the claimed benefits of CWF. Instead, its systematic review found that none of the studies purporting to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation met their grade A criteria -- defined as "high quality, bias unlikely" -- and committed basic data analysis errors such as failing to make double-blind assessments or adjust for confounding factors. York Professor Trevor Sheldon, in an official statement, said, "The review did not show fluoridation to be safe... The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as as "just a cosmetic issue.".... There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health... Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation." The organization which did the study has more recently
noted, "Since the report was published in October 2000 there
has been no other scientifically defensible review that
would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised
in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the
gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of
fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or
lower level than that included in the York review, no matter
how copious, cannot do this." PD COMMENT: To me this, and other information like it, directly disproves CWF proponent claims that we have 50 years of evidence that CWF works. Nope, we have 50 years of experience trying this theory, during which time the logical foundation of it has been proven untrue, studies have shown that it doesn't help dental health, and have shown that it harms teeth, bones, and many other systems in the body. This is not a proven practice but a harmful one based on outdated beliefs. We need to shift our time, energy, and money towards approaches that actually do work. NOTE: The York Review does have limitations in some aspects. For more on this, see this letter from Dr. Paul Connett, who was a peer reviewer of the study, to the British Medical Journal. www.fluoridealert.org/content/in-response-to-paul-wilson-and-the-york-review
NOTE 9. 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."
NOTE 10: FLUORIDE IS NOT A NUTRIENT The Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) says, "Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient. Fluoride has not been determined essential to human health. A minimum daily requirement for sodium fluoride has not been established." www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/drug Also, (the late) Dr. John Lee said, "fluoride is not an essential nutrient. That means there is no known minimum requirement for fluoride…. no matter how little the fluoride intake is, no deficiency state occurs. Unlike the other items listed in the Food and Nutrition report, there simply is no such thing as fluoride deficiency." www.johnleemd.com/store/essay_fluoride.html See "Fluoride is not an essential nutrient," by Michael Connett, for more quotes and citations from other sources. www.fluoridealert.org/studies/essential-nutrient
NOTE 11. WATER FLUORIDATION ESPECIALLY HARMS THE LOWER-INCOME PEOPLE IT CLAIMS TO SERVE www.fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-facts (See #9) www.fluoridealert.org/issues/ej (Environmental Justice)
NOTE 12. FLUORIDE IN WATER HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT According to the EPA's professional union (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."
NOTE 13. 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." For a summary of the countries and experts who oppose fluoridation -- and their reasons -- see www.fluoridealert.org/issues/water/opposed 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. Civil Rights Leaders Call for Halt to Water
Fluoridation Position Against Water Fluoridation by LULAC (The
League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest and
largest Latino organization in the U.S.)
NOTE 14. SEE PRIOR NOTE
NOTE 15: ADA NOT NEUTRAL BUT A CFW BOOSTER For instance, see "ADA Unmasked On Mercury," International Fluoride Information Network, www.fluoridealert.org/news/ada-unmasked-on-mercury
NOTE 16: ANOTHER ACTION IDEA Dr. Paul Connett has also recommended another action that Sonoma County officials take before spending any more money towards fluoridation. His suggestion is to do a population study and identify how many people or children have dental fluorosis currently -- generally, or in the target population we most seek to help. If the figure is over 10 or 15%, that means that they're already getting too much fluoride from other sources and giving them more fluoride would even more clearly be detrimental, not helpful, to their health. For more about dental fluorosis -- and its increase and negative impacts -- with pictures -- see "Dental Fluorosis," www.fluoridealert.org/issues/fluorosis |
This entire website is (c) Community
Action Publications, 1998-2013. All rights reserved.
Page last updated 05/3/13
www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html