The Fluoridation Promoters' 50 False Claims
FAN Campaign Bulletin -Responses to 50 False Claims May 10, 2005
A) FREEDOM OF CHOICE
1) CLAIM:Fluoridation
is a legitimate use of the government's "police power" because
we are facing a dental health crisis in this country.
Response: Fluoridation is
an illegitimate use of "police power" because tooth decay is
neither life threatening nor contagious in the community
sense.
2) CLAIM:People are
not forced to drink the water.
Response: The notion that
you don't have to drink the water, does not apply to families
of low-income, because they certainly cannot afford bottled
water for drinking and all their cooking needs. They are
trapped.
3) CLAIM:People can
use filters to remove the fluoride if they want to.
Response: The typical
Brita (i.e. carbon) filters are no good at removing fluoride.
Households will need to use the more expensive reverse osmosis
systems, distillation or ion exchange resins to accomplish
this. Moreover, such strategies don't prevent one being forced
to drink fluoridated water every time one drinks water in
town, or a beverage made up with fluoridated water or at a
friend's house which does not have an expensive removal
system.
B) APPEALS TO AUTHORITY
4) CLAIM:Dozens of
governmental agencies, health and dental organizations endorse
the practice.
Response: This tactic is
used frequently. For example, the ADA in their booklet
Fluoridation Facts (ADA, 1999 available at
www.ada.org) lists over 90
organizations which endorse fluoridation. For someone
unfamiliar with the history of this issue, such a list is very
impressive and is frequently enough to convince local
officials to back this measure. It is certainly a lot easier
to say, "If it is good enough for all these prestigious
bodies, it's good enough for me", than to actually to read the
literature or carefully weigh the arguments from both sides.
What one has to know to put this into perspective is that many
of the organizations listed are either part of the US Public
Health Service (US PHS), or largely funded by it. We have also
to remember that the US PHS endorsed fluoridation before one
single fluoridation trial had been completed and before any
health study of any significance had been completed. For
example, look at the timing of these endorsements with respect
to the first fluoridation trials which were begun in 1945 and
were intended to last 10-12 years.
American Water Works Association, June 1, 1949
State and Territorial Dental Health Directors, June 8, 1950
US Public Health Service, June 22, 1950
American Association of Public Health Dentists, October 29,
1950
American Dental Association, October 30-November 2, 1950
State and Territorial Health Officers, November 1950
American Public Health Association, November 1950
Even more telling than the timing of the endorsements is the
general lack of any independent review by these organizations
prior to their endorsements. Nor in many cases was the
endorsement put to the vote of the total membership.
Simply put, once the mighty US Public Health Service endorsed
this practice most of these agencies and organizations fell
into line like one gigantic self-fulfilling prophecy.
But here is a simple test to see how secure these
organizations are in their endorsements. I encourage anyone
who is interested to contact the executive officers of these
endorsing organizations and ask them:
a) When did they endorse
fluoridation?
b) What review have they
done since?
c) Can they provide any
single member of their organization to defend their
endorsement in an open public debate?
d) Will they respond in
writing to Paul Connett's "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation"?
(www.fluoridealert.org/50reasons.htm)
I predict what you will get back is a circular argument:
namely, they will provide you with the names of other
organizations that endorse this practice! When everyone's
guilty, there is no one to blame!
5) CLAIM: The CDC stated in
1999 that fluoridation is "One of the top 10 public health
achievements of the Twentieth Century"
Response: This statement
is cited all over the fluoridating world by government
officials, representatives of dental associations, and
journalists. Very few could have read the report to which it
is attached, nor the blow by blow critique which my son and I
published in the newsletter Waste Not and made
available via the FAN web page (www.fluoridealert.org/CDC.htm).
Had they done so, they would have been embarrassed by CDC's
extremely weak defense of the claims that fluoridation is
"safe" and "effective". The CDC was six years out of date with
the literature they cite for safety, and the graph, which they
produce to "demonstrate" that tooth decay has been coming down
because the percentage of Americans drinking water has gone
up, would make an undergraduate blush. The decline in tooth
decay in American 12 year olds can be matched or exceeded by
at least 16 unfluoridated countries (www.fluoridealert.org/who-dmft.htm).
6) CLAIM:US Surgeon
General X, Y or Z supports fluoridation.
Response: These
endorsements by successive US Surgeon Generals go with the
job. He or she is the figurehead for US Public Health Service
policy, and we know what that is! Just how much they have
actually read on the issue is open to serious question. When
some communities in the US are faced with a tough battle over
a referendum, one powerful tactic is to produce Former Surgeon
General Everett Koop a few days before the vote. Koop is
reputed to receive $20,000 for speaking engagements. Once
highly respected, some of Koop's prestige was tarnished when
he had to admit that he had received one million dollars in
consultancy fees from a company on whose behalf he spoke at a
Congressional hearing. Although, the fee was for other
services and not for the specific product on which Koop
testified, the fact that he neglected to tell the
Congresspersons of this potential conflict of interest, raised
many eyebrows!
7) CLAIM: The World
Health Organization endorses fluoridation.
Response: This is correct.
The WHO officially does endorse fluoridation. The endorsement
was made on July 23, 1969, in the final hours of a WHO
assembly in Boston. (When the vote on fluoridation was taken,
only 55 to 60 delegates were still present -- out of a total
of 1000 delegates in the WHO at the time.)
An important point to consider about WHO's endorsement of
fluoridation is the qualification the WHO has since added to
it: namely, before introducing any fluoride program, health
administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure
in the population. To quote:
"Dental and Public health administrators should be aware of
the total fluoride exposure in the population before
introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries
prevention." (WHO, 1984)
Seldom, if ever, is this recommendation followed by officials
before fluoridating their community. If officials actually
believe the fluoridation hypothesis, what they should do is
determine the prevalence of dental fluorosis in their
community. If that prevalence is over 10% - and it usually is
(Heller et al., 1997) - then the children are already getting
OVER the so called "optimal" dose of fluoride and don't need
any more, and shouldn't get any more.
The most recent WHO panel which reviewed the fluoride drinking
water guideline for fluoride had four dental researchers,
three of them staunchly pro-fluoridation, including Professor
Michael Lennon who is President of the British Fluoridation
Society and is rabid in his promotion of fluoridation. The
fact that such a biased panel should have been selected for
this delicate task might give a clue to explaining why the WHO
maintains its support fluoridation.
8) CLAIM:The
Consumers Union concludes fluoridation is safe and
effective.
Response: Often proponents
will cite a scathing 1978 article written by a journalist at
Consumer Reports, which stated: "The simple truth is
that there's no scientific controversy over the safety of
fluoridation."
There are, however, two essential points to note about CU's
1978 article:
First, CU has recently stated that the organization no longer
stands by the conclusions of this article. In fact, in the
summer of 2000, CU asked a prominent proponent of fluoridation
(Dr. Michael Easley) to remove all reference to CU as
supporting fluoridation. According to CU's letter:
"We have asked you numerous times to cease and desist using
any reference to Consumers Union and Consumer
Reports and our 1978 article on fluoridation. As you are
well aware, that is now 22 years old. I would hardly call that
current. Given the new research that is conducted by others -
and not CU - we cannot state that we continue to stand behind
that determination of 22 years ago." (Letter, Wendy Wintman)
Second, the scientist at CU most familiar with the water
fluoridation controversy is Dr. Edward Groth, a
recently-retired Senior Scientist who worked at CU for over 20
years. For the duration of his professional career, Dr. Groth
has been a prominent mainstream critic of water fluoridation.
For his PhD dissertation at Stanford University, Groth
examined the literature on fluoridation and concluded that the
science underpinning the safety of fluoridation was extremely
flawed and that many important questions and concerns had
never been adequately addressed by Government promoters.
According to Groth, "a consistent, serious flaw" in the
government's early research on the safety of fluoridation was
the "commitment to pre-determined conclusions on the part of
the investigators... Many of the investigations were carried
out under political duress, and the clear objective of the
studies was not to look for possible adverse effects, but to
prove that there were none."
C) DENTISTS AND PROFESSIONALISM
9) CLAIM: Dentists who do not
promote fluoridation are neglecting their professional
responsibility (ADA).
Response: I disagree. In
my view, dentists have a professional responsibility to read
the literature before they advocate fluoridation. However,
that is not the way the ADA sees it. This organization would
prefer them not to read the literature. In their 1979 White
Paper, the ADA states:
"Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be
familiar with scientific reports of laboratory and field
investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants in
the promotion program and that nonparticipation is overt
neglect of professional responsibility."
10) CLAIM:When
dentists speak out against fluoridation it is a "clear
violation of professional ethics" (Easley)
Response: Twenty years
after the ADA made the statement above (see 9) Dr Michael
Easley, a sometime spokesperson for the ADA, repeated the
imperative, in even more stark terms, when he wrote:
"A most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs
when a physician or a dentist, for whatever personal reason,
uses their professional standing in the community to argue
against fluoridation, a clear violation of professional
ethics, the principles of science and community standards of
practice." (Easley 1999)
Clearly, Easley's fanatical support for this practice doesn't
allow him to contemplate the notion that a dental or health
professional could read the literature and come to a different
conclusion from his own, for other than personal reasons.
We are fortunate, that dentists, such as Dr. John Colquhoun in
New Zealand, Dr. Don MacAuley in Ireland, Dr. David Kennedy in
the US, Dr. Tony Lees in the UK, Dr. Tohru Murakami in Japan,
and Dr. Hardy Limeback in Canada, have had the courage to step
out of such restrictive and self defeating definitions of
"professionalism" and have spoken the truth about this
practice. Statements from some of these professionals can be
found on the web page of the Fluoride Action Network,
www.fluorideaction.net.
D) DEBATES
11) CLAIM:Fluoridation
is beyond "scientific debate"
Response: It is a little
unusual for one side of a controversial issue to declare by
"fiat" that there is "no debate" and that the issue is
settled. This is a bit like a boxer declaring that he is so
good that he has no need to defend his title! While those with
the "power" can get way with nonsense like this, in science no
issue is ever beyond debate. One always has to remember that
"an ugly fact can destroy a beautiful hypothesis."
Nevertheless, since the US PHS endorsed fluoridation in 1950,
a whole stream of "industrial fluoride defenders" and
"fluoridation promoters" have declared that there is no debate
on either the health issues or the benefits.
In 1957, Robert Kehoe of the Kettering Institute (which
performed health studies for industry), declared "the question
of the public safety of fluoridation is nonexistent from the
viewpoint of medical science." (Waldbott, p305)
In 1961, ADA President, Dr. C.H. Patton, told an audience "I
contend (that) the subject (of fluoridation) is not debatable"
(Waldbott, p333)
1n 1965, Dr. H. Hillenbrand, Executive Secretary of the ADA,
said that "Fluoridation of drinking water is no longer a
subject that is scientifically debatable" (Waldbott , p333)
In 1966, ADA President, Dr. M. K. Hine, tried to extend the
prohibition to the political arena, when he said:
"Fluoridation is no longer debatable in the scientific
community; it should not be debatable in the political
community." (Waldbott, p333)
In 1999, Dr. Michael Easley, explained why dentists and other
fluoridation promoters should not debate, when he declared:
"Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy
exists
when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view"
However, independent scientists have taken a very different
view on the issue of whether fluoridation is debatable or not.
1n 1991, Groth wrote the foreword to an incisive sociological
analysis of the fluoridation program ("The Social (Dynamics of
the Fluoridation Debate") where he concluded that:
"[T]he political profluoridation stance has evolved into a
dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture,
one that discourages open debate of scientific issues." (Groth,
1991)
Finally, in 1988, the Chemical & Engineering News, a
journal which goes to every member of the American Chemical
Society, provided a 17 page cover article on the fluoridation
debate. This would have been hardly necessary if there was no
debate (Hileman, 1988)
Response: Easley further
explained his opposition to debates when he declared that:
" Like parasites, opponents steal undeserved credibility just
by sharing the stage with respected scientists who are there
to defend fluoridation."
It is interesting to contemplate for a moment Dr. Michael
Easley sharing the stage with Dr. Arvid Carlsson, and watching
the spectacle of this Nobel laureate maneuvering to steal some
of Easley's credibility!
Actually, I don't think it is possible to steal someone else's
credibility, in my experience you have to earn it.
E) EVERYONE IS DOING IT
13) CLAIM: 67% of the US
population on public water supplies drink fluoridated water.
Response: if numbers
impress, then contrast the total number of people who drink
fluoridated water worldwide with the number who don't. Those
that do amount to about 300 million people; those that don't
amount to nearly 6 billion!
14) CLAIM:47 of the
top 50 the largest cities in the U.S. fluoridate.
Response: Portland,
Oregon; Spokane, Washington, and Honolulu, Hawaii are to be
praised for resisting the efforts to force fluoride on their
populations. They are in good company. The following
distinguished cities are among the vast majority of cities
worldwide who do not force their citizens to drink fluoridated
water.
15) CLAIM:Over 60
countries worldwide practice water fluoridation.
Response: This claim was
made by the ADA in 1999 in their booklet Fluoridation Facts,
and used by many officials since. However, when one checks the
citation one finds that the ADA gives the British Fluoridation
Society as the source for this "fact". When the British
Fluoridation Society was asked by the National Pure Water
Association (UK) for a list of these "60 countries" they were
unable to do so. There are, in fact, very few countries which
fluoridate their water. According to a recent report prepared
for WHO there are only 18 countries (out of about 190) which
have more than a million people drinking fluoridated water,
and of these, only 8 (Australia, Columbia, Ireland, Israel,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States) have
more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water.
Thus the practice of water fluoridation is very much an
Anglo-American phenomenon, with over half the people drinking
fluoridated water worldwide, living in North America.
16) CLAIM:Many
European countries don't fluoridate only because they
have outdated or decentralized water delivery systems,
otherwise they would.
Response: This is another
extraordinary claim which does not bear scrutiny. On the FAN
web page there is a list of statements from government and
other officials from many of the European countries who do not
fluoridate water, notone of these spokespersons
offers complications associated with their water delivery
systems as an explanation. Most state that it was either
because they did not want to force fluoride onto their
citizens or because there were too many unresolved health
questions. www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm
F) EFFECTIVENESS
17) CLAIM:Fluoridation
explains why tooth decay has fallen in the U.S. over the last
30 40 years.
Response: No it doesn't.
This CDC (1999) claim is based upon wishful thinking not
science. The same decline in tooth decay which has been
observed in the US, has also occurred in many
non-fluoridated industrialized countries. See the figures
available online from the WHO and displayed graphically at
www.fluoridealert.org/who-dmft.htm.
There must be other explanations for this decline, such as
improved standard of living, better diets and possibly the
universal availability of fluoridated toothpaste
18) CLAIM:Fluoridation
lowers tooth decay by up to 60%.
Response: This is a huge
overstatement. The largest survey in the US showed only a
saving of 18% in the permanent teeth when the authors compared
children who lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to
non-fluoridated communities (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). Even
that is very misleading because a) this saving was not shown
to be statistically significant and b) it amounted to an
actual saving of just 0.6 of one tooth surface out of 128
tooth surfaces in a child's mouth. Converting these savings
into percentages today is very deceptive, as it reflects the
arithmetical vagaries of comparing two small numbers.
Recent studies in Australia indicate even less saving 0.12
0.3 tooth surfaces (Spencer et al.,1996) and the latest study
from South Australia found no saving in the permanent teeth
at all (Armfield & Spencer, 2004).
19) CLAIM: Fluoride
makes teeth stronger for life if ingested during the
tooth-forming years.
Response: While this was
clearly the view of both dentists and dental researchers in
the 1950s-1970s, this is no longer the case. While many
dentists and pediatricians continue to repeat the claim, most
dental researchers (i.e. the scientists who actually study how
fluoride impacts teeth) have abandoned it.
The current consensus of the dental research community
is that fluoride's benefit comes primarily, if not entirely,
from topical application to the exterior of teeth, not from
ingestion and accumulation within. Even the pro-fluoridation
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has
acknowledged this view, affirming in 1999 that:
""[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that
fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption
of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are
topical for both adults and children." (CDC, 1999)
Much of the research demonstrating the primacy of fluoride's
topical effects is reviewed in Dr. John Featherstone's cover
story in the July 2000 issue of the Journal of the American
Dental Association.
As Dr. Featherstone (a pro-fluoridation scientist) makes
clear, the fluoride that accumulates within the growing tooth
does not make the tooth any more resistant to decay. As noted
by Featherstone:
"Fluoride incorporated during tooth development is
insufficient to play a significant role in caries protection."
(p. 891)
More specifically:
"this means that fluoride incorporated during tooth mineral
development at normal levels of 20 to 100 ppm (even in areas
that have fluoridated drinking water or with the use of
fluoride supplements) does not measurably alter the acid
solubility of the mineral. Even when the outer enamel has
higher fluoride levels, such as 1,000 ppm, it does not
measurably withstand acid-induced dissolution any better than
enamel with lower levels of fluoride." (p. 890)
20) CLAIM: When
fluoridation is stopped, tooth decay rates increase.
Response: The American
Dental Association has made this claim for many years.
However, five carefully conducted studies over the past 5
years have found that tooth decay rates did not
increase following the cessation of fluoridation.
The studies from Canada, Cuba, Eastern Germany, Finland, and
the United States found that tooth decay did not increase,
but usually continued to decrease, following the
termination of the fluoridation programs.
www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/fluoridation.html#cessation
The results of these studies are consistent with the
World Health Organization's large body of online data showing
that tooth decay rates have declined just as significantly in
unfluoridated areas as they have in fluoridated areas. See:
www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html
21) CLAIM:The kids
teeth in this unfluoridated community X are far worse than
kids teeth in fluoridated community Y.
Response: These kind of
statements, often coming from local dentists or state health
officials, usually appear in the press shortly before an
effort is made to fluoridate town X. Every effort is made to
make the situation appear to be a dire emergency. The message:
you must act now (i.e. don't think about it or read about it!)
to save your children's teeth. However, such anecdotal
observations or unpublished surveys mean very little. It is
well established that the biggest factor determining tooth
decay is standard of living. It usually dwarfs any difference
attributable to fluoride. Thus unless the study is carefully
designed to control for parental income these reports mean
very little. That is why it is important for citizens to ask
the person or official providing these comparisons to state
whether or not the report has been peer-reviewed and
published, if it hasn't it is worthless. If the claims center
on the primary teeth, remember the biggest problem here is
"baby bottle tooth decay" which even fluoridation promoters
concede cannot be corrected with fluoride (see more in 41
below).
22) CLAIM:Water
fluoridation is more effective than toothpaste.
Response: There are
several major problems with this statement.
First, if it is correct, how can one explain the identical
declines in tooth decay experienced in those western countries
which do not fluoridate their water?
http://fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html
When dental researchers from the U.S. and Europe were
asked to identify the major factors explaining the decline in
tooth decay in the western world, "only in the evaluation of
'fluoride toothpaste' was there a clear, positive, agreement
among the experts." (Bratthall et al., 1996)
23) CLAIM: The reason
that tooth decay is declining in non-fluoridated Europe is
because they use fluoridated salt.
Response: In contrast to
fluoride toothpaste and other topical fluorides which are
universal throughout Europe, salt fluoridation is only
practiced in a minority of European countries.
Moreover, the countries in Europe which do fluoridate salt
(e.g. Austria, France, Germany, & Switzerland) do not have
better tooth decay rates than the countries which do not
fluoridate salt (e.g. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands,
Norway, Sweden, and the UK) .
In fact, based on the latest data from the World Health
Organization, 3 of the countries which do not fluoridate salt
rank in the top 4 for best teeth in Europe. See:www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html
G) SAFETY
24) CLAIM:"Thousands
of studies" have established the safety of water fluoridation.
Response: Frequently,
promoters will make this claim, however, when asked to name
one study showing fluoridation to be safe for people with
kidney disease, they are unable to do so.
When they fail to cite a single study, it will become clear
despite their strong views on the matter that they have
never read the primary scientific literature for themselves.
They have only read other people's reviews.
However, even if they were familiar with the scientific
literature, they would still be unable to cite a credible
study establishing the safety of fluoridation for people with
kidney disease. That's because no such study exists.
As noted by Dr. Edward Groth, who has conducted an
extensive review of the primary scientific literature:
"It seems probable that some people with severe or long-term
renal disease, which might not be advanced enough to require
hemodialysis, can still experience reduced fluoride excretion
to an extent that can lead to fluorosis, or aggravate skeletal
complications associated with kidney disease... It has been
estimated that one in every 25 Americans may have some form of
kidney disease; it would seem imperative that the magnitude
of risk to such a large sub-segment of the population be
determined through extensive and careful study. To date,
however, no studies of this sort have been carried out, and
none is planned." (Groth, 1973)
There are other glaring holes in the scientific literature on
fluoridation's safety but this one example will serve to make
the point.
25) CLAIM: Community X
or country Y has been fluoridated for 50 years and there are
no health problems there.
Response: This is another
old war horse. The problem is that governments who sanction
the use of water fluoridation are not organizing the most
rudimentary studies to see if many of the health problems we
see escalating today are related to increased fluoride
exposure. For example, we know that 50% of the fluoride we
ingest each day accumulates in our bones, but no fluoridating
country is tracking the levels of fluoride in our bones, or
for that matter in our urine, or plasma. We are flying blind
when it comes to these valuable biomarkers, which makes
meaningful epidemiological studies practically impossible.
What we do know is that the first symptoms of bone poisoning
by fluoride are identical to arthritis, and in America the
CDC(2002) reports 1 in 3 American adults have some form of
arthritis. Government officials cannot tell us that none of
these cases are related to fluoridation because they simply
have not taken the necessary steps to find out. The same
argument applies to the dramatic increases in hypothyroidism,
earlier onset of puberty, hyperactivity and attention deficit
syndrome in children, as well as Alzeimer's disease in the
elderly. All of these outcomes, from a biological perspective,
are plausibly related to over exposure to fluoride. But as the
old saying goes, "If you don't look, you don't find."
It is also worth remembering that when the US PHS endorsed
fluoridation in 1950, they had not completed one single study
on the health effects of fluoride. Their support for the
practice was not scientifically based then, and it is not
scientifically based today.
26) CLAIM:Millions of
people worldwide have been drinking fluoridated water for many
years, if there were any health problems we would have seen
them by now.
Response: The same
argument applies here as given in 25) above: "If you don't
look, you don't find." A graphic example of this comes from
Australia. In 1991 the National Health and Medial Research
Council (NHMRC) recommended to the Australian health
authorities that they begin to track the level of fluoride in
bones to see if long term exposure to fluoride might be
causing damage and they also recommended that they follow up
in a scientific fashion the persistent anecdotal reports of
people being hypersensitive to fluoride. After 14 years
neither of these suggestions have been taken up by any state
or federal agency, even though they continue to promote
fluoridation. Furthermore, it would also appear that apart
from one small study on cancer, there has been no health study
on any tissue other than the teeth in the 30 plus years
communities have been fluoridated in Australia! Is it not
surprising then that there are no health effects to report?
27) CLAIM:Why would
the government do this if it was going to harm anyone?
Response: This certainly
is the $64,000 question. Chris Bryson went a long way to
answering this question in his book, "The Fluoride
Deception". Perhaps, the simplest explanation for their
continuing this policy despite the growing evidence of harm is
that governments have gone so overboard with their enthusiasm
for this policy, that it is extremely difficult for them now
to admit they were wrong. Governments do not like losing face
or their credibility." Or, as Dr. William Hirzy, a US EPA
scientist, said in a videotaped interview, "they are riding a
tiger, and they don't know how to get off" (Hirzy, 2001).
The ADA and toothpaste manufacturers may have higher stakes in
keeping this policy going at all costs, because they are
probably very worried about the huge liabilities involved if
they ever admitted any health effects from fluoride.
H) DENTAL FLUOROSIS
28) CLAIM:Dental
fluorosis is merely a "cosmetic" problem not a health problem.
Response: Dental fluorosis
is a systemic effect and caused by fluoride accumulating to
excess levels within the tooth's structure and thereby
damaging the enamel-forming cells (ameloblasts). Dental
fluorosis is thus a physiological change produced by a toxic
effect of accumulated fluoride upon the tooth-forming cells.
This raises the question of what other fluoride-accumulating
tissues in the body (e.g. bone, pineal gland, and kidney) may
experience a similar toxic effect.
As Dr. Jennifer Luke (1997) concluded in her seminal research
on fluoride and the pineal gland:
"The safety of the use of fluorides ultimately rests on the
assumption that the developing enamel organ is most sensitive
to the toxic effects of fluoride. The results from this
study suggest that the pinealocytes may be as susceptible to
fluoride as the developing enamel organ."
Moreover, Alarcon-Herrera et al. (2001) have shown that there
is a linear correlation between the severity of dental
fluorosis and the prevalence of bone fracture in children. It
is therefore optimistic to assume that fluoride's toxic
effects are constrained to the growing tooth.
I) TOXICITY AT 1 ppm
29) CLAIM:1 ppm is
equivalent to 1 inch in 16 miles or 1 cent in $10,000.00
Response: These
comparisons are meant to imply that at 1 ppm in water,
fluoride could not possibly cause any harm. However, whether 1
ppm represents a safe or dangerous concentration, depends
entirely on the chemical in question. If we were talking about
arsenic, 1 ppm would be a 100 times larger than the safe
drinking water standard (0.01 ppm or 10 ppb) and would be a
dangerous level to drink. If we were talking about dioxin 1
ppm would be about one million times higher than levels of
concern, because we are concerned about parts per trillion for
this chemical. When judging whether or not a chemical is safe
at particular concentration, a toxicologist would compare it
with the Lowest Observable Effect Level in animal or human
studies.
I will do this for a number of animal and human studies, and I
will do it in the same terms as used in the proponent's claim
above.
At one inch in 16 miles, or 1 cent in $10,000 (i.e. 1 ppm
fluoride in drinking water) fluoride has led to an increase in
aluminum into their brains as well as the formation of beta
amyloid deposits characteristic of Alzheimer's disease (Varner
et al., 1998).
At 1.5 inches in 16 miles, or 1.5 cents in $10,000 (i.e. 1.5
ppm fluoride in drinking water) fluoride has led to a doubling
of hip fractures in elderly citizens in China ( Li et al.,
2001).
At 1.8 inches in 16 miles or 1.8 cents in $10,000 (i.e. 1.8
ppm fluoride in drinking water) it is estimated tha IQ in
children will be lowered (Xiang et al., 2003)
At 2.3 inches in 16 miles or 2.3 cent in $10,000 (i.e. 2.3 ppm
fluoride in drinking water) thyroid function has been lowered
in Russia (Bachinskii et al., 1985).
At 3 inches in 16 miles or 3 cents in $10,000 (i.e. 3.0 ppm
fluoride in drinking water) fertility is lowered in U.S.
Counties (Freni, 1994).
At 4 inches in 16 miles or 4 cents in $10,000 (i.e. 4.0 ppm
fluoride in drinking water) the U.S. EPA regulates fluoride as
a toxic contaminant.
30) CLAIM: It is true
that fluoride is toxic at high doses, but drinking water at 1
ppm is perfectly safe.
Response: When a substance
has a supposed therapeutic benefit, but is toxic at higher
doses, a toxicologist or a pharmacologist would examine the
margin of safety (MOS) between the toxic dose and the
therapeutic dose (i.e. toxic dose divided by the therapeutic
dose). Ideally, he or she would want an MOS of 100.
For the end points discussed above in 29), the MOS is less
than 5, and when we consider that we cannot control how much
water people drink, there is no margin of safety at 1 ppm at
all, especially for those with impaired kidney function.
31) CLAIM:Paracelsus
said : "It is the dose that makes the poison."
Response: The sixteenth
century toxicologist Paracelsus (1493-1541), who is sometimes
referred to as the father of toxicology, was correct. But a
modern toxicologist would quantify the issue as we have done
in 29) and 30) above.
A proponent offering this argument on toxicity should be asked
what margin of safety they feel would be necessary when
exposing a whole population to a known toxic substance like
fluoride. They dare not discuss this issue.
32) CLAIM:Everything
is toxic at high doses, including salt, iron, oxygen even
water.
Response: Again, this is
correct, but in all these cases the margin of safety between
the doses that we need and the doses that would cause harm is
very large, unlike the case for fluoride.
33) CLAIM: You would
need to drink 50 bath tubs full of water to get a toxic dose.
Response: This is another
old war horse. An early use came in 1952, when John Knutson,
Chief of the Division of Dental Health at the U.S. Public
Health Service, said in a presentation in Salem,
Massachusetts:
"We know that fluoride is toxic in excessive amounts [but] you
would have to drink over 400 gallons of water containing 1.0
parts per million at one sitting to receive a toxic dose. Such
a large drink might kill you, of course, but water alone would
do the job without any help from the fluoride." (Knutson,
1952)
Something similar was used recently in promotion material from
Dr. Mark Greer, the Dental Director for the state of Hawaii
and Dr. Kassler from NH.
These claims confuse an acute (even lethal) dose with a
chronic dose. Not many people opposing fluoridation are
doing so because they think they are going to be killed by a
glass of fluoridated water, but rather they are concerned
about the impacts of drinking this water every day of their
lives. A similar distinction could be made with smoking.
Smoking one or two cigarettes probably wouldn't hurt you but
smoking one or two every day of your life probably would.
Chronic exposure is particularly important for substances like
fluoride which accumulate in the bone and other calcified
tissues.
However, there are some people (about 1% of the population)
who are extremely sensitive to fluoride (Feltman and Kosel,
1961) and they would be concerned about acute responses from
even very low exposure. 1% of the population of those drinking
fluoridated water is a lot of people. Many people probably
don't even realize that they might be sensitive to fluoride
because the symptoms are similar to many of the things most of
us experience from time to time in our everyday lives, like
upset stomach, headaches and rashes. Most wouldn't think they
were responding to a toxic substance in their water, nor would
their doctors while stuffing them with pills to fight these
common symptoms. No government promoting fluoridation has ever
attempted to address this issue scientificially.
J) IS FLUORIDE NATURAL?
34) CLAIM:Fluoridation
is merely a slight adjustment to a naturally occurring
phenomenon.
Response: This statement
obfuscates an important point: namely, that the vast majority
(over 90%) of water supplies contain much less fluoride than
we add to water.
In Canada, the average fluoride content of untreated water is
0.05 ppm, which is 20 times less than the concentration added
to water for fluoridation (1.0 ppm). In the United States, the
average fluoride concentration of spring water is 0.1 ppm, or
10 times less than the level added to water.
Also, the fact that fluoride like arsenic is found at high
levels in some scattered regions of the U.S. is by no means an
assurance of safety. Indeed, there are many naturally
occurring compounds that are undesirable to ingest
unnecessarily e.g. arsenic, lead, and radium.
Mothers' milk is a far better indicator of what is "natural"
and the levels of fluoride there are 0.005-0.012 ppm
(Institute of Medicine, 1997) i.e. 100-200 times lower than
that added to water.
35) CLAIM: Fluoridating
chemicals are also natural, because they come from natural
rocks.
Response: This argument
comes from the following statement contained in a booklet
circulated by the Department of Human Services in Victoria,
Australia in 2004 .
"The fluoride added to water comes from natural rock. During
the extraction process a gas is produced. Gases are difficult
to handle so a piece of equipment called a scrubber can be
used to convert the fluoride into a liquid or powder form
which can be added to water supplies in a carefully controlled
way. Some people think that because a scrubber is used
fluoride must be a poison. This is not true."
This statement clearly reflects the need of promoters to
defuse the growing public concern about the use of industrial
grade waste products, generated largely by the superphosphate
fertilizer industry, instead of pharmaceutical grade
chemicals, to fluoridate public water supplies. Over 90% of
the fluoridating chemicals used in the U.S. do not occur
naturally.
The way this statement has been written is meant to imply that
the "natural" rock is being mined for its fluoride content. It
is not. The gaseous fluoride (hydrogen fluoride and silicon
tetrafluoride) are toxic by-products from the superphosphate
production processes. Up until the mid-twentieth century these
waste gases had polluted the environment, damaged vegetation
and crippled cattle in fields near the plants. Eventually,
this industry was forced to put on wet scrubbers to minimize
this damage. The product generated when these gases are
dissolved in the water spray is hexafluorosilicic acid
solution which is also contaminated with other toxic
substances like heavy metals and trace amounts of radioactive
isotopes (in the U.S. this same phosphate rock was mined for
uranium). It is one of the supreme ironies that this scrubbing
liquor cannot be dumped into the sea by international law but
some health agencies allow it to be dumped into our drinking
water! To suggest that this scrubbing liquor is not poisonous
is total poppycock.
Moreover, Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) have found in two
studies a correlation between the use of these silicofluorides,
obtained from the phosphate industry, and the uptake of lead
into children's blood and the prevalence of violent behavior.
They also discovered that these substances had never been
tested in long term animal studies.
The response to Masters and Coplan has been that once these
silicofluorides are diluted to 1 ppm they are completely
dissociated into the free fluoride ion, and thus identical to
a solution of sodium fluoride. However, Masters and Coplan
disagree, and point out that;
"When the National Toxicology Program nominated
silicofluorides for study in 2002, there was official
government admission challenging the sufficiency of this claim
as the basis of safety" (personal communication, May, 2005)
36) CLAIM:Adding
fluoride to water is no different then adding vitamin D to
milk.
Response: There are four
key differences between adding vitamin D to milk and adding
fluoride to drinking water:
a) Vitamin D is an
essential nutrient fluoride is not.
b) The margin of safety
between the beneficial dose for vitamin D and its toxic dose
is very large, with fluoride there is no margin of safety.
c) The Vitamin D is
pharmaceutical grade, the fluoridating chemicals are
industrial grade waste products.
d) The consumer can choose
milk without vitamin D added, thus they are not trapped by
this practice as they are with water fluoridation.
K) "NUTRIENT" v. "MEDICATION"
37) CLAIM: Fluoride is
an essential nutrient, not a medication.
Response: While this is
still a commonly held view, it is outdated and no longer
supported by the U.S. National Academies of Science. Here, for
example, are the last 3 public statements the NAS has made on
the "essentiality" of ingested fluoride:
a) "These contradictory
results do not justify a classification of fluorine as an
essential element, according to accepted standards." (NAS,
1989, p235)
b) "Fluoride is no longer
considered an essential factor for human growth and
development." (NRC, 1993, p30)
"First, let us reassure you with regard to one concern.
Nowhere in the report is it stated that fluoride is an
essential nutrient. If any speaker or panel member at the
September 23rd workshop referred to fluoride as such, they
misspoke. As was stated in Recommended Dietary Allowances 10th
Edition, which we published in 1989: "These contradictory
results do not justify a classification of fluoride as an
essential element, according to accepted standards." (Alberts
& Shine letter, 1998)
The fact that fluoride is not an essential nutrient is not
surprising when considering 1) the recent concession that
ingested fluoride provides little protection to teeth, and
2) the extremely low levels of fluoride found in breast milk
(which is the place one normally expects to find essential
minerals).
The fluoride concentration of breast milk is 100 to 200 times
lower than the level added to water, and remains low even when
the nursing mother receives fluoride supplementation. As a
result, the breastfed infant receives the lowest fluoride
exposure (mg/kg) of all age groups in the population, while
the bottle fed baby, where the formula is made up with
fluoridated water, gets the highest!
L) EQUITY
38) CLAIM:Fluoridation
goes to everyone.
Response: The fact that
water fluoridation delivers fluoride to everyone in the
population is actually one of its most fundamental problems,
and one of the key reasons why western European policymakers
have rejected fluoridation. See:www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm
As summarized by Dr. Arvid Carlsson, a pharmacologist and
winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology:
"Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of
pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped
medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much
more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and
selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking
water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy.
Not only in that the dose cannot be adapted to individual
requirements. It is, in addition, based on a completely
irrelevant factor, namely consumption of drinking water, which
varies greatly between individuals and is, moreover, very
poorly surveyed." (Carlsson, 1978 and See:
www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson.htm)
Highlighting the problem of fluoridating everyone's water
supply is the fact that the public health community is now
recommending that infants under 6 months of age receive no
fluoride supplementation (0 mg/day) - a recommendation that is
clearly impractical for families utilizing infant formula in a
fluoridated area.
39) CLAIM:Fluoridation
goes to everyone regardless of parental income.
Response: There is no
question that there is a very strong relationship between
poverty and tooth decay. Thus one of the very appealing
arguments for adding fluoride to the water that it is
supposedly "equitable" because it goes "equally" to rich,
middle and low income families. This argument is intended to
put opponents of fluoridation on a guilt trip: how could you
possibly deprive poor kids of an equal shot at the benefits of
this method for fighting tooth decay? However, nothing could
be further from the truth. Water fluoridation is extremely
inequitable.
First, it is precisely families of low income who will not be
able to afford avoidance measures if they so choose. They will
not be able to afford the expensive systems which can remove
fluoride such a reverse osmosis, distillation or ion exchange.
Nor will they be able to afford to use bottled water for
drinking and cooking. Thus they are trapped.
Second, it is also clear, from studies done in India, that
people with poor diets are the most vulnerable to fluoride's
toxic effects. (www.fluoridealert.org/health/bone/fluorosis/variability/susceptible-subsets.html).
In industrialized countries, one is most likely to find poor
nutrition in families of low income. This might well explain
why black children have a higher rate of dental fluorosis, the
first sign of fluoride poisoning of the body, than white
children. (www.Slweb.org/bibliography.html#Dfblacks).
Third, if the studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) prove
correct then the use of silicofluorides will increase the
level of lead in children's blood. Children living in
low-income communities already have a higher than average
burden of lead in their bodies, this additional source will
further disadvantage their mental development.
40) CLAIM: It is
unethical to deprive children of the proven benefits of water
fluoridation.
Response: This argument
when used in the U.S. is extremely hypocritical. The U.S. is
one of the richest nations in the world, but provides one of
the worst dental care programs for the poor. 80% of dentists
in the U.S. refuse to treat children on Medicaid. Fluoridation
offers these kids poison instead of genuine dental care.
It is the millions of dollars being squandered on the
promotion and practice fluoridation which is depriving many
kids of dental care. This money would be better spent on
helping these kids more directly with dental clinics;
sealants, and education for better diet and dental hygiene.
Moreover, this diversion of state and federal money not only
deprives these kids of decent dental care, but it also wastes
a valuable opportunity to work on better nutrition which would
pay dividends not only for better dental care but also for
better health care. The wastage of this money includes:
a) Money spent on
fluoridation equipment and chemicals;
b) The money being fed
into research on dental fluorosis, which would not be
necessary without fluoridation;
c) Money spent on the
salaries of people working in State Health Departments whose
main function is to promote fluoridation;
d) Money spent on the
whole PR machinery of promotion.
41) CLAIM: Water
fluoridation is particularly advantageous to populations (e.g.
low-income communities) without access to dental care.
Response: While this is an
attractive claim, and a common selling point for fluoridation
today, it stands in contrast to the real-world experiences of
low-income communities in the U.S.
As the oral health crises of Boston, Cincinnati, New York
City, and other fluoridated urban areas have made clear, water
fluoridation is incapable of preventing the impact of poverty
and lack of health care access.
Furthermore, when dental surveys have attempted to compare the
incidence of "Baby Bottle Tooth Decay" (a serious form of
tooth decay particularly prevalent in low-income communities)
in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated areas, they have been unable
to detect a difference.
As noted in Pediatric Nursing:
"Data from Head Start surveys show the prevalence of baby
bottle tooth decay is about three times the national average
among poor urban children, even in communities with a
fluoridated water supply." (Von Burg, 1995)
As noted by Dr. Trevor Sheldon, a member of the British
Government's systematic review (the "York Review") on
water fluoridation:
"There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has
reduced social inequalities in dental health." See:www.fluoridealert.org/sheldon
M) CONTROLLING WATER LEVELS
42) CLAIM:The levels
of fluoride added to water are carefully controlled.
Response: While, most of
the time engineers at the water department can control the
levels of fluoride going into the water (although there have
been numerous accidents), what they cannot control is the
dose of fluoride people consume. The dose in milligrams
can be computed by multiplying the concentration in milligrams
per liter by the number of liters drunk. Officials cannot
control the fluoride dose we get a) because they cannot
control how much water people drink and b) they cannot control
the fluoride dose they get from other sources. With such a
small, if any, margin of safety, this lack of control of
dose has always been a fatal flaw in forced fluoridation
programs.
N) COST EFFECTIVENESS
43) CLAIM: Fluoridation
is cost effective. For every dollar spent, 38, 50, 60, 70, 80
(you name it) $ are saved in dental treatment costs.
Response: If the emphasis
on getting fluoride to poor kids is orchestrated to reach the
liberal conscience, this argument is designed for the fiscal
conservative. However, it is equally fallacious. Their
calculations, which are seldom provided so they can be
checked, suffer from the following optimistic assumptions:
a) They are overly
optimistic about how much tooth decay is saved.
b) They do not include the
costs of treating dental fluorosis which can be as high as
$1000 per tooth.
c) They assume, of course,
that there are NO health effects to pay for.
d) They ignore the huge
hidden subsidies that U.S. taxpayers have put into this
program for over 50 years.
e) They assume that the
public will accept, when they eventually find out, the use of
industrial grade (and largely untested) fluoridating chemicals
instead of the pharmaceutical grade fluoride used in
toothpaste. If they were forced to use the latter,
fluoridation would be cost prohibitive.
O) DENIGRATION OF OPPONENTS
44) CLAIM:People who
oppose fluoridation use "junk science."
Response: Having spent 9
years of my scientific career doing little else but reading
the scientific literature on this matter, I take great
exception to that comment, especially when it comes from
people who have probably not read one single paper. If any
reader cares to go to the web page of the organization Second
Look (www.Slweb.org/bibliography.html)
he or she will find about 70 pages of scientific articles
which have been published in peer reviewed journals. Many of
these are linked to abstracts and full papers. Some of the
most damaging articles as far as fluoridation is concerned
have actually to their credit been written by
pro-fluoridation researchers.
An even more ambitious overview of the scientific literature
covering many aspects of fluoride's toxicity can be accessed
at www.fluoridealert.org/health.
When an independent scientist takes a look at this material he
or she will realize why it is that promoters of fluoridation
try to win their case by citing "authority" rather than
directing people to the relevant literature. To call the
literature, that opponents cite, as "junk science" is
blatantly absurd, but it may have the desired effect of
keeping independent scientists from reading it.
Response: Those who have
expressed reservations about fluoridation have included 14
Nobel prize winners, including Dr. Arvid Carlsson who won the
Nobel prize for medicine in 2000. Not only was Dr. Carlsson
opposed to fluoridation, but he led the successful campaign in
the 1970's to ban its use in Sweden.
More recently, the union, which represents 1500 professionals
working at the US EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, has gone
on record as being opposed to fluoridation. Other
distinguished opponents have included Doug Everingham, former
Federal Minister of Health for Australia; Dr. Richard Foulkes,
a former adviser to the Ministry of Health in British
Columbia; Dr. Don MacAuley an Irish dentist who heads up an
organization called Irish Dentists Opposed to Fluoridation,
which has over 100 members; the late Dr. John Colquhoun,
Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, NZ and formerly a
strong advocate of the practice; Dr. Hardy Limeback, former
President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research, and
currently head of preventive dentistry at the University of
Toronto, and like John Colquhoun, Hardy Limeback was once
firmly in favor of the practice. Unlike many other proponents
of fluoridation Colquhoun and Limeback have had the courage to
change their minds on fluoridation and publicly explained why.
Also unlike most proponents Limeback is prepared to debate the
subject in public, and before he passed away, so was John
Colquhoun. Statements from all the above can be viewed on the
FAN web page www.fluoridealert.org.
There are many other independent scientists, doctors, dentists
and others concerned about public health, who are opposed to
fluoridation, but far too numerous to mention by name.
46) CLAIM:You can't
trust anything you get on the internet.
Response: Clearly there
are all kinds of wild things on the internet and a user has to
be careful. However, the web page of FAN contains references
to hundreds of peer reviewed articles published in important
dental and medical journals, which can be accessed at
www.fluoridealert.org/health.
Just because these articles have now been made available on
the web does not make them less valid than when they appeared
in the original journals. All the web has done is to make
these far more accessible and that is what the promoters of
fluoridation fear most. For far too long they have been able
to keep the average person away from this literature and
focused on their list of "endorsements." But the genie of
scientific knowledge on this issue is out of the bottle, and
neither the ADA, the CDC nor any other fluoridation promoter
is going to be able to put it back in.
47) CLAIM:People who
oppose fluoridation are "food faddists."
Response: This a rather
old fashioned term for people today we would call
"nutritionists". Indeed, many nutritionists are opposed
to fluoridation. They more than others know that fluoride is
not an essential nutrient but rather a pharmacologically
active and toxic substance which should be kept away from our
tissues, especially those of the young baby. Nutritionists, by
and large are respectful of nature's intentions as
demonstrated by the levels of nutrients that appear in
mothers' milk baby's first meal. At about 0.01 ppm in
mothers' milk, nature is telling us that the baby does not
need fluoride for healthy development, and giving the baby
fluoride at 100 times that level is courting trouble. It is a
great shame how little attention is paid in Medical and Dental
schools to nutrition, and for that matter to toxicology and
environmental chemistry.
48) CLAIM:People
opposed to fluoridation support "quack" medicine.
Response: Again "quack" is
another old-fashioned term directed towards people who believe
and practice alternative approaches to medical healing other
than orthodox medicine. Certainly, many of these practitioners
see forcing people to take fluoride as the antithesis of
rational health care. Of course, as we have made clear above,
there are many mainstream medical personnel who are also
opposed to fluoridation. Once ridiculed, more and more of
these alternative approaches are now being taken seriously by
parts of the medical community who have not completely sold
out lock, stock and barrel to the pharmaceutical industry.
There is evidence to indicate that the organization which
calls itself quackbusters has been heavily subsidized by the
pharmaceutical industry. This organization headed by a retired
psychiatrist Stephen Barrett has attempted to persecute those
offering alternative treatments from one end of the country to
the other, but the law suits he has brought are usually thrown
out as frivolous and without merit, and the experts he has
brought to court, including himself, have failed to impress.
For more information on this area contact "Millions of Health
Freedom Fighters" at jurimed2@yahoo.com.
Meanwhile, it was Stephen Barrett who coined the term "poisonmonger"
(discussed in 49) to describe those who oppose fluoridation.
49) CLAIM:People who
oppose fluoridation are "poisonmongers."
Response: George Orwell
would be really impressed with the "Newspeak" term "poisonmonger."
It is a clear example of using a word to turn reality on its
head: akin to calling a missile a "peacemaker." Just as
fishmonger is someone who sells fish, a poisonmonger is
someone who sells poison. While this might be an appropriate
term for the phosphate fertilizer industry which sells its
toxic waste siliconfluorides to be used as water fluoridating
agents, it is hardly appropriate to use this word to describe
people opposed to fluoridation. First, they are not being paid
to oppose fluoridation, and second, their efforts are going
towards getting a toxic substance out of the water not putting
it in!
50) CLAIM:People who
are opposed to fluoridation are "conspiracy theorists" akin to
the mad General Jack Ripper in the movie "Dr. Strangelove."
Response: This old
chestnut has been used again and again. It is certainly good
for a chuckle but it is hardly the way to win a scientific
debate on a serious issue affecting our health. Most recently
it was used by a correspondent to TIME magazine, Leon
Jaroff, who is described as the founding managing editor of
the magazine Discover.
In an article entitled "Preserving Our Precious Fluids:
Taking on the anti-fluoridators", Jaroff gives a classic "Dr.
Strangelove" entrée:
"No one who saw the 1964 movie, "Dr. Strangelove" can
forget Jack D. Ripper, a paranoid, intellectually-challenged
Air Force general who launched an unprovoked nuclear attack on
the Soviet Union's Ripper asks, "You know when fluoridation
first began? "Nineteen forty-six! How does that coincide with
your post-war Commie conspiracy...a foreign substance is
introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the
knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice.
That's the way your hard core Commie works."
And that's the way that Stanley Kubrick, director of "Strangelove,"
poked fun at anti-fluoridation groups of the day. Yet, despite
the ridicule, despite support of fluoridation by the American
Medical Association, the American Dental Association, the
Centers for Disease Control, and the National Academy of
Science, and despite overwhelming evidence that fluoridation
of drinking water is both safe and effective in preventing
tooth decay, anti-fluoridation fanatics in the U.S. are still
at it.
Then Jaroff discusses a recent referendum on fluoridation in
Fort Collins, Colorado, and contrasts the two sides this way.
First, he describes those opposing fluoridation:
"The group (Fort Collins Clean Water Advocates, PC) was led by
a "nutritionist" who, among other practices, prescribes
detoxifying foot baths for her clients, and included a high
number of acupuncturists, chiropractors, massage therapists,
nurses and other devotees of alternative medicine as well as
some outright quacks. "I would characterize them as Luddites,"
says Linda Rosa, Colorado director of the National Council
Against Health Fraud (this is the official name for the 'quackbusters',
PC), and an activist with a reputation for exposing
questionable medical practices.
And here is how he describes the proponents:
"Some 250 dental and health professionals were mobilized and
encouraged to speak out and inform their patients about the
benefit of fluoride in their water. Colorado's entire
Congressional delegation in Washington was approached and all
agreed to endorse fluoridation. Newspaper ads and television
commercials urged a "No" vote on the proposition (to remove
fluoride from the water)."
Then Jaroff goes into more details on how two proponents,
Linda and Larry Sarner organized for the vote to keep fluoride
in the water.
"Linda Rosa's husband, mathematician Larry Sarner, created and
publicized a compelling web site
www.healthysmiles.org brimming with clever and
scientifically-valid, easily-understandable information about
fluoridation."
It would be very revealing for readers to visit this
"compelling web site" which is supposedly "brimming with
clever and scientifically-valid, easily-understandable
information about fluoridation." "Clever" and
"easily-understandable" it maybe, but "scientifically valid"
it is not. It is dated, highly selective, superficial and
trivializes the whole issue. One needs to do no more than
visit www.fluoridealert.org/health
to confirm just how poorly Larry Sarner's web site serves
rational and scientific discussion. It is, however, an
excellent example of propaganda, as is Leon Jaroff's article.
One example will make both points clear. Jaroff tells us that
Sarner's web page points out,
"that the town of Antigo, Wisconsin, began fluoridation in
1949 and ceased it in 1960. Five years later, after as much as
a doubling of tooth decay in some elementary school children,
fluoridation was reinstated."
If, either Jaroff or the Sarners, were really interested in
either historical or scientific truth and accuracy which they
are clearly not - they would have found out that 1) the Antigo
study has been heavily criticized for its weak methodology,
and 2) five carefully conducted studies over the past 5 years
have found that tooth decay rates did not increase following
the cessation of fluoridation.
The studies from Canada, Cuba, Eastern Germany, Finland, and
the United States found that tooth decay did not increase,
but usually continued to decrease, following the termination
of the fluoridation programs.
The results of these studies are consistent with the World
Health Organization's large body of online data showing that
tooth decay rates have declined just as significantly in
unfluoridated areas as they have in fluoridated areas. See:
www./fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html
Paul Connett
THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
www.fluoridealert.org or
www.fluorideACTION.net
References
Alberts B, Shine K. (1998). Letter from Bruce Alberts,
President, National Academy of Sciences, and Kenneth Shine,
President, Institute of Medicine to Dr. Albert Burgstahler.
November 18, 1998. http://tinyurl.com/5dl2y
Alarcon-Herrera MT, Martin-Dominguez IR, Trejo-Vazquez R,
Rodriguez-Dozal S. (2001) Well water fluoride, dental
fluorosis, bone fractures in the Guadiana Valley of Mexico.
Fluoride 2001;34:139-149. http://www.fluoride-journal.com/01-34-2/342-139.pdf
Armfield JM, Spencer AJ. (2004) Consumption of nonpublic
water: implications for children's caries experience.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 32:283-296.
Bachinskii PP, Gutsalenko OA, Naryzhniuk ND, Sidora VD,
Shliakhta AI. (1985) Action of fluoride on the thyroid
function of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients.
Probl Endokrinol 1985;31(6):25-9 (in Russian).
Bratthall D, Hansel-Petersson G, Sundberg H. (1996). Reasons
for the caries decline: what do the experts believe?
European Journal of Oral Science 104:416-22.
Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. (1990). Recent trends in dental caries
in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. J.
Dent. Res 69, (Special edition), 723-727.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/brunelle-carlos.htm
Bryson C. The Fluoride Deception. Seven Stories Press,
NY, 2004.
Carlsson A. Current problems relating to the pharmacology and
toxicology of fluorides. J Swed Med Assoc
1978;14:1388-1392.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (1999).
Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of
Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Mortality and
Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). 48(41): 933-940 October
22, 1999. http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2001).
Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control
Dental Caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity
Weekly Review. (MMWR). August 17. 50(RR14):1-42.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2002).
Prevalence of self-reported arthritis and chronic joint
symptoms among adults. MMWR 2002;51:948-950.
Easley M. (1999). Community fluoridation in America: the
unprincipled opposition. Unpublished.
Featherstone JDB. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries
Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association.
131: 887-899.
Feltman R. (1956) Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluoride
salts: A progress report. Dent Dig 1956;62:353-357.
Feltman R, Kosel G. (1961) Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of
fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report.
J Dent Med 16:190-99.
Freni SC. (1994). Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in
drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. J
Toxicology and Environmental Health. 42: 109-121.
Groth, E. (1973). Two Issues of Science and Public Policy: Air
Pollution Control in the San Francisco Bay Area, and
Fluoridation of Community Water Supplies. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.
Groth E. (1991). The Fluoridation Controversy: Which Side is
Science On? In: Martin B. (1991). The Social Dynamics of the
Fluoridation Debate. State University of New York Press,
Albany. p. 190.
Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at
Varying Water Fluoride Concentrations. J Pub Health Dent.
57(3): 136-143.
Hileman B. (1988). Fluoridation of water: Questions about
health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years.
Chemical and Engineering News. August 1: 26-42.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hileman.htm
Hirzey W (2001) Videotaped interview. "Rethinking
Fluoridation" Grass Roots and Global Video, 82 Judson Street,
Canton, NY 13617. Can be ordered via
http://www.fluoridealert.org/videos.htm
Institute of Medicine. (1997). Dietary Reference Intakes for
Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride.
Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary
Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board. National Academy
Press, p. 292.
Jaroff L Preserving Our Precious Fluids: Taking on the anti-fluoridators,
Time.com, May, 2005
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,1054993,00.html
Knutson JW. (1952) The case for water fluoridation.
N.Eng.J.Med. 246, 737-743.
Li Y, Liang C, Slemenda CW, Ji R, Sun S, et al. (2001) Effect
of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks
of bone fractures.J Bone Miner Res 16:932-9.
Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of
the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey,
Guildford. p. 176.
Luke J. (2001). Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal
Gland. Caries Res. 35: 125-128.
Masters RD, Coplan M, Hone BT, Dykes JE (2000) Association of
silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead.
Neurotoxicol 21:1091-1099.
Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with
Silicofluorides and Lead Toxicity. International Journal of
Environmental Studies. 56: 435-449.
National Academy of Sciences. (1989). Recommended Dietary
Allowances: 10th Edition. Commission on Life Sciences,
National Research Council, National Academy Press. p. 235.
National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC (1991) The
effectiveness of water fluoridation. Commonwealth of
Australia, 1991.
National Research Council (1993). Health Effects of Ingested
Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC. p. 30.
Spencer AJ, Slade, GD, Davies M. (1996) Water fluoridation in
Australia. Community Dent Health 13(2 Suppl):27-37
Varner JA, et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of
Aluminum-Fluoride and Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking
Water: Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebrovascular Integrity.Brain
Research. 784: 284-298.
Von Burg MM et al. (1995). Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: A Concern
for All Mothers. Pediatric Nursing 21: 515-519.
Waldbott GL, et al. (1978). Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma.
Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.
Wendy Wintman, Copyright Manager, Consumers Union. See letter
at: http://www.nofluoride.com/consumer_union.htm
World Health Organization. (1994? 84). Fluorides and Oral
Health. WHO Technical Report Series 846.
Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, Chen B Chen X, Zhou M (2003) Effect
of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence.
Fluoride 36:84-94.
Xiang Q, Liang Y, Zhou H, Zang HM (2003) Blood lead of
children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride
36:138-216.
