28 Feb 2009
Peter Ward BDA and Barry Cockcroft CDO
They also assure us that fluoridation is nothing but positive and there are no negative affects to our health.
27 Feb 2009
Southampton fluoride decision is a travesty of local democracy.
Southampton fluoride decision is a travesty of local democracy.
Posted By: Philip Johnston at Feb 26, 2009 at 17:57:36 [General]
Fluoride is to be added to the water supply of Southampton - the first city in 40 years to adopt the policy. The decision has caused huge controversy in the south coast town. This is a key victory for those who believe in adding fluoride to the water and other cities are expected to follow suit, with Bristol among those looking to do so. While a lot of people think their supplies are fluoridated, only five million people live in areas where they are, mainly in the West Midlands and the east of England. For years ministers have wanted to see fluoridation expanded beyond the areas currently covered by natural and artificial schemes. But water companies were reluctant to fluoridate for fear of being sued and did not want responsibility for public health decisions. So the government brought in new legislation in 2003 to give the 28 strategic health authorities, rather than the water companies, the final say over whether fluoride should be added to the supply.
The health authorities now have the power to compel water companies - which will be indemnified against any legal liabilities - to put fluoride in the mains supply, though they are required to consult the local community before they do so. A consultation exercise found that around 75 per cent of the 200,000 residents were opposed to the plan -but they were overruled. After all, they only have to drink the water. All that was required was that a consultation was carried out: the local health authority did not have to abide by its findings. This is a travesty of local democracy.
Proponents maintain that since fluoride appears to reduce the incidence of dental caries and there is no evidence it is harmful, why should anyone object? Opponents say the risks from fluoride are unknown, the science is questionable and those studies that have been carried out have been equivocal in their conclusions about safety. I say that if people want to protect their teeth they should use fluoride toothpaste. Medication, beneficial or otherwise, should not be added to the water supply at all.
However it is dressed up, fluoridation is enforced mass medication and it is possible to object to such a programme whether you think it is good for you or not. The Government acknowledged this by allowing a free vote when the measure went through Parliament; but, in reality, ministers favour a move to wider fluoridation as part of their nanny state agenda.
Posted By: Philip Johnston at Feb 26, 2009 at 17:57:36 [General]
Fluoride is to be added to the water supply of Southampton - the first city in 40 years to adopt the policy. The decision has caused huge controversy in the south coast town. This is a key victory for those who believe in adding fluoride to the water and other cities are expected to follow suit, with Bristol among those looking to do so. While a lot of people think their supplies are fluoridated, only five million people live in areas where they are, mainly in the West Midlands and the east of England. For years ministers have wanted to see fluoridation expanded beyond the areas currently covered by natural and artificial schemes. But water companies were reluctant to fluoridate for fear of being sued and did not want responsibility for public health decisions. So the government brought in new legislation in 2003 to give the 28 strategic health authorities, rather than the water companies, the final say over whether fluoride should be added to the supply.
The health authorities now have the power to compel water companies - which will be indemnified against any legal liabilities - to put fluoride in the mains supply, though they are required to consult the local community before they do so. A consultation exercise found that around 75 per cent of the 200,000 residents were opposed to the plan -but they were overruled. After all, they only have to drink the water. All that was required was that a consultation was carried out: the local health authority did not have to abide by its findings. This is a travesty of local democracy.
Proponents maintain that since fluoride appears to reduce the incidence of dental caries and there is no evidence it is harmful, why should anyone object? Opponents say the risks from fluoride are unknown, the science is questionable and those studies that have been carried out have been equivocal in their conclusions about safety. I say that if people want to protect their teeth they should use fluoride toothpaste. Medication, beneficial or otherwise, should not be added to the water supply at all.
However it is dressed up, fluoridation is enforced mass medication and it is possible to object to such a programme whether you think it is good for you or not. The Government acknowledged this by allowing a free vote when the measure went through Parliament; but, in reality, ministers favour a move to wider fluoridation as part of their nanny state agenda.
26 Feb 2009
Complaint over fluoridation vote
Complaint over fluoridation vote11:50am Wednesday 25th February 2009
Comments (9) Have your say »
By Jon Reeve »
A FORMER Southampton mayor is being investigated over claims she broke council rules by influencing a vote on controversial plans for fluoridation in the city.
Labour councillor Parvin Damani spoke passionately in favour of the scheme to add fluoride to nearly 200,000 Hampshire residents’ water, and voted to back it when city councillors examined the proposals last November.
But her actions are now being studied after a complaint was lodged arguing she should not have been allowed to join in the debate because she holds a post with the health trust behind the plans.
Anti-fluoride campaigners say her intervention in the meeting was crucial.
John Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said: “The even-handedness of the vote in the city council was undermined and the whole vote should be wiped from the records as unsound, or re-done.”
Southampton was the only council to back the fluoridation plans, which would affect residents in two-thirds of the city, as well as about 36,000 people in Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Hampshire County, Eastleigh Borough, New Forest District and Test Valley Borough councils all passed motions opposing the scheme.
“It was an extremely important vote because if Southampton City Council had voted against fluoridation then every single council would have voted against fluoridation,” said Mr Spottiswoode. “That would have killed the whole proposal then and there.
“As it is, Ms Damani could be responsible single-handedly for tipping enough votes to mean that Southampton becomes fluoridated, much against the wishes of the vast majority of citizens.”
Cllr Damani is a member of Southampton City Primary Care Trust’s senior public health team. She works as an equality and human rights advisor.
The trust proposed fluoridation as a way of combating poor dental health among the city’s youngsters, particularly in more deprived areas.
The board of South Central Strategic Health Authority, which oversees the region’s healthcare, will vote on the plans tomorrow.
In a free vote city councillors came out 26 to 18 in favour of fluoridation.
Cllr Steve Sollitt declared an interest and left the meeting because he works as an accountant for the NHS. Cllr Damani also declared an interest as an employee of the health service, but remained, spoke and cast a vote.
She told the meeting. “This is not a poison. Nobody has died from it.”
A council spokesman said the authority is unable to comment or confirm an investigation is ongoing. Cllr Damani declined to comment.
25 Feb 2009
24 Feb 2009
21 Feb 2009
20 Feb 2009
Crunch meeting over Totton fluoridation plan
TOTTON residents will know next Thursday if fluoride is to be added to their water supply, when NHS executives meet to decide the plans.
About 8,000 people in the town could be affected by Southampton Primary Care Trust's proposals which, although targeted at the city, would include its neighbour because of the layout of the pipes.
During the three-month consulta-tion last year, more than 10,000 people responded and the results will be presented to the board of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) at a public meeting in Southampton.
Its members will make the final decision whether or not to allow an increase in fluoride from its current level of 0.08 parts per million to one part per million. If approved, it will affect up to 195,000 people overall.
The trust argued its plans would help tackle tooth decay among children and adults in the city, which is worse than the national average in England despite a number of public health measures.
But opponents fear the controver-sial additive has harmful side effects, ranging from mottled teeth to some forms of cancer, and object to "forced medication". Others suspect Southampton fluoridation could encourage Hampshire Primary Care Trust to do the same.
Objectors included Totton and Eling Town Council, as well as the New Forest and Hampshire councils. New Forest East MP Julian Lewis has added his name to those calling on the SHA to reject the move.
He told the 'A&T': "I think they have to consider the general prin-ciple that you do not medicate an entire community just because some families are unwilling to properly educate their children in dental hygiene."
He also branded the consultation a "sham" and said: "This is like a Stalin-ist state or a banana republic that goes through the motions of follow-ing the constitution of the country when everybody knows that the whole thing is rigged from start to finish."
He has written to the health service ombudsman to complain about the way it was handled. If it wants a re-run consultation, Dr Lewis hoped that could delay fluoridation until after the next general election and a possible new government with different views.
However, Pennington district councillor Paul Hickman said he was in favour and wanted Hampshire Primary Care Trust to consider extending fluoride across the New Forest to help make up for too few NHS dentists.
He believed it was safe in minimal additions and said: "I would not say that the anti-fluoridation people should be put on the same level as the people who protested about the MMR vaccine but it is the same thing really.
"I am sure people are going to the dentist less because they have to pay for it. It is making things difficult for health authorities to keep dental decay down because of the lack of NHS dentistry."
If fluoridation is approved next week, the SHA will order Southern Water under the Water Fluoridation Regulations 2005 to add it to the supply. It would be the first time the new legislation has been used In this way.
A spokesman for the SHA said setting up the equipment and legal agreements for fluoridation could delay its introduction until 2010 at the earliest, and would probably be later. The meeting next Thursday; will be held at 2pm at St Mary's foot-ball stadium, Southampton.
From the Lymington Times 21st Feb
About 8,000 people in the town could be affected by Southampton Primary Care Trust's proposals which, although targeted at the city, would include its neighbour because of the layout of the pipes.
During the three-month consulta-tion last year, more than 10,000 people responded and the results will be presented to the board of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) at a public meeting in Southampton.
Its members will make the final decision whether or not to allow an increase in fluoride from its current level of 0.08 parts per million to one part per million. If approved, it will affect up to 195,000 people overall.
The trust argued its plans would help tackle tooth decay among children and adults in the city, which is worse than the national average in England despite a number of public health measures.
But opponents fear the controver-sial additive has harmful side effects, ranging from mottled teeth to some forms of cancer, and object to "forced medication". Others suspect Southampton fluoridation could encourage Hampshire Primary Care Trust to do the same.
Objectors included Totton and Eling Town Council, as well as the New Forest and Hampshire councils. New Forest East MP Julian Lewis has added his name to those calling on the SHA to reject the move.
He told the 'A&T': "I think they have to consider the general prin-ciple that you do not medicate an entire community just because some families are unwilling to properly educate their children in dental hygiene."
He also branded the consultation a "sham" and said: "This is like a Stalin-ist state or a banana republic that goes through the motions of follow-ing the constitution of the country when everybody knows that the whole thing is rigged from start to finish."
He has written to the health service ombudsman to complain about the way it was handled. If it wants a re-run consultation, Dr Lewis hoped that could delay fluoridation until after the next general election and a possible new government with different views.
However, Pennington district councillor Paul Hickman said he was in favour and wanted Hampshire Primary Care Trust to consider extending fluoride across the New Forest to help make up for too few NHS dentists.
He believed it was safe in minimal additions and said: "I would not say that the anti-fluoridation people should be put on the same level as the people who protested about the MMR vaccine but it is the same thing really.
"I am sure people are going to the dentist less because they have to pay for it. It is making things difficult for health authorities to keep dental decay down because of the lack of NHS dentistry."
If fluoridation is approved next week, the SHA will order Southern Water under the Water Fluoridation Regulations 2005 to add it to the supply. It would be the first time the new legislation has been used In this way.
A spokesman for the SHA said setting up the equipment and legal agreements for fluoridation could delay its introduction until 2010 at the earliest, and would probably be later. The meeting next Thursday; will be held at 2pm at St Mary's foot-ball stadium, Southampton.
From the Lymington Times 21st Feb
15 Feb 2009
Fluoride in Water: Study Says Don't!
last comment is wrong Brita filter does not filter out fluoride.
New fight to stop mass fluoridation
New fight to stop mass fluoridation
Government drive to add the chemical to water supplies hinges on Hampshire test case
James Meikle The Observer, Sunday 15 February 2009 Article history
Opponents of the mass fluoridation of water will next week try to stop a government drive to add the chemical to supplies used by millions of people in England and Wales.
The verdict on a small scheme covering 200,000 people in Southampton and southwest Hampshire will help shape public attitudes to far bigger proposals countrywide, and the South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision could potentially make ministers rethink plans to implement fluoridation. Authorities in northwest England are among those next in line to bring forward proposals.
Attempts to increase fluoridation stalled for more than a generation after local councils lost control over public health in 1974 and water supplies were privatised, but a law change at the end of 2003 allowed health authorities to order, rather than ask, water companies to add fluoride. So far about 5.5 million people, a ninth of the population in England, live in areas with added fluoride and another 500,000 with equivalent levels where the chemical occurs naturally. The Scottish government decided against letting local authorities decide on adding the chemical more than four years ago. The Isle of Man dropped the idea last summer.
Supporters say added fluoride cuts tooth decay and reduces health inequalities between rich and poor areas, with the benefit spreading to adults as well as children. They say it could save infants with poor first teeth facing traumatic operations to remove them at a cost to the NHS of £500 a time. Fluoridation has long been used in the US and England's West Midlands and has shown no evidence of being harmful. Opponents object to what they see as mass medication, pointing to potential risks including lower IQ in children, bone cancer and hip fractures in the old. Adding fluoride to toothpaste has raised levels in people's bodies, they say, and evidence for water treatment cutting decay is not clear-cut.
Southampton primary care trust has prompted the latest argument over fluoride, forcing a consultation. Hampshire county council opposes the idea. Southampton city council supports it.
Barry Cockcroft, chief dental officer for England, said fluoridation "is the perfect public health measure because people with the greatest need benefit most and most people benefit to some degree". Defeat in Southampton "would be disappointing", but would not stop other authorities investigating the idea.
Mike Lennon, chairman of the British Fluoridation Society and professor of public health at Sheffield University, was less sure. A number were "sitting back and waiting to see what happens in [Hampshire]. If it is successful, I suspect they will go ahead. If it is not successful, then I suspect Barry Cockcroft and others will have to go back to the drawing board."
Fluoridation was a "mass measure", not mass medication, Lennon insisted. "In Hartlepool, where there is fluoride naturally present, you don't call it a medicated water supply," he said. Breakfast cereals had added vitamins, he went on. "You call them supplemented or fortified."
Stephen Peckham, reader in health policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and a member of Hampshire Against Fluoride, said: "There is good evidence to demonstrate that, at a minimum, water fluoridation will lead to increased levels of dental fluorosis [staining] of a moderate or severe nature. In addition, evidence suggests that further health problems are likely to occur due to overexposure to fluoride ... There has been no discussion of the complex ethical issues that water fluoridation entails."
The National Pure Water Association said that fluoridation was "an outdated concept".
The case for flouride
• On average children aged 5-14 who drink fluoridated water have 2.2 fewer teeth affected by decay than children in non-fluoridated areas
• In fluoridated areas there are 15% more children who are "decay-free"
• Evidence suggests it benefits adults too
• Severe tooth decay can lead to a loss of confidence and social isolation
• It is a public good - the greatest benefit is to those least able to help themselves
... and against
• The beneficial effects are unproven, as most supporting evidence is of insufficient quality
• Potential harm to public health
• Increase of fluorosis (staining) of teeth
• Restricts individual choice and removes right of consent to "medical" treatment
• Less "coercive" interventions, such as teeth-brushing programmes and applying fluoride to the surface of teeth, are better
Government drive to add the chemical to water supplies hinges on Hampshire test case
James Meikle The Observer, Sunday 15 February 2009 Article history
Opponents of the mass fluoridation of water will next week try to stop a government drive to add the chemical to supplies used by millions of people in England and Wales.
The verdict on a small scheme covering 200,000 people in Southampton and southwest Hampshire will help shape public attitudes to far bigger proposals countrywide, and the South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision could potentially make ministers rethink plans to implement fluoridation. Authorities in northwest England are among those next in line to bring forward proposals.
Attempts to increase fluoridation stalled for more than a generation after local councils lost control over public health in 1974 and water supplies were privatised, but a law change at the end of 2003 allowed health authorities to order, rather than ask, water companies to add fluoride. So far about 5.5 million people, a ninth of the population in England, live in areas with added fluoride and another 500,000 with equivalent levels where the chemical occurs naturally. The Scottish government decided against letting local authorities decide on adding the chemical more than four years ago. The Isle of Man dropped the idea last summer.
Supporters say added fluoride cuts tooth decay and reduces health inequalities between rich and poor areas, with the benefit spreading to adults as well as children. They say it could save infants with poor first teeth facing traumatic operations to remove them at a cost to the NHS of £500 a time. Fluoridation has long been used in the US and England's West Midlands and has shown no evidence of being harmful. Opponents object to what they see as mass medication, pointing to potential risks including lower IQ in children, bone cancer and hip fractures in the old. Adding fluoride to toothpaste has raised levels in people's bodies, they say, and evidence for water treatment cutting decay is not clear-cut.
Southampton primary care trust has prompted the latest argument over fluoride, forcing a consultation. Hampshire county council opposes the idea. Southampton city council supports it.
Barry Cockcroft, chief dental officer for England, said fluoridation "is the perfect public health measure because people with the greatest need benefit most and most people benefit to some degree". Defeat in Southampton "would be disappointing", but would not stop other authorities investigating the idea.
Mike Lennon, chairman of the British Fluoridation Society and professor of public health at Sheffield University, was less sure. A number were "sitting back and waiting to see what happens in [Hampshire]. If it is successful, I suspect they will go ahead. If it is not successful, then I suspect Barry Cockcroft and others will have to go back to the drawing board."
Fluoridation was a "mass measure", not mass medication, Lennon insisted. "In Hartlepool, where there is fluoride naturally present, you don't call it a medicated water supply," he said. Breakfast cereals had added vitamins, he went on. "You call them supplemented or fortified."
Stephen Peckham, reader in health policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and a member of Hampshire Against Fluoride, said: "There is good evidence to demonstrate that, at a minimum, water fluoridation will lead to increased levels of dental fluorosis [staining] of a moderate or severe nature. In addition, evidence suggests that further health problems are likely to occur due to overexposure to fluoride ... There has been no discussion of the complex ethical issues that water fluoridation entails."
The National Pure Water Association said that fluoridation was "an outdated concept".
The case for flouride
• On average children aged 5-14 who drink fluoridated water have 2.2 fewer teeth affected by decay than children in non-fluoridated areas
• In fluoridated areas there are 15% more children who are "decay-free"
• Evidence suggests it benefits adults too
• Severe tooth decay can lead to a loss of confidence and social isolation
• It is a public good - the greatest benefit is to those least able to help themselves
... and against
• The beneficial effects are unproven, as most supporting evidence is of insufficient quality
• Potential harm to public health
• Increase of fluorosis (staining) of teeth
• Restricts individual choice and removes right of consent to "medical" treatment
• Less "coercive" interventions, such as teeth-brushing programmes and applying fluoride to the surface of teeth, are better
14 Feb 2009
Statement from John Spottiswoode, Hampshire Against Fluoridation
Statement from John Spottiswoode, Hampshire Against Fluoridation
Dear Members of the SCSHA,
One important aspect of the public consultation on fluoridation in the SCSHA area has not received the attention it deserves and that is 'How much fluoride are residents of Hampshire consuming today, even without fluoridation?' The SHA has failed to answer this question yet the NHS's systematic review, the York Review, identified this as an important consideration in 2000.
Other authorities have also attested to the importance of this aspect, as far back as 1971, the World Health Organisation (WHO International Drinking Water Standards) warned: "In the assessment of the safety of a water supply with regard to the fluoride concentration, the total daily intake by the individual must be considered."
In 1994 a WHO Expert committee again said: "Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme."
And in its Guidelines for drinking water quality, 3rd Ed (2006) the WHO stated that "It was also emphasised that in setting national standards for fluoride, it is particularly important to consider ... volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources." ( S.12.63 page 377)
No information on fluoride intake by residents of Hampshire was provided to the public during the public consultation in the South Central Strategic Health Authority area, contrary to WHO warnings. In view of this very serious omission it would seem essential for the SCSHA - even at this late stage in the process - to consider carefully the only data on fluoride intake that is available, viz the data available from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey of 2003.
This has been analysed by Dr Peter Mansfield who found that 20.2% of the adult population between 19 and 64 yrs old across all of England, Wales and Scotland is already exposed to above safe intakes of fluoride. Dr Mansfield has further found that in those areas with fluoridated drinking water, the proportion above the safe intake rises to 65% of adults. Safe intake has been set by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food (COMA) as 0.05mg F /kg body weight/ per day. Above this safe level the fluoride accumulates in the body and the bones to such an extent that by the time of retirement people can expect serious adverse health effects, even if they have avoided them successfully until that age. Dr Peter Mansfield presented this personally to us on the 31st January and since then he has also presented this at the Department of Health to the Chief Dental Officer, Dr Barry Cockcroft.
We are alerting you to this important information to avoid any misunderstanding arising from a possible future claim that people were not made aware of this most relevant omission from the consultation.
SCSHA members should also bear in mind that the government agency responsible for commissioning the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, the Food Standards Agency, has been kept fully informed of this new information and has not refuted the figures supplied by Dr Mansfield. The reference for the information published in the BMJ 'Fluoride Consumption -- Much Higher than We Are Told' is on http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7622/699#177639
It would seem prudent for the SCSHA to investigate immediately why those promoting fluoridation in Hampshire have not investigated this crucially important matter. The onus is now on those proposing fluoridation in Hampshire to provide evidence that people in Hampshire are not already consuming too much fluoride. Since no evidence whatsoever has been offered that the diet of people in Hampshire differs from that in the rest of the UK, the SCSHA must reject the proposal for a twelvefold increase of fluoride in Hampshire's drinking water.
Yours sincerely,
John Spottiswoode
Hampshire Against Fluoridation
Dear Members of the SCSHA,
One important aspect of the public consultation on fluoridation in the SCSHA area has not received the attention it deserves and that is 'How much fluoride are residents of Hampshire consuming today, even without fluoridation?' The SHA has failed to answer this question yet the NHS's systematic review, the York Review, identified this as an important consideration in 2000.
Other authorities have also attested to the importance of this aspect, as far back as 1971, the World Health Organisation (WHO International Drinking Water Standards) warned: "In the assessment of the safety of a water supply with regard to the fluoride concentration, the total daily intake by the individual must be considered."
In 1994 a WHO Expert committee again said: "Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme."
And in its Guidelines for drinking water quality, 3rd Ed (2006) the WHO stated that "It was also emphasised that in setting national standards for fluoride, it is particularly important to consider ... volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources." ( S.12.63 page 377)
No information on fluoride intake by residents of Hampshire was provided to the public during the public consultation in the South Central Strategic Health Authority area, contrary to WHO warnings. In view of this very serious omission it would seem essential for the SCSHA - even at this late stage in the process - to consider carefully the only data on fluoride intake that is available, viz the data available from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey of 2003.
This has been analysed by Dr Peter Mansfield who found that 20.2% of the adult population between 19 and 64 yrs old across all of England, Wales and Scotland is already exposed to above safe intakes of fluoride. Dr Mansfield has further found that in those areas with fluoridated drinking water, the proportion above the safe intake rises to 65% of adults. Safe intake has been set by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food (COMA) as 0.05mg F /kg body weight/ per day. Above this safe level the fluoride accumulates in the body and the bones to such an extent that by the time of retirement people can expect serious adverse health effects, even if they have avoided them successfully until that age. Dr Peter Mansfield presented this personally to us on the 31st January and since then he has also presented this at the Department of Health to the Chief Dental Officer, Dr Barry Cockcroft.
We are alerting you to this important information to avoid any misunderstanding arising from a possible future claim that people were not made aware of this most relevant omission from the consultation.
SCSHA members should also bear in mind that the government agency responsible for commissioning the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, the Food Standards Agency, has been kept fully informed of this new information and has not refuted the figures supplied by Dr Mansfield. The reference for the information published in the BMJ 'Fluoride Consumption -- Much Higher than We Are Told' is on http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7622/699#177639
It would seem prudent for the SCSHA to investigate immediately why those promoting fluoridation in Hampshire have not investigated this crucially important matter. The onus is now on those proposing fluoridation in Hampshire to provide evidence that people in Hampshire are not already consuming too much fluoride. Since no evidence whatsoever has been offered that the diet of people in Hampshire differs from that in the rest of the UK, the SCSHA must reject the proposal for a twelvefold increase of fluoride in Hampshire's drinking water.
Yours sincerely,
John Spottiswoode
Hampshire Against Fluoridation
13 Feb 2009
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK FAN Bulletin 1045 2 12 09
I wish this was read by a good speaker not a robot, it is off putting.
12 Feb 2009
Letters to SHA
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
FAN Bulletin 1044: Professionals ask SHA board members to reject fluoridation. Part 1Feb 11, 2009
Even though the official deadline for submissions to the Southampton (UK) Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has officially passed we have asked some of the distinguished professionals from around the world, who have signed the Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Fluoridation worldwide, to urge the SHA board members not to vote to fluoridate Southampton's water supply. Over the next few issues of this bulletin we will be printing (with permission of the authors) some of these statements. Like that of Dr. Hardy Limeback, distributed in yesterday's bulletin, these statements offer powerful additional information readers can present to other decision makers.
Below is my opening salvo warning the board members to expect these statements. There are two purposes in this initiative. 1) To erode any notion that they can go ahead with this foolish endorsement anonymously. Each board member is being sent an individual message. The whole world is watching what they do. 2) To demonstrate that there are many professionals who have studied this issue very carefully and reject the simplistic notions that the practice is acceptable, ethical, necessary, effective and safe, as they have been told by the "authorities" who are running this show.
Paul Connett
Statement from Dr. Paul Connett, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network.
Dear Martin Howell,
I am writing to you in the waning days of the process in which the SHA will make its decision on whether or not to give the go ahead to fluoridate Southampton and some surrounding communities. For some of us who have followed this issue very closely for many years it is utterly extraordinary that this archaic practice is being given any consideration at all. Using the public water supply is a dreadful way to deliver medication (you cannot control the dose or who gets it, and you will be forcing it on people who don't want it, some of whom will not be able to afford to avoid it) and helps to explain why most countries - including most of Europe - do not do this. Moreover, the level used (1 ppm) is 250 times the level of fluoride in mothers milk. The evidence of systemic benefits is incredibly weak and I have yet to hear one proponent emphatically state that in their professional judgment that there is an adequate margin of safety to protect everyone (including the very young, the very old, those with impaired kidney function and those with an inadequate diet, including borderline iodine deficiency) regardless of how much water they drink, from the harmful effects documented in many studies reviewed by the National Research Council (NRC, 2006). I submitted a very lengthy elaboration and supporting documentation of these issues in my written submission. This is not the place to rehash that submission but rather to appeal to you to exercise the utmost integrity in this matter.
There seem to be two worlds operating here. There is the world of the governments which promote this practice, whose policy seems overly influenced by dentists who have very little training in medicine, let alone toxicology and whose familiarity with the scientific literature is very limited and often second hand. Then there is the world of independent scientists, doctors and some dentists who, like myself, have found themselves examining the literature on this issue with an open mind and have been appalled by the way that politics continues to trump honest scientific discourse on this matter. It is extremely frustrating to deal with 'authorities' who feel it is enough to flash their credentials and repeat again and again that hundreds (even thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is safe and effective, when that is simply not the case.
However, if having carefully reviewed the scientific literature and the ethical arguments on this matter you are absolutely convinced that this practice is sensible, ethical, safe and effective, so be it. If on the other hand you are not convinced I would urge you to resist the governmental pressures which swirl around this issue. I hope that there will be enough people on the SHA panel to insist that this time around honest science prevails and that you will be one of the voices that will make that happen. The public's trust is at stake. Your decision will undoubtedly have national ramifications and possibly worldwide ones. That is why I have asked several scientists, doctors dentists and environmental leaders from the over 2,100 people who have signed the "Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Fluoridation Worldwide" ( see http://www.FluorideAlert.org/professionals.statement.html ) to share with you their experience on this matter with you why they think this practice should be ended. You should be hearing from them shortly.
Sincerely,
Paul Connett, PhD,
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University,
Canton, NY
Statement from Bo H jonsson, MD, PhD, Department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Dear Martin Howell and others,
It has come to my attention that fluoridation of Southampton and some adjacent communities is considered. I have for several years taken an interest in this question. My position is that positive effects of fluoridation are clearly questionable according to current science and that the health risks can definitely not be ignored. My fellow countryman Arvid Carlsson (Nobel Laurate 2000 in Medicine) in 2005 stated that water fluoridation is "absolutely obsolete". It takes you less than a minute to watch this interview passage: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson-interview.html
Please, I very much appreciate if you acknowledge receiving this e-mail.
Sincerely,
Bo H Jonsson, MD, PhD
Department of clinical neuroscience
Karolinska Institutet
Stockholm, Sweden
Statement from Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 2000
Dear SHA board members,
I am writing to you from Sweden where in the 1970s I was part of the team of scientists who worked hard to prevent fluoridation being introduced into our country. Since then more and more evidence supports the legitimacy of our concerns. My specialty is neuropharmacology, for which I won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2000.
Fluoridation is an obsolete practice. It goes against all principles of modern pharmacology. The use of the public drinking water supply to administer the same dose of fluoride to everyone, from the infant to those who consume copious amounts of water (such as diabetics), goes against all principles of science because individuals respond very differently to one and the same dose and there are huge variations in the consumption of this drug.
Meanwhile, WHO data indicates very little difference, if any, in tooth decay in 12-year olds between those living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Cheng et al. (2007), British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702). It is very clear that our children's teeth have not suffered in Sweden because we rejected fluoridation.
In the 1970's, noting that the level of fluoride in mothers milk is orders of magnitude lower than the levels used in water fluoridation, I was concerned about the potential effects of fluoride on the brain, and other organs, in infants fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water. Since then there have been numerous animal studies indicating that fluoride can damage the brain and 23 studies associating high exposure to fluoride with a lowering of IQ in children (studies available at http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html ).
People may quibble with the limitations of these ecological studies but the fact is that the pattern is remarkably consistent. One study indicated that this effect might occur as low as 1.8 ppm, which provides no adequate margin of safety when you are exposing a whole population of children to fluoridated water at 1 ppm.
It has become clear that the major benefits of fluoride appear to be topical not systemic (CDC, 1999, 2001). In pharmacology, if the effect is local, it is awkward to use it in any other way than as a local treatment. I mean this is obvious. You have the teeth there, they're available for you, why drink the stuff?
I urge you to reject the proposal to fluoridate Southampton and instead to review carefully the methods used in non-fluoridating countries which have successfully combated children's tooth decay without exposing them -unnecessarily - to this pharmacologically active substance.
Sincerely,
Dr. Arvid Carlsson
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
FAN Bulletin 1044: Professionals ask SHA board members to reject fluoridation. Part 1Feb 11, 2009
Even though the official deadline for submissions to the Southampton (UK) Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has officially passed we have asked some of the distinguished professionals from around the world, who have signed the Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Fluoridation worldwide, to urge the SHA board members not to vote to fluoridate Southampton's water supply. Over the next few issues of this bulletin we will be printing (with permission of the authors) some of these statements. Like that of Dr. Hardy Limeback, distributed in yesterday's bulletin, these statements offer powerful additional information readers can present to other decision makers.
Below is my opening salvo warning the board members to expect these statements. There are two purposes in this initiative. 1) To erode any notion that they can go ahead with this foolish endorsement anonymously. Each board member is being sent an individual message. The whole world is watching what they do. 2) To demonstrate that there are many professionals who have studied this issue very carefully and reject the simplistic notions that the practice is acceptable, ethical, necessary, effective and safe, as they have been told by the "authorities" who are running this show.
Paul Connett
Statement from Dr. Paul Connett, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network.
Dear Martin Howell,
I am writing to you in the waning days of the process in which the SHA will make its decision on whether or not to give the go ahead to fluoridate Southampton and some surrounding communities. For some of us who have followed this issue very closely for many years it is utterly extraordinary that this archaic practice is being given any consideration at all. Using the public water supply is a dreadful way to deliver medication (you cannot control the dose or who gets it, and you will be forcing it on people who don't want it, some of whom will not be able to afford to avoid it) and helps to explain why most countries - including most of Europe - do not do this. Moreover, the level used (1 ppm) is 250 times the level of fluoride in mothers milk. The evidence of systemic benefits is incredibly weak and I have yet to hear one proponent emphatically state that in their professional judgment that there is an adequate margin of safety to protect everyone (including the very young, the very old, those with impaired kidney function and those with an inadequate diet, including borderline iodine deficiency) regardless of how much water they drink, from the harmful effects documented in many studies reviewed by the National Research Council (NRC, 2006). I submitted a very lengthy elaboration and supporting documentation of these issues in my written submission. This is not the place to rehash that submission but rather to appeal to you to exercise the utmost integrity in this matter.
There seem to be two worlds operating here. There is the world of the governments which promote this practice, whose policy seems overly influenced by dentists who have very little training in medicine, let alone toxicology and whose familiarity with the scientific literature is very limited and often second hand. Then there is the world of independent scientists, doctors and some dentists who, like myself, have found themselves examining the literature on this issue with an open mind and have been appalled by the way that politics continues to trump honest scientific discourse on this matter. It is extremely frustrating to deal with 'authorities' who feel it is enough to flash their credentials and repeat again and again that hundreds (even thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is safe and effective, when that is simply not the case.
However, if having carefully reviewed the scientific literature and the ethical arguments on this matter you are absolutely convinced that this practice is sensible, ethical, safe and effective, so be it. If on the other hand you are not convinced I would urge you to resist the governmental pressures which swirl around this issue. I hope that there will be enough people on the SHA panel to insist that this time around honest science prevails and that you will be one of the voices that will make that happen. The public's trust is at stake. Your decision will undoubtedly have national ramifications and possibly worldwide ones. That is why I have asked several scientists, doctors dentists and environmental leaders from the over 2,100 people who have signed the "Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Fluoridation Worldwide" ( see http://www.FluorideAlert.org/professionals.statement.html ) to share with you their experience on this matter with you why they think this practice should be ended. You should be hearing from them shortly.
Sincerely,
Paul Connett, PhD,
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University,
Canton, NY
Statement from Bo H jonsson, MD, PhD, Department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Dear Martin Howell and others,
It has come to my attention that fluoridation of Southampton and some adjacent communities is considered. I have for several years taken an interest in this question. My position is that positive effects of fluoridation are clearly questionable according to current science and that the health risks can definitely not be ignored. My fellow countryman Arvid Carlsson (Nobel Laurate 2000 in Medicine) in 2005 stated that water fluoridation is "absolutely obsolete". It takes you less than a minute to watch this interview passage: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson-interview.html
Please, I very much appreciate if you acknowledge receiving this e-mail.
Sincerely,
Bo H Jonsson, MD, PhD
Department of clinical neuroscience
Karolinska Institutet
Stockholm, Sweden
Statement from Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 2000
Dear SHA board members,
I am writing to you from Sweden where in the 1970s I was part of the team of scientists who worked hard to prevent fluoridation being introduced into our country. Since then more and more evidence supports the legitimacy of our concerns. My specialty is neuropharmacology, for which I won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2000.
Fluoridation is an obsolete practice. It goes against all principles of modern pharmacology. The use of the public drinking water supply to administer the same dose of fluoride to everyone, from the infant to those who consume copious amounts of water (such as diabetics), goes against all principles of science because individuals respond very differently to one and the same dose and there are huge variations in the consumption of this drug.
Meanwhile, WHO data indicates very little difference, if any, in tooth decay in 12-year olds between those living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Cheng et al. (2007), British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702). It is very clear that our children's teeth have not suffered in Sweden because we rejected fluoridation.
In the 1970's, noting that the level of fluoride in mothers milk is orders of magnitude lower than the levels used in water fluoridation, I was concerned about the potential effects of fluoride on the brain, and other organs, in infants fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water. Since then there have been numerous animal studies indicating that fluoride can damage the brain and 23 studies associating high exposure to fluoride with a lowering of IQ in children (studies available at http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html ).
People may quibble with the limitations of these ecological studies but the fact is that the pattern is remarkably consistent. One study indicated that this effect might occur as low as 1.8 ppm, which provides no adequate margin of safety when you are exposing a whole population of children to fluoridated water at 1 ppm.
It has become clear that the major benefits of fluoride appear to be topical not systemic (CDC, 1999, 2001). In pharmacology, if the effect is local, it is awkward to use it in any other way than as a local treatment. I mean this is obvious. You have the teeth there, they're available for you, why drink the stuff?
I urge you to reject the proposal to fluoridate Southampton and instead to review carefully the methods used in non-fluoridating countries which have successfully combated children's tooth decay without exposing them -unnecessarily - to this pharmacologically active substance.
Sincerely,
Dr. Arvid Carlsson
11 Feb 2009
STATEMENT BY DR. HARDY LIMEBACK
STATEMENT BY DR. HARDY LIMEBACK
- This statement was sent to the UK's South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) who will decide whether to fluoridate the Southampton area later this month (26 February).
I am the Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto in Toronto Canada, a professor with a PhD in Biochemistry and a practicing dentist who has done years of funded research in tooth formation, bone and fluoride. I was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the 2006 report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards.
I would like to outline my arguments that fluoridation is an ineffective and harmful public health policy.
1. Fluoridation is no longer effective.
Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth eruption and, therefore, simply delays dental decay (Komarek et al, 2005, Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation work are over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous modern studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia (Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology. 32:283-96). Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al 2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).
Public health services will claim there is still a dental decay crisis. With the national average in Europe of only two decayed teeth per child (World Health Organization data), down from more than 15 decayed teeth in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as much as half of all children grow up not having a single filling. This remarkable success has been achieved in most European countries without fluoridation. The "crisis" of dental decay often mentioned is the result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially soda pop. A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of their daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft drinks are themselves fluoridated, the small amount of fluoride is obviously not helping.
The families of these children with rampant dental decay need professional assistance. Are they getting it? Children who grow up in low-income families make poor dietary choices, and cannot afford dental care. Untreated dental decay and lack of professional intervention result in more dental decay. The York review was unable to show that fluoridation benefited poor people.
Similarly, early dental decay in nursing infants (baby bottle syndrome) cannot be prevented with water fluoridation. The majority of dentists in the U.S. do not accept Medicaid patients because they lose money treating these patients. I would think the same is true for dentists in Europe. Dentists support fluoridation programs because it absolves them of their responsibility to provide assistance to those who cannot afford dental treatment. Even cities where water fluoridation has been in effect for years are reporting similar dental "crises."
Public health officials responsible for community programs are misleading the public by stating that ingesting fluoride "makes the teeth stronger." Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It does not make developing teeth better prepared to resist dental decay before they erupt into the oral environment. The small benefit that fluoridated water might still have on teeth (in the absence of fluoridated toothpaste use) is the result of "topical" exposure while the teeth are rebuilding from acid challenges brought on by daily sugar and starch exposure (Limeback 1999, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71), and this has now been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control.
2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis.
Fluoride doses by the end user can't be controlled when only one concentration of fluoride (1 parts per million) is available in the drinking water. Babies and toddlers get too much fluoride when tap water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback, 2003 Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily fluoride comes from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). The American Dental Association and the Dental Forum in Ireland has admitted that fluoridated tap water should not be used to reconstitute infant formula.
We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third child with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek extensive restorative work costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).
3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for safety.
All the animal cancer studies were done on pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride. There is more than enough evidence to show that even this fluoride has the potential to promote cancer. Some communities use sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even that chemical is not the same fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities instead use hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6 is concentrated directly from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants and trickled directly into the drinking water. It is industrial grade fluoride contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium, which are harmful to humans at the levels that are being added to fluoridate the drinking water. In addition, using hydrofluorosilicic acid instead of industrial grade sodium fluoride has an added risk of increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al 2000, Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found in the pipes of old houses. This could not be ruled out by the CDC in their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134).
4. There are serious health risks from water fluoridation.
Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been identified as a risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr. Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the over 500% increase risk of bone cancer.
Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per million increases your risk for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride accumulates in bone, the same risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day of artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per million, or in people with renal disease. Additionally, Brits are known for their tea drinking and since tea itself contains fluoride, using fluoridated tap water puts many heavy tea drinkers dangerously close to threshold for bone fracture. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown that fluoride is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in patients who retain too much fluoride.
Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy of Sciences report (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Fluoridation should be halted on the basis that endocrine function in the U.S. has never been studied in relation to total fluoride intake.
Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. Several recent studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (NAS, 2006), we need to study this more in depth.
In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation.
Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto
- This statement was sent to the UK's South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) who will decide whether to fluoridate the Southampton area later this month (26 February).
I am the Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto in Toronto Canada, a professor with a PhD in Biochemistry and a practicing dentist who has done years of funded research in tooth formation, bone and fluoride. I was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the 2006 report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards.
I would like to outline my arguments that fluoridation is an ineffective and harmful public health policy.
1. Fluoridation is no longer effective.
Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth eruption and, therefore, simply delays dental decay (Komarek et al, 2005, Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation work are over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous modern studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia (Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology. 32:283-96). Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al 2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).
Public health services will claim there is still a dental decay crisis. With the national average in Europe of only two decayed teeth per child (World Health Organization data), down from more than 15 decayed teeth in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as much as half of all children grow up not having a single filling. This remarkable success has been achieved in most European countries without fluoridation. The "crisis" of dental decay often mentioned is the result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially soda pop. A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of their daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft drinks are themselves fluoridated, the small amount of fluoride is obviously not helping.
The families of these children with rampant dental decay need professional assistance. Are they getting it? Children who grow up in low-income families make poor dietary choices, and cannot afford dental care. Untreated dental decay and lack of professional intervention result in more dental decay. The York review was unable to show that fluoridation benefited poor people.
Similarly, early dental decay in nursing infants (baby bottle syndrome) cannot be prevented with water fluoridation. The majority of dentists in the U.S. do not accept Medicaid patients because they lose money treating these patients. I would think the same is true for dentists in Europe. Dentists support fluoridation programs because it absolves them of their responsibility to provide assistance to those who cannot afford dental treatment. Even cities where water fluoridation has been in effect for years are reporting similar dental "crises."
Public health officials responsible for community programs are misleading the public by stating that ingesting fluoride "makes the teeth stronger." Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It does not make developing teeth better prepared to resist dental decay before they erupt into the oral environment. The small benefit that fluoridated water might still have on teeth (in the absence of fluoridated toothpaste use) is the result of "topical" exposure while the teeth are rebuilding from acid challenges brought on by daily sugar and starch exposure (Limeback 1999, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71), and this has now been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control.
2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis.
Fluoride doses by the end user can't be controlled when only one concentration of fluoride (1 parts per million) is available in the drinking water. Babies and toddlers get too much fluoride when tap water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback, 2003 Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily fluoride comes from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). The American Dental Association and the Dental Forum in Ireland has admitted that fluoridated tap water should not be used to reconstitute infant formula.
We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third child with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek extensive restorative work costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).
3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for safety.
All the animal cancer studies were done on pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride. There is more than enough evidence to show that even this fluoride has the potential to promote cancer. Some communities use sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even that chemical is not the same fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities instead use hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6 is concentrated directly from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants and trickled directly into the drinking water. It is industrial grade fluoride contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium, which are harmful to humans at the levels that are being added to fluoridate the drinking water. In addition, using hydrofluorosilicic acid instead of industrial grade sodium fluoride has an added risk of increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al 2000, Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found in the pipes of old houses. This could not be ruled out by the CDC in their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134).
4. There are serious health risks from water fluoridation.
Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been identified as a risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr. Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the over 500% increase risk of bone cancer.
Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per million increases your risk for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride accumulates in bone, the same risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day of artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per million, or in people with renal disease. Additionally, Brits are known for their tea drinking and since tea itself contains fluoride, using fluoridated tap water puts many heavy tea drinkers dangerously close to threshold for bone fracture. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown that fluoride is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in patients who retain too much fluoride.
Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy of Sciences report (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Fluoridation should be halted on the basis that endocrine function in the U.S. has never been studied in relation to total fluoride intake.
Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. Several recent studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (NAS, 2006), we need to study this more in depth.
In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation.
Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto
3 Feb 2009
USA - Accidents happen
Hydrochloric Acid Mistaken For Fluoride in Bellaire WaterBy GABE WELLS POSTED: February 3, 2009 Save
The Bellaire water treatment plant is pumping clean water again after hydrochloric acid was introduced into the water supply.
BELLAIRE - No one in particular is responsible for hydrochloric acid making its way Monday into the Bellaire water supply, according to the water plant superintendent.
Bellaire residents were advised Monday morning not to use village water for any reason after hydrochloric acid - mistaken for fluoride - was placed into the water supply. The warning was issued at about 7 a.m., and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency lifted that caution at about 1 p.m.
And officials at Belmont Community Hospital, located in the village, want the public to know that patients there were never in danger as a result of the contamination. Hospital Administrator Gary Gould said the facility receives its water supply from the Belmont County Water District, not from the village water system.
Gould also invited any residents who had consumed village water prior to hearing the warning to visit the hospital's emergency room for treatment or for answers to their questions and concerns.
Bellaire Water Treatment Plant Superintendent Kirk Baker said hydrochloric acid is not usually used at the facility and was at the plant by mistake. He said the container in which it was delivered looked like the containers that hold the fluoride.
Baker was reluctant to place blame for the mishap.
"It's not just one (person) at fault," Baker said. "It was an accident. We got (hydrochloric acid) instead of the fluoride we feed (into the system), but it was a small amount. They came in the same container, so it was just a mistake."
Baker advised local hospitals and emergency rooms of the situation after the mistake was discovered. He said there were no reports of anyone being harmed from contaminated water. Because of the water problems, Bellaire High School was dismissed at 8:15 a.m., while St. John Central students were dismissed at 8:45 a.m., according to reports.
"It was an accident," Baker said. "It's never happened before, and it won't happen again."
2 Feb 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
