Safe Water Information News . January 2016
Edition 2016 / 1 ( w 605) Published 25 Jan 2016
The battle for safe water in Wakefield is on.
Do you want one of these?
Colorado, US: an operator at the Durango Water Treatment Plant, pours granular sodium fluoride into the hopper of a Volumeteric Feeder
The Wakefield, Yorkshire Overview and Scrutiny committee are considering The Case Against Fluoride. Publication in the local Wakefield Express has provoked a large number of comments. The SWIS reply and a couple of other interesting examples are shown. See Resources below,
A council watchdog considering whether the move would cut rates of tooth decay has received a report titled The Case Against Water Fluoridation.
Its author Joy Warren will present the report to the council’s Caring for Our People overview and scrutiny committee today.
The report said it would cost Wakefield Council £140,000 a year to add fluoride to the district’s tap water.
It said: “This would be an unjustifiable waste of money since it could never be a financially viable proposition to spend that amount of non-targeted money for the sake of a tiny percentage of disadvantaged tiny tots when targeted dental hygiene education would be far less expensive and more effective.”
The report also claims a US study linked exposure to fluoridated water with rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among kids.
Wakefield Council has been considering fluoridation to cut tooth decay after research found that 40 per cent of five-year-olds and one in five three-year-olds had decayed teeth. Five-year-olds were one and a half times more likely to have tooth decay than the rest of England.
A report by Public Health England has suggested water fluoridation is safe and effective.
But the Case Against Water Fluoridation said: “We ask if it is equitable to expect entire populations to be fluoridated with a compulsory medicine for the sake of small children belonging to disadvantaged families which appear to be incapable of practising dental hygiene and providing nourishing food.”
It would be interesting to see know why this old report ‘released under the 30-year rule’ is being publicised and what the quality of the evidence was for the conclusion below.
The state of Irish children’s teeth in 1985 compared “very unfavourably” with that of their counterparts in other developed countries, a government memorandum released under the 30-year rule shows…. They concluded that there has been a marked decline in the prevalence of dental decay among children in the past 20 years and that this decline has been greatest in fluoridated communities and in younger children.”
The survey was conducted by University College Cork on behalf of the then minister for health, Barry Desmond of Labour. A random sample of 9,500 children was examined by a team of field workers. The World Health Organisation collaborated in the planning of the survey.
From the U. S. Fluoride Action Network (FAN )
Towards the end of December, the Telemundo television network aired a three-part news report on water fluoridation on its Atlanta affiliate station. This is a major development since Telemundo is the second largest Spanish-language television network and is a trusted news source in the Hispanic community. The series includes an introduction to the issue, an interview with a CDC statistician who attempts to explain why there are no fluorosis records for the Hispanic population, and advice on taking action.
The broadcasts can be seen on the following links:
The broadcasts were the initiative of Dan Stockin of the Lille Center in Georgia who tells FAN:‘…Telemundo is a major news and programming outlet for Hispanics here in the U.S. Unfortunately we don’t have an English transcript of these pieces yet. ,,, The series is called: Drinking Water or Poison? For the first time, CDC was put on the defensive about fluoridation harm to Latinos, AND an interview happened at CDC! The first piece introduces the issue and features environmental leader Laura Seydel, myself, and Kathy Thiessen. Pieces of the Fluoridegate and Our Daily Dose documentaries are cut in. The second piece has an interview with the CDC Oral Health researcher involved in telling us that 41% of 12-15 year olds have dental fluorosis. … The third piece tells people how they can take action and how they can contact the Nidel law firm if they have dental fluorosis. The station put up pics of fluorosis on their facebook page. Wahoo!
Site of the Lille Centre for Energy and Health http://www.nextstagescience.org/
.Another good use for public money in the States? They will ‘move aggressively to assist communities’ Don’t you just love the double-speak?
January 20, – A group of dental and medical professionals has created the American Fluoridation Society (AFS), seeking to “debunk myths and clarify the evidence behind fluoridation’s safety and benefits.”
The society will provide testimony and technical assistance to state and local communities that are seeking to start fluoridation or defend the practice against attacks.
The organization will move aggressively to assist communities that want to share the facts about fluoride, according to Johnny Johnson, DMD, a paediatric dentist in Palm Harbor, FL, and president of the society.
“AFS will be active both online and on the ground,” Dr. Johnson stated in a press release. He noted that he knew firsthand how critics of fluoridation can confuse the public and elected officials.
“In Pinellas County, Florida — where I live — a handful of people worked behind the scenes to circulate a lot of inaccurate information, and health professionals were caught off guard when a vote was taken to stop fluoridation,” Dr. Johnson stated. “Eventually, we were able to reverse that decision, but no community should have to go through that experience.”
The society has received a grant from the Delta Dental Foundation of California.
. Depending on a decision from Durango City Council, the plant staff could stop adding fluoride to the city’s drinking water.
For more than 50 years, the federal government has recommended adding fluoride to drinking water because it can prevent teeth demineralization.
The local effort to eliminate fluoride from drinking water has been lead by Jim Forleo, a chiropractor who said too much fluoride can have negative effects such as joint pain.
“They are giving us a drug without our consent,” he said.
However, the panel argued fluoridation helps strengthen teeth and lower the average
Once a recommendation is made, Durango City Council will have the final say because fluoridation is not required by any government agency.
.from the Durango Herald
Undaunted by a resounding defeat at the ballot box in 2014, opponents of fluoridation are mounting another try to convince Healdsburg voters to stop adding the substance to the city’s water supply.
Fluoride opponents are gathering voter signatures to place the issue on the November ballot, hoping the outcome will be different from last time, when 64 percent of voters said “yes” to keeping fluoride in the water and 34 percent said “no.”
This time around, they have shifted their approach to seeking a moratorium on the additive — which is widely used to combat tooth decay — until the city and fluoride suppliers provide detailed chemical reports and a written statement verifying its safety for ingestion.
The action in Marin –below- is the work of the same activists
Marin ( Sonoma) CA
Jan 7 A non-profit group is gathering signatures for a ballot measure to suspend the Marin Municipal Water District’s program of dosing drinking water and require the district to submit a written statement either on the district’s website or on monthly customer bills that would verify whether the chemicals are safe for ingestion.
Sponsored by Clean Water Sonoma Marin, the petition needs 14,000 signatures by April 30 to qualify for the November 2016 ballot. Of the five largest public water utilities operating in West Marin, M.M.W.D. is the only one that fluoridates its water supply..
M.M.W.D. customers narrowly supported water fluoridation through two ballot measures—in 1972 and in 1978—that passed by slightly more than 50 percent..
Naples, Collier County, Florida, CA
A debate over fluoridation may rear up once again in Collier County commission chambers Tuesday.
Commissioner Tom Henning’s assistant, Camden Smith, is set to petition commissioners to stop fluoridation of the county’s drinking water. Smithwill ask commissioners to “stop putting a medical treatment into a public utility.”
“I’m not saying fluoride isn’t beneficial to children,” Smith said. “But 89 percent of our population is over the age of 10 and has no medical need for fluoride…”
Nobody should be forced to ingest fluoride, she said. Smith will present the petition as a resident, not on behalf of Henning.
Commissioners voted 4-1 in 2011 to keep fluoride in the water, with Commissioner Georgia Hiller fighting to remove it….
Karen Beatty, a Collier County resident since 1977, came to the board to show her support for the petition to get rid of the additive. She said it isn’t just about preventing cavities.
“Since moving here, I have developed thyroid disease, an autoimmune disease called Hashimoto’s thyroiditis,” Beatty said. “My health care practitioner has told me that fluoride probably contributed to that.”
Fox local news with short video of item:
Parsons City, Kansas
If the Parsons City Commission still wants to reintroduce supplemental fluoride into the public water supply, it likely will cost almost $200,000.
The commission instructed the city staff to take the necessary steps to restart fluoridation of the water more than two years ago after the fluoride pump had been off line for several months.
The city’s water has gone without added fluoride since the spring of 2013…. because of the corrosion fluoride and caustic soda were causing to an elbow pipe at the water treatment plant.
. …The city staff at one time had thought the price would be about $50,000. The estimate has increased to about $190,000.
Commissioner Kevin Cruse indicated he thought the issue should be resolved sooner rather than later.
Cruse said he was leaning toward leaving fluoride out of the water. In 2013, after much research he decided the city should add fluoride to its water, but after the national recommended dosage was dropped it caused him to wonder about the worst-case scenario dealing with the purported side effects of too much fluoride.
Commissioner Aaron Keith Stewart, who wasn’t on the commission in 2013, said he agreed with Cruse that the city should relocate the caustic soda injection site but leave the added fluoride out of the water.
“I’m not for fluoride. I don’t think that’s a surprise to anyone. That’s not something I’m even considering,” Stewart said.
This story goes on and on. An anti-fluoridation candidate is proposed for Mayor..
— The City Council’s disputed 4-3 decision to continue fluoridating Port Angeles’ municipal water supply has seeped into an emerging tussle over who will be the city’s next mayor.
Councilwoman Sissi Bruch, a fluoridation opponent who won a second term in November, said this week she will nominate herself to be the city’s top elected official as an alternative to fluoridation proponents Brad Collins and Deputy Mayor Patrick Downie, who told the Peninsula Daily News that they, too, want to be mayor.
Bruch has picked up the support of new City Councilman Michael Merideth, a fluoridation opponent.
Downie is supported by Councilman Dan Gase, who favors the practice.Collins, Downie, Kidd and Gase voted Dec. 15 to continue fluoridating the city’s water supply.
They did so despite the results of a council-sponsored advisory survey that showed city water customers inside and outside the city limits who responded were against fluoridation by a 57 percent-41 percent margin.
The fluoride supporting new Mayor and deputy provoke strong public opposition. ,
The City Council elected Councilman Patrick Downie mayor and Councilwoman Cherie Kidd deputy mayor through 2017 on 4-3 votes Tuesday after discussion that focused, once again, on fluoridation.
The council-member tallies were split down lines similar to the council’s much-debated Dec. 15 vote to continue fluoridating the city’s water supply — a decision that passed with Downie’s and Kidd’s support.
The votes for the city’s top elected officials were met Tuesday with the same degree of derision from fluoridation foes who had packed the City Council chambers Dec. 15 and punctuated that session with booing and shouts of disapproval.
“Step down,” shouted one council critic after Downie’s selection.“You don’t respect us; we don’t respect you,” insisted another.
Downie, Kidd and Councilmen Dan Gase and Brad Collins voted for Downie, the sitting deputy mayor, over fluoridation opponent Sissi Bruch, who until the Dec. 15 vote was supporting Downie…
Members of the audience who spoke at a lengthy public comment session following the votes referred to them as “The Fluoride Four.”
The same four council members voted for Kidd, a former mayor — for a second time not selecting Bruch….
After his selection as mayor, the second term council member invited members of the audience to meet with him to share their feelings about the issue.
Then Kidd was booed upon her selection…
And then there’s another vote, so complicated that the interpretation of the result by the local newspaper is questioned .
The agenda:The backlash over the fluoride issue now has the city council looking at five options that will come up at Tuesday night meeting.
Option 1 is to continue with the present plan to continue with fluoridation for the next ten years at a cost of $20,000 per year.
Option 2 is to continue the fluoridation but to offer water customers $100 towards a water filtration system. That move could cost the city $220,000 if all 2,200 customers opted for the filters, and would likely end up in an increase in water bills.
Option 3 would be to discontinue the fluoridation process.
Option 4 calls for getting an advisory vote onto the next ballot which could cost the city between four and eight thousand dollars depending on the amount of issues on the ballot.
The last option is the most detailed. It would stop fluoridation but then call for up to $40,000 in funding for what the city calls a “Oral Care Health Initiative.” Sources of funding this last option could come from grants to reduce what the city would spend.
PORT ANGELES City Council Votes On Fluoride Option— Four City Council members dug in their heels Tuesday, standing firm on the decision to continue fluoridation of the municipal water system despite a recommendation broadly supported by city staff that the practice be stopped.
At their regular meeting, Mayor Patrick Downie joined Deputy Mayor Cherie Kidd and council members Dan Gase and Brad Collins to reaffirm the decision to continue the city’s commitment — though not under contract — to fluoridate city water to prevent dental disease through June 2026.
Council members Lee Whetham, Sissi Bruch and Michael Merideth were opposed.
Council members also agreed to explore forming an ad-hoc committee to examine fluoridation alternatives.
The city is under a 10-year contract with the Washington Dental Service Foundation to continue fluoridation until May 18, when the contract expires.
Nine department heads including City Manager Dan McKeen had recommended discontinuing fluoridation and committing $400,000 over the next 10 years to an “Oral Health Care Initiative,” the details of which would be worked out by city officials in concert with other area agencies.
Opponents had threatened to throw out the entire seven-person City Council in the wake of the council’s Dec. 15 decision to continue fluoridation despite the results of an end-of-2015 survey of water users who soundly rejected the practice.
Passionately critical of the council for rejecting the overwhelming wishes of survey respondents, opponents were seen signing their names to mount the change-in-government effort after the meeting.
If successful, the city would lose home-rule authority and, according to city staff, could threaten the city’s bond rating.
Comments suggested the headline ;Council votes to continue fluoridation’ is incorrect. Here are a couple:
Trisha Yates: Actually, they voted against option 5 which was to discontinue fluoridation and use city funds to sponsor an oral health program that was not clearly defined. They voted to create an ad-hoc committee to look into details about other options to fluoridation. Essentially, they postponed a vote. They thought about, but didn’t pass a measure to continue fluoridation. Please set the record straight. Thank you.
Trisha Yates: Ella Washington I’m quite certain, we can ask the city clerk, First) They considered a motion to maintain fluoridation, but it was dropped because there wasn’t support. Second) there was a motion to invest money in a dental initiative and remove fluoridatio (options 5) and that failed 4-3, Third) they voted 6-1 to form an ad-hoc committee to look at alternatives to fluoride. The reporter is right that there were few people in the crowd that actually supported option 5. His headline; however; was all wrong. I hope they make the correction.
Note, in case there is confusion – they didn’t have to vote to for fluoridation to have it continue, but neither did they vote for option 1, to continue fluoridation – they delayed the vote entirely until they could do more research.
Ella Washington: A young man last night made the point that many really bad health decisions used to be common practice in this country. I grew up with asbestos in my school buildings, lead in the paint on the walls, liquid mercury in the thermometers, doctors actively smoking in exam rooms, pregnant women drinking at cocktail parties, and heavy fluoridation in the water. All of these have been completely debunked as safe practices- oh, wait- there is one on the list yet to be widely debunked
This is the last word, for now…
PORT ANGELES — As the debate over water fluoridation in Port Angeles rages on, the Clallam County Board of Health will step back and take a broader look at oral health countywide.
Clallam County Commissioner and health board member Mike Chapman broached the fluoride subject Tuesday, saying the City Council should listen to its constituents and find alternatives to municipal water fluoridation.
Members of the council voted 6-1 — with Deputy Mayor Cherie Kidd opposed — to direct staff to explore forming an ad-hoc committee to study alternatives to citywide fluoridation.
Doubtless, the next public election may give the electors their voice
PARRY SOUND – With more than 90 per cent support against water fluoridation, Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management hope the debate ends now.
For the last several weeks, the group has been going door-to-door, soliciting signatures in the hopes of avoiding a referendum.
Simultaneously McDougall residents, some who purchase water from the town, have voiced their opposition, through a survey sent out by the township. Of the 88 responses received, 78 ratepayers want the chemical removed, while the remaining 10 want to keep the water fluoridated.
If ten per cent of ratepayers from both Parry Sound and McDougall are in favour of the removal of fluoride, a referendum could be called.
A referendum would come at a cost of $19,000 plus staff time to the town and approximately $15,000 to $16,000 to McDougall – mere pennies, compared to the cost associated with keeping the water fluoridated.
In June 2015 the town council agreed to continue to fluoridate its water, and shortly thereafter approved the necessary $250,000 upgrade to the water treatment plant to dispense the chemical. Additionally, another $4,500 to $5,000 is needed annually to fluoridate the water.
Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management member Joe Moloney hopes when he presents preliminary petition numbers to Parry Sound council during his deputation Tuesday that referendum can be avoided. In a copy of his deputation provided to the North Star last week, Moloney applauds council and local dentists and the job they do for the community.
“What this petition is, is a triumph of democracy and citizens’ initiative,” wrote Moloney. “This petition, supported by over 90 per cent of the electorate we have so far petitioned, is a resounding condemnation of the practice of fluoridation of our municipal water with the chemical hydrofluorosilicic acid.”
PARRY SOUND –
After months of deputations and debate, the issue of fluoridating Parry Sound’s drinking water will return to the council table next week.
During tonight’s council meeting, Parry Sound Coun. Paul Borneman requested the issue be put on the next agenda for discussion.
The room filled to capacity with supporters of the removal of fluoridation roared with applause at the move.
St. Thomas, Ontario
The Ministry of Health and Long-term Care is focusing on fluoridation and is reaching out to municipal councils to rally support for its cause.
A letter from the ministry about water fluoridation was presented to St. Thomas city council as correspondence Monday evening. At a time when some jurisdictions are turning their backs on the water treatment, the notice reminds municipalities about the importance of fluoridation for oral health and encourages local governments to continue the practice.
The Municipality of West Elgin’s water supply is not fluoridated and has not been since 2003, according to an Elgin St. Thomas Public Health report.
The entirety of West Elgin and parts of Dutton/Dunwich use water pumped from a treatment plant near the village of Eagle which does not add hydrofluosilicic acid, the chemical used for fluoridation. Residents in some parts of Dutton/Dunwich get their water from the facility near Port Stanley where fluoride is added.
Terrace, Br. Col.
Barry Prince is making a renewed effort to have the City of Terrace stop putting fluoride into the municipal water system.
Local resident Barry Prince is again calling on Terrace to join the growing list of countries around the world who are phasing out fluoridation of public water, and this time he will have a petition which he hopes will convince city council that a referendum should be held on the matter.
Prince is scheduled to appear at the next city council meeting on Feb. 9 to press his case.
Prince George voters, in a referendum in late 2014, approved the removal of the fluoride from their water.
With a long list of people signed up, he hopes to sway council to bring the question formally to the public through a ballot.
The last time Prince spoke to council, it was determined that because the initial decision to put fluoride in the water was made through a referendum, that a reversal of the program would also require such civic engagement.
Fort St. John, Prince Rupert and Cranbrook are the only two other B.C. communities to have fluoride in their water supply. The bid to take fluoride out of Prince George’s water was opposed by a coalition of dentists and others, but was passed by referendum in 2014.
Toronto also voted to keep its water fluoridation program.
This will be the third approach Prince has made to city council.
Plans to fluoridate water in the northern West Australian towns of Newman and Kununurra are raising concerns for some residents.
Newman resident Rob Richards organised a social media campaign when he became concerned about introducing water fluoridation to his town’s supply.
Mr Richards said fluoridation was potentially toxic and not necessary for dental health. “If you look at the World Health Organisation data — and this has actually been put into a graph on a pamphlet that’s put out by Fluoride Free WA — it shows the trend in dental decay is down in all countries, not just the ones that are fluoridated,” Mr Richards said.
The WA Government hopes to boost the proportion of the population with access to fluoridated water from 91 per cent to 97 per cent in the next 10 years.
It is planning to fluoridate the water supply of Newman and Kununurra in 2017.
Kununurra resident Danny Carter is opposed to fluoridation which he perceives as forced medication.
“My only concern is that I don’t give consent to the Water Corporation to be able to medicate using a chemical, hexafluorosilicic acid, that is a by-product from the fertiliser
See also two comments in Resources item 3
Anti-fluoride activists are calling on Rous Water to shut down its fluoride dosing plants and hold a public inquiry following a series of shutdowns.
Members of the Fluoride Free Northern Rivers group say the Corndale plant that provides fluoridated water to Lismore and Goonellabah has broken down at least twice since it was commissioned in September last year.
They say documents obtained through Freedom of Information also indicate that overdose spikes had occurred at both the Clunes and Dorroughby plants, forcing emergency
similar leak appeared and fluoridation was again suspended for a number of weeks.’
Ms Connell said the breakdowns being experienced at northern rivers plants were also happening at other plants in Queensland and across New South Wales.
‘For example not only are there malfunctions, the Casino plant has now broken down over ten times in the last three years.
‘Rous Water has failed it’s duty of care by not giving any public warning to residents who may have received an overdose of fluoride in their potable water supply.
‘It is only through our vigilance by water testing and obtaining information that the extent of this cover up is coming to light.’
See extract in Resources
A Press Release from Massey University
Is community water fluoridation cost effective?
New research from Massey University shows community water fluoridation remains cost effective, despite an overall reduction in the average number of decayed teeth in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
The paper, A cost effectiveness analysis of community water fluoridation in New Zealand, recently published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, was written by senior analyst Caroline Fyfe and Professor Barry Borman from Massey’s Centre for Public Health Research, with co-authors Dr Guy Scott and Dr Stuart Birks from the School of Economics and The study updates the last economic analysis of community water fluoridation, published by Wright et.al. in 2001 and used national data on difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. It found community water fluoridation (CWF) was most cost effective in larger communities but also that the intervention remained cost effective even in smaller communities (of under 5,000 people).
New Zealand was one of the first countries to adopt community water fluoridation to lower rates of dental decay. Results from early trials found children born and raised in fluoridated areas had, on average, 50 per cent less dental decay than children from non-fluoridated areas. Today approximately 56 per cent of New Zealanders have access to fluoridated water.
In Massey’s latest study, researchers found communities with a higher risk of dental decay – for example, those with a high level of economic deprivation or those with a higher proportion of Māori ethnicity – benefited most from community water fluoridation.
Caroline Fyfe says the team gathered information on the costs of installing and running CWF by sending out questionnaires to local authorities fluoridating their water supplies. “We used data from the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey to calculate cost savings from reduced demand for dental treatments. The cost effectiveness of CWF per decayed tooth prevented was compared to an alternative of treating a decayed tooth. Cost effectiveness was also compared between communities of different population sizes.”
Overall, CWF was deemed a cost effective public health intervention despite a reduction in the average number of decayed teeth in all communities over time.
As expected, Fluoride Free New Zealand campaigners were quick off the mark
Jan 14 Massey University analyst Caroline Fyfe and Massey University Professor, Barry Borman have recently published a paper in the New Zealand Medical Journal which claims that fluoridation is cost effective In New Zealand. We believe the analysis was poorly conducted and failed to consider some of the most basic aspects. Therefore we have sent the authors the following letter:
Dear Caroline Fyfe and Professor Barry Borman
It is with disappointment that we read your paper just published in the New Zealand Medical Journal about the cost of water fluoridation. We hope that you can re-evaluate this analysis using more appropriate and extensive data, which are readily available.
Our first concern is your oversight in using the highly inappropriate New Zealand 2009 Oral Health Survey to calculate the difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. This survey clearly states that it was not designed to be used as a study on dental health and fluoridation, as it was taken as a snap-shot in time without consideration of where children had lived their entire lives.
The publication states:
“It is important to note that it was not one of the objectives of the 2009 NZOHS to compare the oral health status of people by fluoridation status, and therefore the survey cannot be taken as a fluoridation study. The following results are a snapshot in time and constitute an ecological analysis based on current place of residence. As such they do not take into account lifetime exposure to fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies. Individuals who currently live in fluoridated areas may have spent time in non-fluoridated areas, and the reverse is also true. Furthermore, there may be other confounding factors that haven’t been taken into account.”
While it may have been valid for the Ministry of Health to take a snap-shot in time, had they been looking at a large population, this was not the case this time. This survey only contained about 60 people in each age group. In comparison, the New Zealand School Dental statistics that are collected every year, and freely available on the MoH website, have about 45,000 children in each age group.
Therefore, it would be appropriate for you to re-evaluate your analysis using the NZ School Dental statistics or looking at New Zealand studies completed over the past ten years; Mackay and Thomson 2005, Schluter 2008, Kanagarathnum 2009.
Our second criticism of your analysis is that you have neglected to calculate the cost of covering the permanent dental fluorosis for 40% of New Zealand’s children, which is an epidemic. In addition to the New Zealand studies mentioned above, the recent Cochrane Review, Water Fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, the UK Government’s York Review and others have found that fluoridation seriously increases the amount of children with some level of dental fluorosis. As the NZOHS itself states, it cannot be used to ascertain the differences in dental health between fluoridated and non fluoridated areas, which includes fluorosis assessment.
The Cochrane Fluoridation Review estimated that approximately 40% of the population had some form of dental fluorosis when consuming water fluoridated at 0.7ppm (parts per million). Of the entire population, they estimated that 12% had fluorosis that affected appearance, which can affect self-esteem and life outcomes (including employment). At very least, the basic cost of repairing this external permanent damage to teeth needs to be calculated as part of cost analysis of water fluoridation.
Your analysis failed to include the huge costs of promoting and defending fluoridation. The now defunct National Fluoridation Information Service cost New Zealand tax payers $1,000,000 per year for the three years it was running. The cost of the Hamilton and Hastings referenda were reported as $50,000 for each respective District Health Board. Several other DHBs across NZ have spent large sums in fluoridation propaganda campaigns in the past five years.
Nor does your analysis make any mention of the cost of the mounting list of other adverse health effects of consuming fluoridated water. An estimate of fluoridated water’s contribution to hypothyroidism treatment would be a worthy inclusion, apart from all the other unknown costs of other adverse health effects.
Finally, we consider an analysis of the Ko and Thiessen Critique of Recent Economic Evaluations of Community Water Fluoridation, published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health in 2014 is another necessary inclusion.
We would appreciate if you would please respond to these criticisms.
Resources Reports, Reviews,Comments
1 More from the Wakefield Express
Reply from SWIS
Safe drinking water concerns us all – it is an essential requirement for life.
The promoters of fluoride in Wakefield will no doubt accuse Joy Warren and other opponents of ‘scaremongering.’ Yet, wherever you look, the case against fluoridation on grounds of safety is strong. In 2015 three separate research projects have linked fluoride in water at levels similar to that proposed, to reduced IQ in children; to ADHD; and to hypothyroidism. A further scientific review classed fluoride as a neurotoxin.
As for efficacy, a report by the highly respected Cochrane group confirmed an earlier government sponsored report that there is no statistically impeccable proof that drinking water with sodium fluoride or hydrofluorosilicic acid improves dental health. Another statistical study thoroughly debunked claims of ‘savings being made for every $ spent’ on schemes such as that proposed.
‘Community water fluoridation’ is an idea originated in the U.S. and there is still more fluoridated water consumed there than in all the rest of the world put together. In Europe, only Ireland has a large scale fluoridation programme and this is currently being strongly challenged.
Its origins were a very well funded public relations stunt to improve the image of a dangerous industrial waste product and most of the promoters of the process now rely on ‘endorsements’ from organisations that have done no original research.
Finally, the proposal is not just about health – fluoridation is an issue of human rights. We have a right to decide what we should put into our own bodies. Adding any substance, supposedly for our benefit, to water we have to drink, makes it a medicine. This is a medicine whose dose we cannot control, and which we cannot avoid. No doctor would be allowed to prescribe such a process and we cannot allow a local authority, however well meaning, to do so
Note: SWIS comments to letters usually have the username ‘aktivulo’ ( It’s Esperanto for ‘activist’ )
Some more comments, the first from Joy Warren, who submitted the report referred to in the Express news item.
Dear Randy Johnson/Steve D Slott/Johnny Johnson and all busy pro-fluoridationists the other side of the Pond: I speak to the truth. I understand the rules of biochemistry.
Authorities cited by pro-fluoridationists have written that “fluoride penetrates the cells” (WHO) and “fluoride crosses the placenta” (SCHER). Aluminium and lead are rendered more destructive in the presence of fluoride in the body. Biochemists have stated that fluoride distorts hydrogen bonds. This has the effect of distorting the shape of proteins. Distorted proteins can no longer create their normal product. Such distorted proteins appear as alien to the immune system and the resultant inflammation causes illness.
You can quote all the safe and effective evidence that you want to, but nothing can alter the basic rules underlying the way in which our bodies react to foreign substances. The fluoride anion is not benevolent. The fluoride anion is an avid bone seeker. The fluoride anion is a developmental neurotoxin. The fluoride anion causes Dental Fluorosis which is a “manifestation of systemic toxicity” (Hansard 2014/99: WA 158). The fluoride anion causes weakened enamel in Permanent Teeth (and sometimes in deciduous teeth).
And yes, there is a long list of diseases which are caused as a result of an overload of fluoride bio-accumulating in the body because fluoride is a broad spectrum poison. Then, when you consider the ingredients in the fluoridating acid which was a hazardous waste before it was sold to the fluoridating water companies, we learn that several toxins and heavy metals are deliberately added to our water supply.
They’re in minute concentrations, I agree, but no-one has the right to deliberately add arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury and aluminium, etc. to my drinking water on the pretext that fluoride might possibly prevent dental decay in the mouths of children living miles away from me. I have the right to refuse to drink such contaminated water and no-one has the right to insist that I drink it.
Case histories and peer reviewed research shows that fluoride can cause harm even at low levels. Some people can experience toxicity symptoms from drinking fluoridated water or using fluoride tablets. Symptoms include neurological problems, headaches, skin irritation, gastrointestinal pain, and symptoms (Waldbott 1956, 1958, Feltman 1956, Feltman and Kosel 1961, Grimbergen 1974, Petraborg 1977, Spittle 2008,). Patients were often unaware that their drinking water contained fluoride. Symptoms improved with avoidance of fluoridated water and returned with consumption of fluoridated water or with experimental challenge with fluoride and confirmed by double blind testing
Doctors aren’t trained to suspect fluoride, so patients may be treated for side effects when all that is needed, is avoidance of fluoridated water. These side effects experienced by some people at low levels are the same as those that are experienced by most people at high levels of exposure indicating that the symptoms are toxicity or poisoning symptoms.(Confirmed in the Physicians’ Desk Reference)
This makes sense when you consider that the fluoride ion is more toxic than lead and only slightly less lethal than arsenic (Clinical Toxicology of Commercial products, LD50 data – 1984), yet only 10 ppb (0.01 ppm) maximum is allowed for lead and arsenic in our drinking water. Now with fluoridation they are adding 700 to 1000 ppb (0.7 to 1.0 ppm) fluoride ion. There are going to be problems. Fluoride is the active ingredient in many rat poisons and insecticides.
The Feltman and Kosel study was published in the Journal of Dental Medicine and
received funding from the US Public Health Service, Department of Health
Education and Welfare, Washington DC.
“Fluorine and fluorides can act as direct cellular poisons by interfering with calcium metabolism and enzyme mechanisms.” (Handbook of Poisoning: Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment, 11th Edition, 1983.)
“Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide … it is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses.” (James B. Patrick, Ph.D., antibiotics research scientist.)
“Yes, fluoride is an (enzyme) inhibitor. You are right in the implication that when it comes to certain patients, it is important that they do not have fluoride in the water.” (Dr. Harold Loe, National Institute of Dental Research, to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 1989.)
Yes. Fluoridation causes a dramatic increase in bone cancer in young men. Dr. William Marcus, Senior scientist at the Office of Drinking Water, won over $250,000 from a whistle blower’s law suit against the Environmental Protection Agency over the fluoridation cancer connection. He was fired in 1990 for telling the truth about fluoride and calling for an independent review board. (See 1-6: “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation”).
“In point of fact, fluorine causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.” (Dean Burk, Ph.D. former head of the National Cancer Institute’s cytochemistry section chief chemist emeritus at the U.S. National Institute.)
Studies show cancers increase by 5% when fluoride is added to the community drinking water. We can expect in the area of 10,000 fluoridation-linked cancer deaths yearly; in other words, over 500,000 people, alive today, can expect to die of a fluoridation-linked cancer unless something is done to stop fluoridation in the U.S. (See 22-2: “Update on Fluoride and Cancer,” by John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D., testimony delivered to a Congressional Committee, Sept. 21, 1977).
In 1992, the New Jersey State Department of Health released the results of a study which found six times more bone cancer among males under the age of 20 living in communities with fluoridated water. (“A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and the Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males” by Perry D. Cohn, Ph.D. M.P.H.Environmental Health Service, New Jersey Department of Health, Nov. 8, 1992.
“In San Francisco there has been a 400% increase in thyroid cancer during the period that the city has had fluoridated drinking water.” (New England Journal of Medicine, 1955, 253/2 (45-51).)
Letter to Rutland, Vermont paper by Paul Connett
No justification for fluoride. Let me introduce myself. I lived for two years in Vermont while I was obtaining my Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College. I joined the faculty of St. Lawrence University in New York state in 1983, and in 1985 I was invited to debate the issue of municipal waste incineration by Vermont Law School. The debate was held in Rutland, and at the conclusion of the debate citizens from five states formed a coalition, which eventually became Work on Waste USA, which I directed.
My involvement in waste battles has taken me to 49 states and 65 different countries and brought me to Rutland many times. It also changed the focus of my teaching from biochemistry to environmental chemistry and toxicology.
In 1996, my wife persuaded me to look at fluoridation. I had avoided getting involved with this debate because I did not want to be stigmatized as “loony tunes” by my colleagues.
What I learned on that day in July 1996 turned me around.
As a chemist, I had assumed that citizens had confused fluorine, the most reactive element in the periodic table with the compounds it forms with other elements called “fluorides.” But they hadn’t. While the fluoride ion is fairly unreactive chemically, it is very active biologically. It inhibits enzymes and forms complexes with many metal ions, which are crucial for biochemical function.
But what struck me most was that through all the twists and turns of evolution, starting in the sea where the level of fluoride is 1.4 parts per million, very little fluoride has ended up in mothers’ milk (0.004 ppm). Why on Earth — if dentists were correct that babies needed fluoride for healthy teeth — did nature provide so little to the new-born baby? It seems reasonable that nature is protecting the baby from this toxic substance during its early development. Fluoridation removes that protection: A bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated community gets about 200 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. That makes fluoridation a reckless practice in my view.
I have actively campaigned against fluoridation for more than 20 years. I have spoken on the issue in Brattleboro, Bennington, Burlington and Randolph. In 2010, with two other retired professors, I co-authored a book, “The Case Against Fluoride” (Chelsea Green). Based on what I have found I would like to comment on some of the arguments offered by proponents in your paper (Rutland Herald, Feb. 8, 2015).
Dr. Sarah Vose, the state’s toxicologist said “there was no currently accepted evidence that fluoridation causes negative health effects.” But how can she deny the weight of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic? There have been more than 300 animal and human studies that indicate this is so (www.FluorideAction.net/issues/health/brain). This includes 49 studies reporting a lowering of IQ in children. In one Chinese study (Xiang, 2003) the authors found IQ was lowered somewhere between 0.75 and 1.5 ppm, which leaves no margin of safety to protect children drinking artificially fluoridated water (0.7 and 1.2 ppm) in the United States.
Unfortunately, health authorities in the U.S. have shown little interest in replicating these findings. Thus claiming no evidence of harm when you don’t even bother to look, rings very hollow. This situation may change when the National Toxicology Program reviews the issue as it is planning to do.
Knowing the steps being taken to limit children’s exposure to lead because it is “neurotoxic,” it is shocking that health officials in Vermont should show such little concern about the deliberate — and unnecessary — exposure of children to neurotoxic fluoride via the drinking water.
Vaughn Collins, executive director of the Vermont State Dental Society, says fluoridation is “especially important for children,” but children from low-income families are the last children who need to have their IQ lowered.
Dr. Richard Venmar, a dentist from Barre, said, “From the perspective of a dental health professional, it’s a no-brainer.” Unfortunately, far too many professionals only got one side of this debate at dental school, and many are far too busy to catch up with the literature today. In fact, the literature on the benefits of fluoridation was recently reviewed by the highly respected UK Cochrane review team (2015) and they reported, there were no high-quality studies indicating 1) that when fluoridation was halted tooth decay increased, or 2) that fluoride lowered tooth decay in adults or 3) that fluoride reduced disparities among children from different economic groups. Cochrane found some studies showed some benefit to children’s teeth but these were considered of little relevance today because they pre-dated the widescale use of fluoridated toothpaste.
I urge citizens to do everything they can to end this well-intentioned but outdated practice. The small benefits, if any, do not warrant the risks being taken when there are far safer ways of delivering fluoride to the surface of the teeth. Nor does it warrant forcing people to ingest this toxic substance when they would prefer not to do so.
Paul Connett is professor emeritus of environmental chemistry at St. Lawrence University, 104 Walnut Street, Canton, N.Y.
Australian comments from Jan 13 article by Echonet ( see News)
Robyn Sparks says: I live in Ballina and since Ballina’s water has been fluoridated I have been experiencing headaches and a general feeling of being tired and unwell. Generally I am full of energy and never have headaches. As I like to drink water, and drink quite a lot of water as I work out regularly and play sport, am I being adversely effected by this toxin?
Also, what mechanisms do the Councils have in place to evaluate the effectiveness of fluoride in our water? Have they collected pre fluoride statistics to compare with post fluoride statistics in our region?
David McRae says:Robyn Sparks’ experience of headaches and tiredness is very typical of a proportion of people’s response to fluoridated water. It was described very well in medical journals in the USA in the early years of introducing fluoridation there. For reasons too twisted and complicated to go into here, medical organisations in the US (and in Australia) eventually came on board and began issuing and endless stream of propaganda about water fluoridation being completely safe. But it never has been safe and there is always a proportion of people who react badly to it. Very few doctors are up on the subject and they fail to point their patients in the right direction. Robyn will now have to get an alternative supply of proper, clean water for cooking, drinking and possibly bathing if she wants to stay well.
If Rous Water would alert users that this reaction is a possibility, and if doctors were properly educated about it you would find something between 2 and 5 per cent of people in Ballina suffering symptoms of fluoride toxicity.
Pete says:Robyn,Do a search for “Fluoride Fatigue” by Bruce Spittle – it’s a free ebook that documents case studies of adverse effects from fluoridated water on people and animals. Headaches and fatigue are well known side-effects even listed in the Physicians Desk Reference.
Further symptoms include neurological problems, headaches, skin irritation, gastrointestinal pain, and symptoms (Waldbott 1956, 1958, Feltman 1956, Feltman and Kosel 1961, Grimbergen 1974, Petraborg 1977, Spittle 2008,). Patients were often unaware that their drinking water contained fluoride. Symptoms improved with avoidance of fluoridated water and returned with consumption of fluoridated water or with experimental challenge with fluoride and confirmed by double blind testing. Doctors aren’t trained to suspect fluoride, so patients may be treated for side effects when all that is needed, is avoidance of fluoridated water.
The Feltman and Kosel study was published in the Journal of Dental Medicine and received funding from the US Public Health Service, Department of Health Education and Welfare, Wash
kate green says:The fact that fluoride affects the thyroid gland Chris Price cannot be denied due to it being used to treat overactive thyroid glands with fluoride back in the fifties.It had the effect of reducing thyroid function,therefore making people hypothyroid,low metabolism,weight gain,fatigue .Its actually refered to as an auto immune disease where the body starts attacking its self.The doctors prescribe thyroxine for this which is the no 1 best selling drug in the USA,but its not recommended because it only replaces t4 and the body requires t3 as well as t4 for proper thyroid function.Some people have had good results by giving up gluten,but raw food,including lots of greens,some seaweed for iodine and things like that can be helpful and a good naturopath.
The thing about not being forced to drink the poison is fine except if you don’t own your own home you don’t have much of a choice,no tank.Landlords often don’t have your health at heart,especially housing commission houses or caravan parks,as usual the poorest in the community suffer.
So,at the end of the day,when they cut your head open to examine your pineal gland,what will they find?… an organ that was never used due to calcification by a person in a fluoridated area or a healthy specimen in a fully functioning human body that sleeps,dreams,gets messages from the universe to guide them,can meditate,has love for their fellow human beings and compassion,all the aspects working basically,unlike how they are trying to make us now,for some hidden agenda possibly stopping us evolving to the next level of conciouseness.
Jan 5 From George Pinnell via Ann Wills
Thanks to George Pinnell for sending the website address below & the article below. It shows that it is very simplistic of dental authorities to say that if a child gets dental fluorosis – staining & mottling of their teeth from fluoridation, that they can have veneers fitted. The article below states the pain & the need for replacement of veneers after a few years for some patients. Ann.
This shows the devastating effect of veneers. Has anyone got the typical, lifetime costs of dental veneers for someone afflicted with dental fluorosis? – George.
Brutal truth the dentists DON’T tell you when they promise you a dazzling smile
- Leah got porcelain veneers 18 years ago at age 34, costing £4,000
- Dentist said she would need them if she wanted straight teeth for life
- Was never warned her teeth would be drilled to tiny, mis-shapen stumps
- New teeth were too short, too square, too thick and too dark
PUBLISHED: 22:14, 28 December 2015 | UPDATED: 08:17, 29 December 2015
Also available from SWIS, this is a horrifying tale of bad dentistry. Answering George’s question, my understanding of the accepted lifetime of veneers is: ten years.
Also from Ann
There’s quite a lot on the internet about fluoride & Larium & Prozac etc.
-Daily Telegraph 13.1.16 “MINISTRY OF DEFENCE APOLOGISE OVER ANTI-MALARIA DRUGS”: The Ministry of Defence has apologised after admitting it may have wrongly prescribed the anti-malaria drug Larium for troops. This move is described as “very significant” for the 100s who say they have been left ill by the drug. 1,000s of UK service personnel are said to have been left mentally ill after being given the drug. Side-effects from the once-a-week tablet – also called Mefloquine – include hallucinations, suicidal thoughts, depression & psychosis etc. It has been prescribed to more than 17,000 troops from 2007-2015. (My comment: Each molecule of mefloquine contains 6 fluoride ions & there is some concern about fluorine & violence. Prozac is another drug containing fluorine molecules & is also linked to suicide & violence. Larium was developed in the 1970s by the US army & has been prescribed for decades to people travelling to countries where there is malaria. The TV consumer programme “Watchdog” warned of Larium’s serious health dangers as long ago as 1995. Alternatives are available.) Ann
Blackpool’s ‘dental milk’
Reminder of the summary and conclusions of the Cochrane revierw and how it is possible to take two completely opposite views by choosing the right extract.
Ireland: Three years old, but the thread of over 300 comments includes some very well argued points. Look, for example, for Dan Germouse