Reports and Resources
1 2017 Chilean review: fluoridation is ineffective & harmful. (Forwarded from FAN)
A team of experts from Chile–including doctors, biologists, a lawyer, a civil engineer, a toxicologist, an environmental expert, and a chemist–have published a damning review of water fluoridation in the Medical Journal of Chile, February 2017. The review was financed by the Medical College of Chile.
Chile is considered a pioneer in the fluoridation of drinking water, starting in 1953 when Curico was fluoridated. By 1958, nearly 60% of the country was fluoridated, and constant expansion has led to a current rate of 82.5%.
Despite the long history of national support for the practice, the article entitled, “Consequences of Fluoridation of Drinking Water on Human Health,” concludes that artificial fluoridation of drinking water and milk has not only been ineffective at reducing dental decay in children, but is likely harmful to health. According to the researchers:
“A) The effects of fluoride intake pose risks of various diseases in the asthmatic-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin systems. Dental and skeletal fluorosis are signs of chronic and excessive ingestion of fluoride.
- B) Infants, children and adolescents are at high risk of diseases due to over-intake of fluorides, through drinking water and / or fluoridated milk, as the deterioration of health is proportional to the dose and the time of exposure .
C) The fluoridation of drinking water does not significantly impact on caries prevention. For their effectiveness is rather a topical and non-systemic effect, as demonstrated by countries that do not fluoride drinking water, and do not use milk or fluoride salts, decreasing dental deterioration at the same rate as those that fluoride drinking water.”
The research team based their analysis on a review of all available studies that included control of confounding variables. They discuss fluoride’s ability to cause bone, thyroid, neurological, and skin damage. There is also in in-depth analysis of WHO data that shows, “fluoridation of drinking water and salts have no incidence at all in reducing dental [decay].”
There was also a brief discussion on the legal aspects of water fluoridation, which found the following:
“The fluoridation of drinking water in Chile forces citizens to involuntarly consume a chemical they do not require. For decade the majority of the Chilean population has been overexposed to this potentially unhealthy element, transgressing constitional guarantees.”
In response to their findings the research team made the following recommendations:
“ 1. To amend Decree No. 735 of November 7, 1969, updating it with Supreme Decree No. 131 of 2006, and the Regulations for Services for Human Consumption of 2007, to avoid fluoridation of drinking water and avoid fluoridation Of milk, in all regions of the country.
Prioritize the use of dental hygiene products containing the necessary, but minimal, amounts of fluoride to maintain dental health, strengthen education for better dental care and better nutrition.
Educate health and education professionals about the adverse consequences of fluoride intake.
To carry out epidemiological studies in Chile, to evaluate the adverse effects on health, through ingestion and use of fluorides, for decades.”
The whole study is here. Comprende español?
2 Debate FAN Senior Advisor and chemist, Paul Connett, PhD, was recently in Pennsylvania for a public debate against retired Florida dentist and fluoridation propagandist Johnny Johnson, DDS.
Watch the 90-minute debate.
3 New Fluorosis Video Also from FAN:
Fluorosis is a defect of tooth enamel -white spots, white streaks, cloudy splotches, brown stains, or pitting – caused by too much fluoride intake during the first 8 years of life, and in the U.S. fluorosis rates have increased by 600% in just the last 60 years.
To learn more, watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmM2Rrx0Vo
The members of the Greater Johnstown Water Authority’s board of directors voted unanimously Thursday afternoon to stop adding fluoride to the water that the authority supplies to customers.
Ed Cernic Sr., the chairman of the board, said after Thursday’s meeting that he was “very satisfied” with the outcome of the vote and that the board voted to end fluoridation largely because most of the public feedback it received on the practice was negative.
“We listened to the voice of the people,” Cernic said. “That’s how our board acts.”
According to an information sheet distributed to board members before Thursday’s vote, 84 GJWA customers responded last month to the authority’s request for public feedback on fluoridation.
Of those, 60 customers – just over 70 percent – wanted the authority to stop adding fluoride to the water, while the other 24 preferred the status quo.
Michael Kerr, the authority’s resident manager, said when the idea of ending fluoridation was first aired in May that the authority would save money by eliminating fluoride.
…Cernic said Thursday, however, that he doesn’t think cost reduction was “the motivating factor” behind the board’s vote. Instead, he pointed to two other factors – the fact that most water isn’t used for tooth-cleaning purposes, meaning the fluoride in that water goes to waste, and the availability of fluoride in products like toothpaste.
“The way people use fluoride now, in toothpaste and stuff, they get the same benefit out of toothpaste,” he said. “Most of the water going out with fluoride in it goes to car washes, doing something like that. It’s not necessarily input into your mouth.”
At a public meeting on May 30, two local dentists urged the authority to keep adding fluoride to the water. …Callahan and Little were two of 11 people who spoke in favor of fluoridation at May’s public meeting; 13 people spoke against the practice at the same meeting. In the weeks after the meeting, though, the authority received 30 phone calls and 17 letters calling on it to remove fluoride from the water – compared to just seven phone calls and six letters urging it to continue fluoridation.
Cernic said many of the anti-fluoridation partisans told the authority that, if they want to use fluoride, they can get it on their own….“We have to use up the fluoride that’s in the tanks now, use it up, and then … we’ll cease putting fluoride in it,” Cernic said.
As required by the state Department of Environmental Protection, Thursday’s vote was taken after the authority notified the public that it was considering ending fluoridation and held a hearing to receive public feedback on the issue
…. The Greater Johnstown Water Authority serves an estimated population of 52,657 including the City of Johnstown (19,712), and other towns and boroughs in Cambria County
Seven opponents of fluoridation appealed at Wednesday’s Meadville City Council meetingt during the public comment portion of the meeting, calling for action from council members who declared their lack of authority on the matter, as they have done repeatedly in the past.
“Don’t force it on the community,” Anne Furno told the council. “I hope other people get angry about this subject because it’s so important.” “We live in America still, don’t we?” Furno added.
The MAWA board voted 3-2 in favor of fluoridation at a special meeting on June 14. MAWA is currently working on the design for the required equipment and is coordinating a pre-permit meeting with the state Department of Environmental Protection, according to Thomas Thompson, MAWA consulting engineer. ….
While Christopher Knapp, leader of the Clean Water Meadville anti-fluoridation group. acknowledged that council members did not have the authority to approve or reject fluoridation, he insisted that they could take action on the issue.
“Your hands are not tied,” he told the council. “We’re looking for leadership. Leadership doesn’t say, ‘There’s nothing we can do.’ There are things you can do.”
Knapp was also one of several fluoridation opponents who suggested that the MAWA board’s decision was unduly influenced by “special interests” and failed to adequately consider public opinion.
Opponents criticized the fact that a decision which will affect more than 15,000 people was made by the three board members who voted in favor of fluoridation.
… Among the speakers voicing strong opposition to the MAWA board before the fluoridation vote on June 14 was Matteo (Matt) Rachocki, chief executive officer of Voodoo Brewery Co.
“We would have to invest in a rather expensive reverse osmosis filtration system initially plus maintenance annually to remove that (fluoride) from our products, which we do not want in our products,” Rachocki told the board.
Voters will get another chance to decide on water fluoridation in Petersburg this October. The borough’s deputy clerk Mindy Swihart this month certified signatures on a petition to vote on fluoride in Petersburg’s water supply Dana Thynes (DAN-uh TEE-ness lives on Kupreanof but has a music studio on the borough’s water system in Petersburg. She helped collect signatures for the petition this spring.
“Yes I actually carried my petition with me everywhere I went,” she said. “Sometimes I’d go in the grocery store. That’s not easy to do but I feel strongly about this.”
Thynes and other fluoride opponents think it should be a personal choice and are concerned with health effects from ingesting too much.
“We don’t really know how much fluoride we’re ingesting every day,” Thynes said. “… Some people drink a lot, some people don’t drink very much. And then what about cooking pasta and rice and potatoes in that fluoridated water. And then something people forget about is swimming, bathing, showering where you absorb fluoride through the skin…Thynes calls fluoride a “poison” and feels strongly enough about it that she will try again next year if the effort to end fluoridation is not successful this year.
…Voters here approved adding fluoride to the water in 1986 and voted to keep it in the water in 1998. The margin that year was nearly 200 votes. ..Public works director Karl Hagerman says the borough adds granular sodium fluoride to the water, costing the borough just under 4500 dollars a year… The borough this summer will be producing a rochure on the topic, along with other information about the treatment process and testing. It’s one of two citizens’ initiatives that will be on the ballot in October along with a vote
More Fluoride-Free Victories reported by FAN
Battlefield, Missouri (June 21)– The water district board voted unanimously to end fluoridation for the town of 6,000 due to corrosion caused by the chemical, and because of the availability of safer and more effective alternatives to reduce decay. The dental lobby and regional health officials who have received grants to promote the practice have vowed to fight the vote, despite the significant health risks to residents, the water infrastructure, and water employees.
Nipawin, Saskatchewan (July 13)– After months of consideration and a presentation by public health administrators, the Mayor and Council in Nipawin, Saskatchewan (pop. 4,401) voted 4-1 to reject a proposal by the Saskatchewan medical health officer to fluoridate the drinking water. As one councilor said, “It’s not our job to supply medication.” The Mayor also voted against the proposal because she felt the decision should be made by residents via a ballot referendum, not by councilors.
POTSDAM — The village may consider discontinuing fluoridation of the water supply, in part depending on the results of a study they hope to conduct.
…Before a decision to fix the 35-year-old equipment is made, the village wants to conduct a study of its condition.
…Perhaps the most prominent proponent of the local anti-fluoride effort is Dr. Paul Connett, whose authority is bolstered by his experience teaching chemistry and toxicology at St. Lawrence University for 23 years.
Since leaving SLU, he has been executive director of the Fluoride Action Network and has written extensively on the topic, including as author of “50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation.” That work has been called an unreliable source, perhaps most notably by Terence W. Cuttress, an Australian academic who has challenged Connett’s “50 Reasons” on grounds that it is not a thorough review of research, as Connett claims, but a carefully selected compendium of criticism of fluoridation….
Tasmania was the first state in the country to put fluoride into drinking water, back in 1953, with the purpose of helping to keep teeth strong.
At present it is the Government who makes the decision on whether fluoride is added to the state’s drinking water.
But Kentish Council Mayor Don Thwaites said they wanted that decision to be handed over to councils. “The motion is that councils be allowed to have a vote on whether they want fluoride added to the public water supply or not in their area,” he said.
“It’s not about whether fluoride should be added or not, we believe that that’s a debate that can happen after it’s decided whether we can actually have a vote on the subject or not.” Mr Thwaites said the decision came out of a response to concerns from the community, expressed to them by councillors.
The issue of water fluoridation will be discussed at a statewide meeting of Tasmanian councils later this month.