Here are extracts fro the local paper of news up to the end of December, with the comments from the councillors and from the writers and talkers from the Freedom from Fluoride Alliance, SWIS and the locals.
Darlington Borough Council’s leading members voted to carry out a technical appraisal to inform possible consideration of a water fluoridation scheme across the borough or the Tees Valley.
The study will look at whether the water distribution network is able to support any potential fluoridation scheme and the potential impact on neighbouring areas.
The Cabinet meeting was told a technical appraisal had already been commissioned by Middlesbrough Borough Council on the behalf of NHS England and the other Tees authorities.
Councillor Chris Taylor, chair of the council’s Joint Review Group examining children’s health issues in the town, said the evidence of links between fluoride in water and lower incidences of dental decay in nearby towns had led to the move.
Councillor Cyndi Hughes, the council’s children and young people’s boss, added: “The fluoridation question came out of the information and evidence that far too many young people are admitted to hospital because of dental caries at very young ages, so this is coming from an evidence base already.”
Suggestions that the town’s water supply could be fluoridated have already drawn controversy, with campaigners questioning the safety of the mineral.
Councillor Heather Scott said: “It has got to be emphasised this is just a technical appraisal. Quite a few of us as councillors have already been receiving objections to it. That’s not what we’re talking about here, it’s just about finding the evidence.”
While the council would fund any water fluoridation programme, the cost of the technical appraisal, which is yet to be finalised, is being shared across all participating councils within the Tees Valley and NHS England. Funding has been earmarked from existing budgets and there is not expected to be an extra financial impact on Darlington council
Comment from Ann Wills:
I read your article ‘Study proposed over adding fluoride to water supply in Darlington or across Tees Valley’ (Echo, June 28))
The biggest fall in tooth decay is in non-fluoridated Scandinavia.
Scotland has cut tooth decay with its ‘Child Smile’ scheme where young children clean their teeth each day in school. Medication should be prescribed individually, not given to whole communities with no control over dosage received.
The chemical used in water fluoridation is fluorosilicic acid – toxic waste from phosphate fertiliser factory chimney scrubbers.
It’s contaminated with arsenic, mercury and lead etc. It isn’t pharmaceutical grade – unlike that used in toothpaste.
Fluoridation is old technology, as only one per cent of tap water is drunk – most of it is used for washing and by industry, so it’s mainly public money that is being flushed down the drain.
Ann Wills, Ruislip, Middlesex.
Dental decay is the most common chronic infectious disease of childhood. Increasing the fluoride concentrations in the water to the recommended amount reduces dental decay by 26 to 44%. Fluoride added to the water does not contain lead or arsenic. People drink tap water. Many European nations add fluoride to salt and to flour even if they do not add it to water. Much false information about the safety and efficacy of fluoridation is spread by a group of people who have interests in selling bottled water and in selling ‘natural’ products and originating in the United States. Please rely on information contained on government websites such as the National Health Service, the World Health Organization the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the Public Health Agency of Canada. These are RELIABLE sources of information. Children in Darlington and the Tess Valley could grow up with strong teeth resistant to dental decay.
actively Juliet Guichon 6th July
8th July 3:43 pm
A few notes from our side
The widely varying figures quoted are not supported by the studies evaluated by the statistically high standard survey carried out by York University in 2001, and more recently by the overall Cochrane review.
- Fluoride added is a dangerous acid derived from industrial process, highly toxic and at a strength that means around 6 mg added per litre of drinking water. There is no process to remove contaminants, and a statement by a water company proposing fluoridation in 2012 included lead, mercury, and six other contaminants.
- The best-informed group of fluoride opponents in the US is the Fluoride Action Network, with stated support of over 3 000 professionals. With material including indexed reporting of more than 50 recent studies of fluorides damage, their work should be seen on fluoridealert. They do not sell anything.
- Here for twenty arguments against fluoridation go here http://safewaterinformation.org/page-
- Fluoride has been rejected by 97% of European countries, and there is no compulsory addition of fluoride to salt. Statistics from W.H.O. show that the decrease in tooth decay over recent years was at least as great in countries that do not use fluoride.
Last Updated: 8th July from the Darlington & Stockton Times
Fluoridation inquiry is defended by Darlington Borough Council
Councillor Cyndi Hughes, Darlington Borough Council’s cabinet member for children and young people was quoted by Stuart Minting Local Democracy Reporter A COUNCIL’S move to examine the possible benefits of adding fluoride to the water supply has been defended, with a leading councillor claiming the authority would be “negligent” if it did not investigate the issue.
This excellent report followed
Campaigner Michael Watson told a meeting of Darlington Borough Council the authority was too financially stretched to afford to “waste vital resources” on “thoroughly old technology that has no significant effect” on tooth decay rates for children aged five to 17.
He said: “I note that Darlington Borough Council are committed to alleviate period poverty experienced by some schoolgirls in this borough, but the lure of mass medication could fatally compete with this laudable aim.”
Darlington resident Mr Watson told members US studies had shown children in areas with fluoridated water have higher levels of lead in their blood, while other research had concluded lead in teeth and bone can triple if fluoride and lead are present together.
He said: “Should this council press on with water fluoridation, the silico-fluorides which you will authorise have the potential to dissolve lead from the many, many miles of old service pipes in this borough, especially in the presence of ammonia and chlorine, both current treatment chemicals. It is important that baseline blood and urine tests for fluoride and lead are carried out on our children before any other decision is made.”
Councillor Cyndi Hughes replied that, the council had not made any financial contribution towards ending period poverty in the town and that all the council had agreed to was take part in a technical appraisal examining the possibility of fluoridating water in Darlington and across the Tees Valley.
Cllr Hughes said: “We agreed to this technical appraisal because we would be negligent in our duty if we didn’t explore the latest evidence available to protect our children from such possible procedures.
“This is not giving us, nor indeed or any of the Tees Valley authorities anything. It is simply investigating the possible benefits to the inhabitants of our sub-region. We are not rushing head-long into anything and we will certainly be bound by precautionary principle, expert scientific research and the views of the public before any decision is made.”
However, she told the council chamber that British Society of Paediatric Dentistry figures showed in 2014/15 there were 63,196 children’s hospital admissions for dental extractions and that dental caries was by far the most common reason for children aged five to nine to be admitted to hospital.
Dec 1: Northern Echo from Ann Wills following the Dec 1 article
And here is a complete series of comments.. It is now three months since the last. How would Slott have replied? Hmm
fortran 7th September Fluoride is poisonous in very large amounts but the concentration found in treated water is nowhere near high enough to be toxic. This has been shown by many, many tests over many years and the fact that people in areas with fluoride in the water aren’t keeling over and dying all the time.
Some anti-fluoride campaigners believe that fluoride builds up in the body over time, thereby reaching toxic levels. This is not true; fluoride is water-soluble and doesn’t stay in the body.
Joy.Warren 9th September Fortran is not talking sense. Of course fluoride builds up in the body, especially in the bones where it converts normal hydroxyapatite into fluorapatite. This was investigated and confirmed by Professor Faccinin in 1967 at Cambridge University This conversion is a well-known consequence of accumulating fluoride in the body. Anyone who drinks fluoride will never be the same again. Even at 1ppm, fluoride accumulates in bones, teeth and organs. No – we’re not keeling over and dying but are we experiencing optimum health? I very much doubt it. I live in fluoridated West Midlands and it seems that almost everyone I meet either has hypothyroidism or knows of someone who has the condition. In the 1930s, a fluoride compound was used with great success to dampen down over-active thyroid glands. Just imagine if the treatment went on for too long! Yes – that’s right: patients would have developed an under-active thyroid. Fortran – unless you can come up with substantive research which proves that drinking fluoride is safe, then can I suggest that your remain quiet on the topic?
fortran 9th September No, you’re a crank. Cherry-picking research from the 60s won’t help your cause. The research showing that fluoride in drinking water is safe is absolutely overwhelming. The fact that you had to pick that one study from 40 years ago speaks volumes.
“it seems that almost everyone I meet either has hypothyroidism or knows of someone who has the condition.”
Really? Really? No, not really. You’re lying.
Joy.Warren 9th September Of dear! Fortran: when you resort to calling names, you’ve lost the plot and the argument
fortran 10th September There’s no argument to lose. The science is settled. Many studies over many years have shown that fluoride in water is safe and has health benefits. By contrast, primary school chemistry shows that fluoride can’t accumulate in bones, organs, teeth, fingernails or anywhere else.
That’s why I called you a crank. You ignore hundreds of studies and fixate on the one you think strokes your ego. You really aren’t the lone crusader, you’re just another person ignorant of the research who feels it’s OK to mislead people about health.
Don’t do that.
Joy.Warren 10th September You’ll have to name one robust piece of primary research which proves that swallowing fluorine/fluoride is safe to do. We’ve tried to find this research but it’s nowhere on the planet. Freedom of Information requests to Health Canada and to Public Health England were unproductive. Those organisations couildn’t cite one piece of primary research. Saying that it’s safe doesn’t make it so. By the way, the main reason why fluoride is added to drinking water is so that it can accumulate in teeth. You’ve just said that it doesn’t. If you’re right, then there’s no reason to add it to drinking water. If you’re wrong then it accumulates in teeth and in bones and in organs.
fortran 10th September 4:28 pm: No. That’s not how it works.
Joy.Warren 10th September 4:57 pm: Please explain. How does ‘it’ work?
fortran 11th September 5:44 am: The vast consensus of evidence shows that fluoride in drinking water is safe. You’re the one making the extraordinary claim, you’re going to need extraordinary evidence that the scientific literature (which you falsely claim doesn’t exist) is wrong.
You really don’t even need to go further than Wikipedia or your favourite search engine to find links to research you say doesn’t exist anywhere in the world.
Your assertion that fluoride is added to water so that it can accumulate in teeth is completely incorrect. That isn’t how fluoride works to reduce tooth decay. It works because it causes low levels of dissolved fluoride in the saliva, which remineralises tooth enamel and forms an acid-resilient layer. The fluoride is then passed out in urine.
Last Updated: 11th September 5:44 am
Joy.Warren 11th September 3: The evidence in favour of Water Fluoridation is of low quality and is also not of a type suitable for being assigned to the top sectors of the evidence pyramid. Although there have been many systematic reviews, such reviews are only as good as their exclusion and inclusion criteria. As I’ve already stated, neither Health Canada nor Public Health England could quote any robust research to back their claim that drinking fluoride is safe. We have to assume that the two organisations made a thorough search of worldwide literature in order to support their pro-fluoridation policies. That search failed.
Are you really serious about interrogating Wikipedia? Granted that that website does have useful information but many of the pages on all sorts of controversial topics are heavily biased. As far as research engines are concerned, they provide information on research which is both in favour of WF and against WF. In particular, a piece of research this year from Iran has found a strong correlation between swallowed fluoride and hypothyroidism. This supports the University of Kents 2015 research which found that hypothyroidism diagnoses in fluoridated West Midlands was almost double of that diagnosed in non-fluoridated Greater Manchester. (Peckham et al, 2015; Zohreh et al, 2018)
The original theory in the 1940s in the USA was that fluoride strengthens the enamel pre-eruption via the root canal and dentine before proceeding to the enamel. How else do you think that dental fluorosis is caused? DF is damage to enamel by fluoride. The permanent damage begins and ends before the teeth erupt and NOT after they have erupted. This is ancient knowledge and no-one in the dental profession will claim that the staining and pitting of enamel due to fluoride takes place after eruption. Therefore, fluoride must deposit in teeth pre-eruption (as well as in bones and organs throughout life). Saliva would not be able to get anywhere near to teeth in their pre-eruptive stage
The preventative effect of decay by fluoride being deposited in pre-eruptive teeth is now regarded as being a minor mechanism and the British Fluoridation Society is on record as saying that its the fluoride in saliva which bathes the teeth day and night which hardens the enamel and prevents dental decay. First of all, I am not very happy that the saliva of toothless adults has to be poisoned by fluoride just so that small disadvantaged children can also have fluoride in their saliva. Secondly, small children only drink one-third of a litre of water per day and probably dont produce as much saliva as an adult over 24 hours. Since an adult has a mere 0.02 mg fluoride in one litre of saliva, can you hazard a guess as to how much fluoride is in the saliva of small disadvantaged children? No? Well, no-one knows because it would be difficult to remove for analysis the total saliva produced by a 3-year-old. Lets just say that it is going to be far less than 0.02 mg fluoride/litre saliva. The saliva theory pales into insignificance at this point. Sauerheber (2013) tells us that 0.02 mg fluoride has a 75,000 times lower concentration than in toothpaste at 1,500 ppm
However, even that minuscule amount of fluoride in saliva could be capable of binding to enamel and preventing tooth decay. But no. Enter Mitsuo Kakei and colleagues. Their research is entitled Aspects Regarding Fluoride Treatment for Reinforcement and Remineralization of Apatite Crystals and this paper can be found at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/25d7/20b60041afceebb272eda327dab8ece746fa.pdf . Here is the complete unaltered abstract:
“The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether fluoride (F) ions are really capable of the repair (remineralization) of damaged crystals and useful for reinforcing the quality (i.e. modify the crystal structure) of tooth enamel using transmission electron microscopy and Raman microprobe analysis. Additionally, carbonic anhydrase activity was measured in immature enamel tissue to compare the harmfulness of F ions to that of cadmium (Cd) ions during the process of crystal nucleation by means of differential gas pressure analysis. Electron micrographs indicated no signs of remineralization of artificially damaged crystals after incubation in a remineralizing solution and further revealed that treatment with acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel caused crystal dissolution rather than crystal improvement. Regarding crystal structure modification, Raman microprobe analysis revealed that no up-shift of PO4 3- 1 band assigned to human sound enamel crystals occurred when APF gel was used. Furthermore, fluorapatite crystals were not generated by daily intake of F ions in developing rat tooth enamel. A differential gas pressure method demonstrated that the harmfulness of F exposure during the nucleation process of calcified hard tissues was much greater than that of Cd exposure. These results demonstrate that F treatments have no effect on improving crystal quality or remineralization and are inconsistent with the purpose of public health.”
So there you have it fortran. By the way, why are you hiding behind a pseudonym?
Congratulations Joy! Fortran, from my past, is an early scientific-based computer language.
Don’t know if this helps.http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/Moms-2B-Draft-BW-Final.pdf