1. Letter in Sonama Gazette 1 by Mariene Lily Rethinking Water Fluoridation for the Economically Disadvantaged
Aisling Fitzgibbon, The Girl Against Fluoride, speaks at the Fluoride Action Network conference September…. Video 28 min..
By Marlene Lily
Our public health officials claim water fluoridation is an effective way to prevent the high rates of tooth decay now found in low-income children. Here are four problems with this idea:
1) There are oral health crises in low-income areas that have been fluoridated for decades. Fluoridation has not prevented low-income neighborhoods from suffering what numerous state and local health officials describe as a crisis. It is unclear, therefore, how fluoridation can be expected to alleviate the alleged oral health crisis in Sonoma County when it has failed to prevent such crises in areas that have been fluoridated for 30 to 60 years.
2) Published studies have repeatedly found that fluoridation does not prevent the type of tooth decay – baby bottle tooth decay (BBTD) – that is one hallmark of the current local oral health crisis. Photos used (deceptively) by County Health Department employees to emphasize the urgent need for fluoridation are almost always photos of BBTD. Only education can prevent BBTD. Fluoridation will have no effect.
3) The Centers for Disease Control say that fluoride works topically – so there is no reason for ingesting it.
4) Evidence of disproportionate harm to communities of color turns on its head the notion that fluoridation is a benefit to the economically disadvantaged. In fact, it is the poor who are most harmed by fluoride, suffering higher rates of dental fluorosis, as well as the other health effects of fluoride, especially diabetes and asthma. Poor diet results in more tooth decay and more harm from fluoride.
Fluoridation Is Not Dental Care
The addition of cheap industrial hazardous waste to the water supply has never been, and will never be, a substitute for dental care. If we really care about the oral health of our children we should put our money into dental care, hygiene, and nutrition education, free toothbrush/toothpaste programs, fluoride varnishes for those who need them most, and reduced sugar intake.
Among the groups often listed as supporting fluoridation is the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO does favor fluoridation. But what is often ignored by proponents is the WHO’s precautionary caveat that water fluoridation programs should not be started unless the municipality/water authority has conducted prior tests on residents to establish their total daily fluoride intake from all sources of food and beverage and environmental exposures.
The Board of Supervisors and the Department of Health services has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on an Engineering Report and water fluoridation promotion without allocating a single dime to determine whether the children of Sonoma County may already be ingesting an “optimal” or greater-than-optimal amount of fluoride.
More than 40 years ago, before southern Marin County was fluoridated, John Lee, M.D., did a study of children’s diets to determine fluoride intake. Simultaneously, another group studied the fluoride in the urine of Marin teenagers.
Both studies revealed that Marin county children were ingesting more than enough fluoride without water fluoridation. Lee reported his findings in the Journal of Western Medicine: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129768/
Some 22,000 tons of fluoride-containing pesticides and fungicides are sprayed on Sonoma County crops each year, and some of that is absorbed from the air by local residents. In addition, the fluoride content of foods and beverages has markedly increased since the 1970s. And each brushing with fluoride toothpaste results in the absorption of about 1 mg. of fluoride. So it would only make sense for the Sonoma County Department of Health Services to test local children before recommending water fluoridation. Why has no one in the DHS thought of this?
According to the Centers for Disease Control, 41 per cent of American children now suffer from dental fluorosis, the visible sign of systemic fluoride poisoning incurred before the age of eight. The rate is much higher for African Americans and Latinos.
When fluoridation began in the 1940s, its advocates stated that a maximum rate of 10 per cent of children getting “mild” dental fluorosis would be an “acceptable” trade-off for decay reduction. Now, in some areas, 17 per cent of African-American teens have “severe” dental fluorosis—where the teeth show dark stains and pitting and decay is difficult to repair. A new study has linked dental fluorosis to reduced IQs, and a Harvard scientist is asking whether “prevention of chemical brain drain should be considered at least as important as protection against caries.” braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/
It has never been established that fluoride is a necessary nutrient. There are no bodily processes that require fluoride, and many people living in areas with no fluoride in their water or diets have excellent teeth. Oral health depends on a nutritious diet, adequate dietary minerals, especially calcium and magnesium, Vitamin D, and a lack of sugar.
Before adding a toxin to our water to reduce tooth decay in poor children, shouldn’t we find out if those children may already be getting enough or too much fluoride from their diets and environment?
Sonoma Gazette Jan 1
The president of the IDA (Irish Dental Association) and three Deans of dentistry go onto claim that fluorosis is caused by small children eating fluoridated toothpaste while living in fluoridated
|1 January 20:48|
Wishing those on both sides of the current fluoridation debate in Ireland a great year for 2015 and just to thank all for their ongoing support for the Fluoride Free Towns Project, other campaigns and public health activists around the country that are currently involved with national effort. Just a few months back, prominent members of the dental profession in Ireland released a joint position statement which was widely disseminated by media outlets across the country. Interestingly enough, the statement was printed by the Irish Times on the day Dublin City Council passed a motion calling on the Government to scrap The Health (fluoridation of water supplies) Act 1960 which was one of five major Councils representing 1,500,000 people (a third of the population!) across the country to do so in 2014. This obvious attempt by leading members of the dental profession in our country to influence the vote thankfully failed and Councillors in both Cork City and Kerry went onto also pass similar motions just weeks afterwards. The position statement however omitted to mention that the prevalence and occurrence of cosmetic and structural pre eruption damage (fluorosis) to the teeth of infants and children throughout the country between 1984 and 2002 increased by some 700%. The president of the IDA (Irish Dental Association) and three Deans of dentistry go onto claim that fluorosis is caused by small children eating fluoridated toothpaste while living in fluoridated regions??????????????????????????????????????? It would be great if these patrons of dental health in Ireland could explain to the public why then if their position on fluorosis is true, how come then that the baby or primary teeth of infants are erupting with fluorosis when infants with no teeth obviously haven’t been secretly swiping mouthfuls of fluoridated toothpaste behind their parent’s backs!!!!!!! In consideration of the joint position statement BLAMING fluoridated toothpaste as responsible for cosmetic and structural pre eruption damage to teeth (fluorosis), it’s both interesting and revealing that dentists currently visiting school children in Cork, Kerry and Dublin on behalf of the Oral Health Services Research Centre, University College Cork, the Health Research Board, the HSE and the Department of Health for the FACCT Study to ascertain dental health and specifically, fluorosis levels, are sending children home with free tubes of, COLGATE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE?????????? Which they claim in the Irish Times article is responsible for the very damage they allege, they are trying to reduce and is the very reason fluoride levels in public water supplies across the country were slightly reduced in 2007. Medical authorities advise the lethal dose of fluoride for a 2-year-old, 22-pound child, is 320 milligrams or more than two full tubes of toothpaste. However, a 22-pound child can suffer from fluoride poisoning at doses as low as 1 milligram a pea size amount of fluoride. Acute fluoride poisoning symptoms can include abdominal pain, convulsions, diarrheal, drooling, eye irritation if placed on eye, headache, heart attack, irregular heartbeat, nausea, shallow breathing, slow heartbeat, tremors, vomiting and weakness. Finally, the authors also seem to be unaware of the fact and contrary to what they state, is that levels of dental decay in the second half of the 20th century in countries across the world have reduced at similar rates irrespective of whether a country chooses public water fluoridation or not. In the interests of improving public health, securing Ireland’s very valuable food and drinks economy, upholding the Irish Constitution and attaining decent levels of human rights for the people of Ireland in the 21st century, here’s to all concerned achieving a fluoride free Ireland in 2015 or the near future. P.S. If you want to share this article and post, you have to copy and paste the text above before you share. Cheers.
Owen Boydon in FORG. Jan 1
The Devil’s Poison: How fluoride is killing you Paperback – July 11, 2008
Fluoride and fluoridation will go down as one of the greatest controversies of the 20th century. Up until the early 1940’s, fluorine’s effect on life was always deemed poisonous. It was proven to be altering enzymes used by living organisms to carry out a multitude of essential processes. Fluorine, the most reactive element on the planet, is also the strongest free radical. Scientists in the 1930’s and 1940’s experimented with this element to create the most deadly nerve gasses, rocket fuel, and radioactive U235 for the bomb. As a wood preservative, rodentcide and insecticide, fluorine compounds are second to none. As an Orthodontist, I began investigating the increasingly prevalent lines and spots that I saw on the enamel of children. Like rings on a tree, they indicate excessive fluorine exposure. I started to ask the question, “How does fluorine cause these marks?” Chronic doses of fluoride, like arsenic and lead, accumulate in our bodies causing a blockage in the way cells breathe and leads to the malformation of collagen. Cancer, diabetes, thyroid and neurological disorders, hormonal imbalances, heart disease, arthritis and osteoporosis have all been linked to chronic fluoride ingestion. We are now exposed to increasing doses of fluoride from toothpaste, rinses, water, food, medicines, showering, bathing, and even the air that we breathe. Our environment has become a literal fluoride dumping ground. This book explores many chronic diseases that plague man today and looks at the scientists that connected these diseases
(part of Amazon review of 2008 book)
Thank you for your submission From: “Safe Water Info” <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com>, Date: 09/01/2015 01:20 a.m. Subject: Fluoridation: Regulations under the Medicines Act 1981 Consultation
- SWIS response to New Zealand consultation on defining fluoride as not a medicine Name: Ivor Hueting, Safe Water Information Service Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Address: 31 Elm Grove, Eastbourne BN22 9NN U.K. Question 1. Do you support the proposed amendment? If not why not?
- I do not support the proposed amendment because:
- Fluoride is not a water treatment like chlorine
- Fluoride is added to the water as treatment for the disease of dental caries therefore it is a medicine If one looks up the word “medicine” in any major dictionary in the English language the definition is very simple and clear. A medicine is “a substance that is used to treat, prevent or mitigate a disease.” In other words it is defined by its purpose. It is not defined by the dose used or even by whether it works or not.
- The proposed amendment would effectively remove the safety precaution protecting people from harm thereby undermining the right of every New Zealander to be safe from the indiscriminate use of medicines.
- Although myself and supporters of the organisation I represent do not live in New Zealand, your proposal does affect us, If accepted, the proposal would set a precedent that would certainly be noted in the U/K. and other countries where the practice of water fluoridation is being challenged on grounds of ethics, safety and efficacy. We all share the English language and hopefully the values of justice and honesty in its application to law and public service.
Question 2. Are there other fluoride-containing compounds used to treat community water supplies that should be specifically named in the regulation? If so, what are they? NO. Fluoride and its compounds are not used to ‘treat’ community water supplies. In community water fluoridation (CWF) the purpose of fluoride and its compounds is to treat people I am sorry I am unable to speak to my submission. Ivor Hueting Representative SWIS ( England)
Accepted submission from SWIS on New Zealand proposal to define fluoride as not as medicine.. Mary Byrne called it ‘awesome’!
- 5. An Irish attack on Fan and a response. A good example of the viciousness and dishonesty of ‘official’ attacks and the reasoned language of the reply.
Paul Connett writes:
This string of councils calling on the national government to end its mandatory fluoridation practice has got some of the avid promoters of this outdated policy pretty desperate. They are throwing out abuse in several directions, including some wild words about the Fluoride Action Network. For example, yesterday we received a copy of a communication to the Wexford councillors from Gerry Byrne, an aviation journalist.. Here are a few of the angry words written about FAN in his communication:
In passing a motion calling for the end of fluoridation you have demonstrated how easy it appears to be to hoodwink the average Irish county councillor. Passing your recent motion demonstrates that you have collectively conducted no reliable research on this topic but allowed yourselves to have been duped by an international cult-like organisation called Fluoride Alert Network (FAN). Based in the USA this outfit (and its Irish followers) has untruthfully convinced people that water fluoridation is the source of numerous illnesses, was used by the Nazis and Russian Communists as a form of mind control, and causes, rather than prevents, tooth decay. They also say that it is shovelled into our drinking water by fertiliser companies as a cheap way of disposing of chemical waste “too toxic to be put in landfill”. None of these things is even remotely true. Neither are claims that most of Europe “banned” fluoridation, that the EU opposes it, as does the United Nations and the World Health organisation. Again, totally untrue… I would like to be able to say that the FAN organisation is a trustworthy, reliable and truthful body but sadly, FAN and scientific truth make some very uncomfortable bedfellows. It uses its website to offer its faithful adherents an “analysis” of the science on fluoridation and, having read some of FAN’s analyses side-by-side with the original research I find it hard to believe that I am reading about the same thing. Scientific research consistently proves that fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing dental decay, but FAN will claim the science actually says the opposite. FAN gets away with this tactic because, sadly, most people lack the skills to interpret scientific data. And if FAN’s bluff is called by scientists or reporters, FAN will go into “shoot-the-messenger” mode and claim the scientists or journalists are corrupt or mistaken (FAN doesn’t appear to care which – I’m regularly accused of taking bribes)…
These are wild and libellous accusations indeed and particularly offensive to FAN. For over 14 years on our web page and in all our public utterances we have done our very best to remain as objective as possible, despite our firm belief that water fluoridation is a huge mistake- indeed, that it is one of the greatest public health blunders of the 20th century.
If Gerry Byrne is a journalist he is a sloppy one at best. What professional journalist would make charges against a major international not-for-profit organization without making even a rudimentary check of the facts. For example, when he says about FAN that “this outfit …has untruthfully convinced people that water fluoridation… was used by the Nazis and Russian Communists as a form of mind control” a simple check of our website (like putting Nazis in the search button) would have revealed the following quote from me:
“We have done our level best to discourage opponents of fluoridation from using this emotive argument. The historical evidence for this assertion is extremely weak. It is sad that the U.S. media has done such a bad job of educating the public on this issue that it is so easy for crazy ideas to fill the vacuum.”
But Byrne’s more serious and hurtful charge is that we manipulate the science. However, our health database on fluoride’s toxic effects and the potential for fluoridation to cause harm is second to none. It is larger and more inclusive than any database maintained by health agencies promoting fluoridation. One only has to check out the section on fluoride and the brain to see just how comprehensive it is: see www.FluorideAlert.org/issues/health/brain
Not only have we cited and excerpted a voluminous number of studies but we have even gone to the expense of translating many studies from the original Chinese and other languages so that they are more available to Western scholars. We are proud that the Harvard team that did a meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies (Choi et al., 2012) were able to use some of our commissioned translations.
Even more important on our website – as is the book I co-authored, The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010) – everything is documented and transparent. If Gerry Byrne or any other proponent of fluoridation finds fault with our quotations or interpretations they are more than welcome to tell us. Like everyone we are open to criticism. But we admit our mistakes if and when they are pointed out to us. However, after over 4 years I am still waiting to see a scientifically supported critique of our book. But to argue that FAN in effect deliberately lies and sets out to dupe people is outrageously inaccurate and unfair.
When Byrne says that he has read “some of FAN’s analyses side-by-side with the original research,” and he finds it hard to believe that he is “ reading about the same thing” let him be specific. Which studies is he talking about?
Where is the weight of scientific evidence that allows him to ignore the potential for fluoride to damage the brain and lower the IQ in children as summarized here: www.FluorideAlert.org/issues/health/brain
Where are the peer-reviewed primary studies that he assures us that “consistently prove(s) that fluoridation is safe”? Have any of these studies been conducted in Ireland? How many studies can he offer to balance the 30 animal studies that show that fluoride lowers the ability of animals to learn and remember? How many can he offer to balance the 42 studies that have found an association between lowered IQ and fairly modest exposure to fluoride? How many health agencies that promote fluoridation in the largely English-speaking world have attempted such studies themselves? How many have even attempted a balanced review? More simply, what arguments would Gerry use to persuade a parent that it is perfectly safe for their baby or child to drink water containing a neurotoxic chemical
From FAN Jan 19
- 6. Fluoride and lead levels ( Fan archive article)
. http://fluoridealert.org/articles/sif_2006_2007/ From the article ~ Prompted by Masters’ & Coplan’s research, a team of scientists from the University of Maryland and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) examined the blood lead levels of children from a recent national survey (NHANES) to assess if there was any association with water fluoridation (8). In January 2006, the authors published the results in Environmental Health Perspectives. While their findings did not neatly agree with Master’s and Coplan’s earlier studies, the authors did find that water fluoridated with hydrofluorosilicic acid was significantly associated with higher blood lead levels in children living in houses built prior to 1946. Although the authors downplayed this result, it was by no means trivial.
All fluorides do not leach lead from pipes but the silico fluorides do. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is a silico fluoride. This is the one we put in our water… Let’s have a moratorium on fluoridation until the lead piping is replaced. Then we can see if we need to reintroduce it
Gosford , New South Wales, Australia. Pre and post fluoridation dental health report
A test for the unwary. What is wrong with the conclusions here ?
( Clue : green words and -think York .)
The Local Government Area of Gosford implemented a water fluoridation scheme in 2008. Therefore the opportunity was taken to record the dental health of primary school children aged 5-7 years prior to the fluoridation and compare the results with other communities in NSW with different access to fluoridated water. The aim was to compare the oral health of New South Wales (Australia)s 5-7 year olds living in fluoridated, and non- fluoridated communities. One of the areas was due to implement water fluoridation and is termed the pre-fluoridation site. Methods: Pupils in the first year of Public and Catholic Schools in three areas of NSW were recruited. Class lists were used to draw a sample of approximately 900 per area. This number allowed for a non-response rate of up to 30 per cent and would give a sample sufficient numbers to allow statistical inferences to be drawn. Children whose parents consented received a dental examination and the clinical data was collected on mark sense cards. Results: In the 3 areas the proportion of children who received a dental examination varied; 77.5% (n = 825) for the fluoridated area, 80.1% (n = 781) for the pre-fluoridated area and 55.3% (n = 523) for the non-fluoridated area. The mean dmft was 1.40 for the fluoridated area, 2.02 for the pre-fluoridated area and 2.09 for the non-fluoridated area. These differences were statistically significant (p <0.01). Differences were also noted in the proportion of children who were caries free, 62.6% fluoridated area, 50.8% for the pre-fluoride area and 48.6% for the non-fluoride location. Conclusion: The children living in the well-established fluoridated area had less dental caries and a higher proportion free from disease when compared with the other two areas which were not fluoridated. Fluoridation demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of better oral health for young children. Author: Anthony S BlinkhornRoy ByunGeorge JohnsonPathik MethaMeredith KayPeter Lewis Credits/Source: BMC Oral Health 2015, 15:9
8.Fluoridation’s 70th Anniversary – Not Something to Celebrate
(FAN press release
January 25, 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of fluoridation – forcing Americans to ingest fluoride chemicals via the public water supplies without their informed consent. Fluoridation promoters repeatedly claim that the practice is “safe” and “effective” but science does not support either claim, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director says, “Politics not science keeps fluoridation alive. Fluoridation proponents, including the CDC, hire PR agencies to sell us fluoridation using half-truths, talking points and diversions. Dentists at the CDC claim that fluoridation is ‘one of the top public health achievements of the twentieth century,’ in reality it is one of greatest public health betrayals of the twentieth century.”
Today, WHO data indicates no difference in tooth decay in 12-year-olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. Despite 7 decades of fluoridation reaching a record number of Americans, official reports indicate that a tooth decay crisis exists in the U.S. Meanwhile, dental fluorosis – the outward sign of fluoride overdose is impacting over 40% of American teens. As a result, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommends that water fluoride levels be reduced. But its recommendation is far too little and it comes too late.
Current science proves that ingested fluoride doesn’t reduce tooth decay (if it works at all it works topically i.e. on the outside of the tooth) but does expose the entire population to fluoride’s adverse health effects which can range from mottled teeth and stomach pains to thyroid disorders and brain deficits.
According to Connett, “It is reckless to expose bottle-fed infants to levels of fluoride over 100 times the level in mothers’ milk. Nature protects the baby from fluoride and fluoridation is removing that protection for bottle-fed babies.”
Dentists at the ADA and the CDC assure citizens that fluoridation is “safe” but they have no professional qualifications to make pronouncements on any tissue other than the teeth.
FAN’s study tracker contains published studies from major peer-reviewed journals showing fluoride’s harm and not just at high levels.
For example: Forty-two studies show fluoride reduces IQ; 17 at levels the US EPA claims are safe.
According to Connett, “The last children in the US that need a drop in IQ are children from low-income families and they are precisely the children being targeted in fluoridation programs.”
PR people teach dentists and other fluoridation promoters to avoid dialogue based on “Harms and Risks.”
“That’s because no science convincingly supports the safety of fluoridation,” says Connett. “That’s why they won’t debate this issue with us in public and why after over 4 years they have failed to produce a scientific response to our book, The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010).
Instead of handling the science in a professional manner both the ADA and the CDC are pouring money into PR to keep this outdated and dangerous practice going. This includes over 30 million dollars of taxpayer money that the CDC is using over the next 5 years to help fluoridate more communities in several target states and the ADA is lobbying for more. The ADA also is using half a million dollars of its own money on a social media campaign
Fluoridation is a waste of money on many fronts. CDC’s PR claim that, for each $1 invested in fluoridation $38 is saved in dental costs, has been shown to be false by independent scientists.
Incredibly, after 70 years it is still not clear which Federal Agency has jurisdiction for the safety of this program.
However, according to Connett, “Fluoridation would end tomorrow if the FDA and the EPA were to do their jobs honestly. Shockingly, the FDA has never regulated fluoride for ingestion and the EPA is dragging its feet determining a safe level of fluoride in water (considering it as a contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act). Sadly, many communities are being tricked into thinking that there are federal agencies that take responsibility for the safety of this program, but not one does so.”
Connett concluded that, “Continuing this practice in the absence of sound science – and investing millions of dollars in PR to cover up that fact – will further erode the public’s trust in public health programs. Right now the only thing being protected is the reputation of those who refuse to accept that this program has been a massive failure both ethically and scientifically.”
(FAN press release Jan 25)
9, Health dangers of Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and Triclosan in toothpaste. ( Daily Mail article)
Despite his informative comments, Dr Talbot is very much in favour of fluoride toothpaste, saying that it’s very beneficial. Ann
- Mail 26.1.15 “ARE THERE HIDDEN HORRORS IN YOUR TOOTHPASTE?”
Could toothpaste be harming your health? Dr Toby Talbot, an expert in restorative dentistry & member of the Royal College of Surgeons, believes products are often grounded in industrial chemistry rather than medicine. Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS) causes him much concern. He said “The problem with SLS is that it opens up the gaps between the mucosal – skin – cells in the mouth, which allows toxins or carcinogens to get in. Oral mucosa is one of the most delicate tissues in our body & SLS is effectively a detergent.” He is concerned about triclosan which has been removed from toothpaste in US but is still used in UK. He said “Triclosan is used in toothpastes by industrial chemists.” This is to stop bacteria, but some studies have shown that it “Has an effect on hormone activity & potential for carcinogenic (cancer) activity.” ‘The Tiny bits of plastic in your toothpaste:’ Dr Talbot said “Microbeads are tiny pieces of plastic in some toothpastes that are so small you can’t see them even with a microscope.” They act as an abrasive, but “They also run through our water treatment centres, get into our water systems & are now finding their way into the food chain. These beads are now found in oysters, mussels, lobsters & fish in North Sea, Pacific Ocean & Atlantic. Their effect is similar to that of plastic carrier bags & find their way into the sea & clog up the eco-system” he said.
Daily Mail from Ann Wills Jan 26