Fluoride at Low Levels Jeopardizes Health - says 2006 US Govt Report

New York - March 2006 -- Fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to  data presented in a 2006 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth. At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water.

Panel members took several years to read, understand and discuss hundreds of studies about  fluoride's adverse health effects. 

Unfortunately, many fluoridationists are dismissing this voluminous report as "only one study." It isn't. Many fluoridation promoters also mistakenly believe this report has nothing to do with water fluoridation at 1 ppm.  However, it does according to several panel members.

An Oregon newspaper reports, "NAS panel member  Kathy Thiessen, PhD a former scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who has studied fluoride for the EPA, said the report showed 'the potential is there' that water fluoridation is unhealthy. As for the studies finding that higher levels damage children's IQ, she said it's possible water fluoridation levels may have a similar, albeit reduced effect. the research suggests 'most people should minimize their fluoride intake' - which includes avoiding fluoridated water."

"NAS panel member Robert Isaacson, PhD a distinguished professor of neurobehavioral science at the State University of New York in Binghamton, agreed, saying that the possible effects on endocrines and hormones from water-fluoridation are 'something that I wouldn't want to happen to me,'" reports the Portland Tribune.

NAS panel member Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto writes, "In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation."

Drs. Isaacson & Limeback advocate a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero. Dr. Theissen says the MCLG should be well below 1 ppm.

The 12-member NRC fluoride committee unanimously decided that fluoride's 4 milligrams per liter (4 mg/L) maximum-contaminant-level (MCL) must be lowered. They concluded that healthy average adults consuming 8 milligrams fluoride daily, via two liters of 4mg/L fluoridated water, risk weakened bones, fractures, and stage II skeletal fluorosis (pain, joint stiffness, pelvis and spine osteosclerosis).

However, some high-water drinkers consume 8 milligrams fluoride daily when only 1 mg/L is added to their water supplies, according to the report.

"The adult daily dosage is equivalent to a 2.28 mg a day dose for a child," says Chemistry Professor Emeritus, Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. Fluoride is also in food, beverages, pharmaceuticals, dental products, pesticide residues, cigarette smoke and air emissions. The EPA is allowing additional fluoride in foods via sulfuryl fluoride pesticide residues.  

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer wrote the EPA that, "...the tolerances established by EPA are not sufficiently protective against adverse health effects," (5) About 2/3 of U.S. water suppliers deliberately add fluoride chemicals (mostly industrial waste silicofluorides) to reach 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L, so-called optimal, in a failed effort  to prevent tooth decay (6). But, "fluoride is a water contaminant over 1.3 mg/L," the NRC reports.

"This report is misleading by suggesting that the problem has to be studied to death before decisions can be made," says retired EPA scientist, Robert Carton, PhD. "The safe drinking water act requires the federal government to act if there is any indication of possible or anticipated adverse health effects in order to protect the most vulnerable subsets of the population," says Carton 

"Fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day. With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male, according to the report," says Carton. Furthermore, studies linking fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible, reports the NRC. Eleven unions representing over 7,000 EPA scientists, engineers, lawyers and others ask for a moratorium on fluoridation.

The Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of any substance in the water supply is the unenforceable level by which no one is harmed. The MCLG is purely based on science; while the MCL is a political number based on ability to reduce fluoride levels. 

"Based on the science reported by the NRC, the MCLG for fluoride should be close to zero," says Carton. 

This is why the MCLG for fluoride should be set near zero and/or fluoridation stopped. According to the NRC report:

     A) Babies under one year consume over their adequate intake (to avoid moderate fluorosis; yellow splotched teeth) from the water supply alone at the so-called optimal concentrations (0.7 - 1.2 mg/L).

     B) Some athletes, workers and/or military personnel already consume up to 10 milligrams fluoride from optimally fluoridated water, alone.

     C) "...severe renal insufficiency appears to increase bone fluoride concentrations, perhaps as much as twofold."

     D) "The elderly are at increased risk of high bone fluoride concentrations due to accumulation over time..."

     E) "There are medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride."

     F) "...several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function...it is difficult to predict exactly what effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of fluoride exposure and under what circumstances."

     G) "...all children through 12 who take fluoride supplements (assuming low water fluoride) will reach or exceed [optimal]."

There is no evidence that any US child is fluoride-deficient; however The Centers for Disease Control reports that American schoolchildren are fluoride-overdosed with from 1/3 to 1/2 displaying dental fluorosis while tooth decay rates are climbing also.

A Texarkana Gazette editorial reports, "While dentists still largely believe the benefits outweigh the risks, fluoridation is no longer beyond dispute. At the very least, the report indicates a need for caution....Virtues and vices sometimes come in the same package. What's good for the teeth looks more and more like it's bad for other body parts. That's not a slam dunk, that's a trade off."

References:

1) "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards," Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies of Science. March 2006 

2) "Fluoride foes get validation - Scientists: Substance less safe than presumed: more research needed," by Nick Budnick, March 24, 2006, Portland Tribune

3) "Debate on Fluoride Not Cut and Dried," Texarkana Gazette, April 4, 2006, by Les Minor

4) Southcoast Today "GUEST VIEW: The evidence that fluoride is harmful is overwhelming," May 14, 2006

5) New York State Attorney General Spitzer, August 4, 2006 Letter to EPA

6) Tooth decay crises occurring in all fluoridated cities, states and countries  

7)  The 2nd Citizens' Conference on Fluoride: A Summary, Fluoride Action Network 

8)  "EPA Unions Call for Nationwide Moratorium on Fluoridation, Congressional Hearing on Adverse Effects, Youth Cancer Cover Up," August 2005

Fluoride Supplements Deliver Risks Without Benefits, Studies Show

ORALLY INGESTED UNAPPROVED SODIUM FLUORIDE DRUGS DELIVER RISKS WITHOUT BENEFITS

Prescribing orally ingestible unapproved sodium fluoride drugs to reduce tooth decay is based on a flawed concept - that artificial water fluoridation reduces cavities (evidence below). So, it makes sense that modern studies show fluoride drugs deliver risk of more dental fluorosis without benefit of less tooth decay. For example:

1)    In 2001, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation research revealed fluoride tablets and mouth rinses failed to reduce tooth decay. “The widely held assumption that caries in children could be reduced, if not eliminated, through school-based programs using fluoride tablets, fluoride mouth rinses, fluoride-containing toothpaste, and oral health education—an assumption encouraged by the National Institute of Dental Research National Caries Program—had not been adequately tested,” writes chapter author Paul Brodeur. “However, according to data compiled from the demonstration program, school-based weekly fluoride mouth rinsing and daily fluoride tablets were ‘not consistently effective in preventing clinically significant tooth decay beyond that already prevented by typical home and dental office care.’" 

2)    A 2001 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program panel for the Diagnosis and Management of Dental Caries Throughout life reported in a news release that "the panel was disappointed in the overall quality of the clinical data that it reviewed. According to the panel, far too many studies were small, poorly described, or otherwise methodologically flawed." ( Hundreds of studies evaluated fluoride use including several on fluoride supplements.) (Citations from January 1980 through December 2000 were used.) 

3)    In 2011, the Cochrane Oral Health Group reported that  fluoride supplements fail to reduce tooth decay in primary teeth, permanent teeth cavity-reduction is dubious and health risks are little studied. Further, "When fluoride supplements were compared with topical fluorides or with other preventive measures, there was no differential effect on permanent or deciduous teeth," write Cochrane researchers Ismail et al, The Cochrane research team reports, "We rated 10 trials as being at unclear risk of bias and one at high risk of bias, and therefore the trials provide weak evidence about the efficacy of fluoride supplements." The team "found limited information on the adverse effects associated with the use of fluoride supplements." 

4)    “No decrease in caries levels were found in children who had taken fluoride supplements daily from birth, but who discontinued around two years of age.” Thylstrup et al., 1979 and Fanning 3t al., 1975  (Presentation by Karen M. Yoder, PhD, Associate Professor and Director, Division of Community Dentistry, Indiana University School of Dentistry in 2003) 

5)    “No difference in caries was observed in the permanent dentition. The findings indicate in accordance with current theories that topical effects of fluoride rather than the systemic effects have prevented dental caries.” (Thylstrup et al. in “Enamel Changes and Dental Caries in 7-Year-Old Children Given Fluoride Tablets from Shortly after Birth,” Caries Research ) 

6)    Fluoride incorporated into developing teeth does NOT reduce tooth decay but does increase fluorosis, according to Authors of a 1999 textbook (revised 2005), by Burt and Eklund,  who admitted that the early fluoridation trials, which are the foundation for the entire US fluoridation program, “were rather crude…statistical analysis by today’s standards, were primitive; data from the control communities were largely neglected after the initial reports, with conclusions based on the much weaker before-after analyses.” 

7)    As conceded by a pro-fluoride researcher, “virtually none of the early fluoride supplement studies would be published today, because of methodological and other shortcomings.” (Riordan 1999). He writes: “Although the effectiveness of fluoride supplements was apparently endorsed by many small clinical studies, closer examination of the experimental conditions of these, their methods and the analysis of their results undermined confidence in their findings…More modern, well-conducted clinical trials of supplements suggest that today, in children also exposed to fluoride from other sources such as toothpaste, the marginal effect of fluoride supplements is very small… Supplement use by young children is associated with a substantial risk of dental fluorosis.” 

8)    “The case for eliminating the use of dietary fluoride supplements among young children,” Journal of public health Dentistry, BA Burt, September 1999 - Burt lists 3 reasons why fluoride supplements are inappropriate today a) efficacy is weak b) risk of fluorosis c) fluoride has little preeruptive effect in caries prevention.

    “North American children today are exposed to fluoride from many sources–drinking water, toothpaste, gels, rinses, and in processed foods and beverages.The additional cariostatic benefits that accrue from using supplements are marginal at best, while there is strong risk of fluorosis when young children use supplements,” he writes. “It is therefore concluded that the risks of using supplements in infants and young children outweigh the benefits. Because alternative forms of fluoride for high-risk individuals exist, fluoride supplements should no longer be used for young children in North America,” writes Burt. 

9)   “The use of dental floss, fluoride supplements or sugar snacking in addition to brushing twice daily, did not reduce the probability of having caries,” Oral health behaviours in 12-year-olds. Association with caries and characteristics of the children” Acta Odontol Scand Jan 2022 

10)  “There is also a scientific knowledge gap on the benefit and optimal use of these fluoride supplements in combination with daily tooth brushing with fluoride toothpaste,” based on a review of clinical trials published between 2003 and 2014  Caries Research,  “Fluoride Rinses, Gels and Foams: An Update of Controlled Clinical Trials,” by Twetman et al. April 2016 

11)  In 2001,  the CDC’s MMWR report admitted “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…” CDC also admits that “The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”  They also admit that the amount of fluoride emerging from saliva to bathe teeth topically with fluoride is too low to have any beneficial effect. Although the CDC is often cited as praising fluoridation as a great achievement of the last century, the CDC seems to divest itself of responsibility by saying “It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe.”

Science doesn’t support fluoride ingestion as a decay preventive.  Of added concern is that practitioners aren’t following their own guidelines to tally total fluoride intake from all sources before more is prescribed. It’s undisputed that too much fluoride damages bones, brains and children’s developing teeth. 

We know 70% of US kids are fluoride-overexposed, afflicted with dental fluorosis - some of it moderate/severe, according to “Associations of low level of fluoride exposure with dental fluorosis among U.S. children and adolescents, NHANES 2015–2016,” published in, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, September 2021. Yet, tooth decay is epidemic, according to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.   

We don’t know what fluoride has done to their brains and bones.

Prescribers fail to inform patients that fluoride is ubiquitous in foods, beverages, some medicines, absorbed from dental products and inhaled in air pollution.  In 1991 the US Department of Health and Human Services estimated that total fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities ranges from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day.

A safe alternative is vitamin D which the American Dental Association once touted. Science proves vitamin D prevents tooth decay.  “Vitamin D deficiency is still prevalent in the United States, especially in non-Hispanic black Americans, women, individuals aged 20–29, and during winter,” according to Frontiers in Nutrition

Sodium fluoride supplements must be removed from the market. No American is, or ever was, fluoride-deficient. Fluoride ingestion doesn’t reduce tooth decay.  

Early 1900’s dentists theorized that fluoride was a tooth-essential nutrient because Americans drinking natural calcium fluoridated water had fluoride-discolored teeth with less cavities.  Unfortunately, they neglected the calcium portion which IS an essential nutrient for teeth. 

This is the poorly-done research that gave rise to artificial fluoridation (using sodium fluoride or silicofluorides). Then, fluoridation gave rise to sodium fluoride supplements for children who didn’t live in fluoridated areas. So, it’s not surprising that fluoridation is proven ineffective at reducing tooth decay, too.

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES

Fluoridation is like the fairy tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes” by Hans Christian Anderson, which told of a supreme ruler who walked the streets naked but yielded so much power, that no one dared tell him he forgot to dress himself.

Fluoridation acceptance was effected by PR and lobbying, not valid science, as was first exposed in the 1951 Proceedings: Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children’s Bureau.  Dr. Frank Bull, Wisconsin’s Dental Director, taught those present how to sell artificial fluoridation to naysayers with little or no evidence of safety or effectiveness. The human experimental studies (Newburgh NY, Grand Rapids MI), planned to last 10-15 years had not even been completed yet. In fact, he bragged that he was proselytizing for fluoridation since 1944.

A few quotations from his talk:

Bull said, “When people say fluoride causes fluorosis, you say “fluorosis brings about the most beautiful looking teeth than anyone ever had.”

This tactic was parroted in 2012 by CDC’s Oral Health Division Director who said  white flecks on teeth (mild fluorosis) makes teeth more attractive (at about 16 minutes in this video) One councilor was livid at this comment, he said  (at 23 minutes), if he found his daughter’s teeth were marred by a chemical introduced in the water supply, he would wonder what internal effects would be going on. Fluorosis is a symptom of something larger, he said.

More tactical advice from Bull: "Now, why should we do a pre-fluoridation survey? Is it to find out if fluoridation works? No. We have told the public it works, so we can’t go back on that.”

“If you can - - keep fluoridation from going to a referendum.”

 "The best technique is the reverse technique, not to refute the thing - but to show where the opposite is true. . .. When they say yes, you say no.”

“In regard to toxicity – I noticed that Dr. Bain used the term ‘adding sodium fluoride.’ We never do that. That is rat poison. You add fluorides.”

“You remind them [the press] how the press has been one of the greatest factors in the promotion of public health. You tell them how fluoridation helps the poor devil who can't afford proper dental care, and all that. You will have a pretty sympathetic press.”

“Don’t use the word "artificial," and don't use sodium fluoride… And certainly don't use the word "experimental."

Similar tactics are used today. Fluoridation has it’s own PR Guru, journalist Matt Jacob who held a free fluoride strategy session near my home. I was asked to leave but not before I received a copy of his slides which advised dental hygienists to promote fluoridation but not to discuss “Harms & Risks”  because “opponents are likely to win if the dialogue is trapped inside this message wheel [of Harms & Risks]”    This is one of his slides:

 

 

Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda, was employed to sell the idea of fluoridation to the American public, according to Christopher Bryson who interviewed Bernays for his book, The Fluoride Deception in the chapter entitled “Engineering Consent.”

Bryson writes: “’You can get practically any idea accepted,’ Bernays told me chuckling. ‘If doctors are in favor, the public is willing to accept it, because a doctor is an authority to most people, regardless of how much he knows, or doesn’t know.’”

In 1988, Chemical & Engineering News wrote an expose on fluoridation; a disturbing revelation was that voices of opposition and reason were ignored from the start.

Also ignored was Edward Groth III, Ph.D., who, after completing his PhD dissertation on public policy and fluoridation reported Fluoridation was adopted more by politicking than by science  His chapter is “The fluoridation controversy: which side is science on?” Groth wrote in 1991, “the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues.”

Authors of a 1999 dental textbook (not the one revised in 2005), by Burt and Eklund, admitted that the early fluoridation trials, which are the foundation for the entire fluoridation program, “were rather crude…statistical analysis by today’s standards, were primitive; data from the control communities were largely neglected after the initial reports, with conclusions based on the much weaker before-after analyses.”

                                                   END