Fluoride Dangers

Yet, Another Embarrassing Fluoridation Birthday

2012-01-25T10:33:00.000-05:00

Sixty-eight years ago, on January 25, sodium fluoride wasslowly poured into Grand Rapids, Michigan’s public water supply to prove thatfluoridation reduces children’s tooth decay. Five years into the experiment,things weren’t going as expected. Cavities declined equally in thenon-fluoridated control city of Muskegon, too. So to blur the truth or provetheir expectation, Muskegon was fluoridated also.

So what’s happening today?

Grand Rapids children are showing high rates of tooth decayand dental fluorosis. According to the Grand Rapids Press, one pediatricdentist said in 2007 “…we see children under the age of 2 with activedecay…Rather than just a few cavities, we're seeing a lot of cavities. It's notunusual to see a child with 8 to 10 cavities."

America’s children are fluoride-overdosed with almost half of alladolescents afflicted with dentalfluorosis, white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. Tooth decay has increased in toddlers, untreatedtooth decay is epidemic, more dental schools are opening and more dental professionalshave been created. Emergency rooms areflooded with patients in dental pain because 80% of dentists refuse to treatMedicaid patients and half of all Americans don’t have dental insurance. Those that have insurance can’t afford theout-of-pocket expenses. And Americanshave died from the consequences of untreated tooth decay.

The US Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers forDisease Control and many other dental, health and government agencies now recommend that infant formula NOT bemixed with fluoridated water to avoid dental fluorosis. References: http://www.FormulaFluoride.Webs.com.

The prestigious US National Research Council produced a fluoridereport which reveals that fluoride, even at the low doses added to watersupplies can be detrimental to the thyroid gland, kidney patients, people whodrink high volumes of water and babies. But it’s being ignored

. In 1990, the New York StateDepartment of Health (DoH) published a study, “Fluoride: Benefits andRisks of Exposure,” alerting officials that fluoride can beharmful to kidney
patients, diabetics and those with fluoridehypersensitivity even at “optimal” levels. But the advice went unheeded,research left undone and today’s claims of safety ring hollow.

Kaminsky et. al report: "The available datasuggest that some
individuals may experience hypersensitivity tofluoride-containing
agents” and " …individuals with renalinsufficiency who consume large
quantities of fluoridated water are at anincreased risk of developing
skeletal fluorosis.” Research in these twoareas were advised but
never conducted.

Further, dental fluorosis was reported indiabetics who consume large
volumes of water containing 0.5 to 1.0 mgfluoride/liter, the latter
equal to NYS’s fluoridated water supplies.

Malfunctioning kidneys may not adequately filterfluoride from the
blood allowing toxic fluoride levels to build upin and damage bones.
Symptoms of skeletal fluorosis include bone pain,tenderness and
fractures, according to the EPA.

The American Dental Association admits in itsFluoridation Facts
booklet "decreased fluoride removal may occuramong persons with
severely impaired kidney function who may not beon kidney dialysis."

The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) withdrew itsfluoridation
endorsement in 2007, with advice that “individualswith CKD [Chronic
Kidney Disease] should be notified of thepotential risk of fluoride
exposure.”

The landmark 2006 National Research Councilfluoride report stated,
“Early water fluoridation studies did notcarefully assess changes in
renal [kidney] function...Several investigatorshave shown that
patients with impaired renal function, or onhemodialysis, tend to
accumulate fluoride much more quickly thannormal."

Bone changes in advanced kidney patients aresimilar to bone changes
found in individuals with skeletal fluorosis,according to the
Fluoride Action Network. This raises thepossibility that some
individuals with kidney disease are suffering fromundiagnosed
skeletal fluorosis.

Seven New York City Council Members are sponsoringlegislation to stop
fluoridation in New York City NYC residents canlighten their
toxic fluoride exposure by contacting Mayor MichaelBloomberg, Speaker
Christine Quinn and their own Council Member tomake sure they vote to
stop the addition of fluoride chemicals into NYC’swater supply

Many more citizens and legislators are not buying into the false fluoridation information and ending this outdated,ineffective, health-robbing, money-wasting concept. Many communities have stopped fluoridation and many more are considering despite the false information presented by the dental lobby.

We urge you to join them and demand that water fluoridation stop where you live. Educate your neighbors and then your legislators. Informed people do not want fluoride in their water.

for more info http://www.FluorideAction.Net

http://www.Fluoridation.Webs.com

http://tinyurl.com/NewsReleases

Is Fluoride Unsafe? Only When Swallowed.

2011-11-28T07:00:00.000-05:00

“What really determines whether fluoride is safe, is the amount that is swallowed,” says Amid I. Ismail, BDS, MPH, MBA, DrPH, and Dean, Temple University, School of Dentistry in Dear Doctor Magazine. (1)

Dr. Ismail says, “Fluoride occurs naturally in soil, fresh and seawater varying dramatically in levels from as low as 0.01 to 8ppm or more....In actuality the “optimal” (most desirable or satisfactory) level is virtually impossible to calculate because of variations in fluoride levels in all sorts of foods and beverages.

'For example, people living in temperate climates drink less than those in tropical climates. However, it cannot even be assumed that because a person lives in a community with non-fluoridated water, they are receiving low levels of fluoride. Fluoride ingestion can also result from drinking substantial amounts of soft drinks or juices. Most bottled waters contain less than 0.3 ppm; however, some contain close to or more than 1 ppm.”

"Breast milk and cow's milk are very low in fluoride,” says Ismail. Manufacturers voluntarily lowered fluoride levels in infant formula. But when concentrated infant formula is mixed with fluoridated water, infant formula fluoride levels are higher, says Dr. Ismail. Federal agencies, health departments and organized dentistry advise using non-fluoridated water to make infant formula to avoid damaging babies' teeth. References: http://www.FormulaFluoride.webs.com.

“Also, soy-based formulas are consistently higher in fluoride content than milk-based products. Other foods that have high fluoride content are teas, dry infant cereals and processed chicken, fish and seafood products,” says Ismail.

“It should also be emphasized that “topical” fluorides such as toothpaste can also have a systemic effect if inadvertently swallowed by young children,” cautions Dr. Ismail. Fluoride also gets absorbed into the bloodstream even when not swallowed.

"Tooth mottling should be monitored in communities to assess fluoride intake and recommendations made accordingly,” writes Ismail.

However, few communities follow Dr. Ismail's advice and fluoridate the water without considering residents’ total fluoride intake from other sources. In fact, a Connersville, Indiana, study indicated children already ingested too much fluoride; but dentists lobbied successfully for fluoridation anyway. To our knowledge, no dental fluorosis studies have ever been published on this population.

Dr. Ismail questions whether mild fluorosis is acceptable any more with esthetics becoming more important in this day and age. He says, “decisions concerning this tradeoff could warrant reconsideration. Fluorosis varies in appearance from small white striations to stained pitting and severe brown mottling of enamel,” he writes.

“The main documented risk factors for fluorosis (in no particular order) are fluoride in water, infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, supplements and dentifrices,” he writes.

Dr. Ismail reports that “Commissioned by the EPA, a 2006 National Research Council (NRC) study has sparked the latest controversy. In addition to unsightly enamel fluorosis at 4 ppm and above, it claims: a possible increased risk of bone fracture in certain conditions; skeletal fluorosis; and potential to cause bone cancer...”

“Fluoride is incorporated into bone...after a point though it can make bone more brittle and at higher levels can cause “skeletal” fluorosis, which has a greater potential for painful joints and even fractures,” reports Ismail.

“The over use of fluoride during the first six to eight years of life represents the important period of tooth development when enamel fluorosis can occur. It is critical for parents to monitor fluoride sources to reduce the occurrence of white spots from fluorosis,” he writes.

The Centers for Disease Control reports that over 41% of adolescents now suffer with dental fluorosis – 3% of it is moderate or severe. At the same time tooth decay rates are increasing in toddlers and untreated tooth decay has become epidemic.

In Kentucky, despite a 1977 fluoridation state-wide mandate, preschoolers cavity rates went from 28% in 1987 to 47% in 2001, according to the July/August 2003 journal, Pediatric Dentistry,

According to an 11/27/2011 news article, “In recent years, Northern Kentucky health officials have encountered more children with cavities in a state known for some of the worst teeth in the nation. Kentucky has the second highest rate of toothlessness in the U.S. The national average is 20.5 percent, while 38 percent of Kentuckians have lost their teeth.”(2)

The article quotes Linda Poynter, the Northern Kentucky Health Department's oral health program manager. "I've seen too many 5-year-olds with rampant decay who are going to have a body full of abscesses, if (their dental problems) aren't taken care of," Poynter said.

The article continues, “In recent years, pupils in the Northern Kentucky schools that the local health department visits are experiencing more tooth decay. The percentage of students with tooth decay was 45 percent in 2009. That rose to 47 percent in 2010, and so far this school year, 49 percent of the children screened have tooth decay.”

It’s not just Kentucky, tooth decay went up after fluoridation began in San Antonio, Texas, also.

Last week, KENS 5 – TV reported “After 9 years and $3 million of adding fluoride, research shows tooth decay hasn’t dropped among the poorest of Bexar County’s children. It has only increased—up 13% in 2010, the latest date that data was available.
One out of two children in the Head Start program who were checked for cavities had some decay last year.”

Actually tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities, states and countries. See: http://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com

Fluoride Supplements Just as Useless

Dr. Ismail reported "There is weak and inconsistent evidence that the use of fluoride supplements prevents dental caries [cavities] in primary teeth," according to a systematic review of fluoride supplement research published in the November 2008 Journal of the American Dental Association. Dr. Ismail is also an organizer of the American Dental Association Clinical Recommendation Panels on Fluoride Supplement.

“This review confirmed that, in non-fluoridated communities, the use of fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing dental fluorosis, write researchers Ismail & Bandekar and first published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, February 1999 and to the ADA's website July 2007 but then taken down.

References:

1) Dear Doctor Magazine, “Fluoride & Fluoridation in Dentistry”

2) “

N.Ky. kids' teeth at risk,” NKY.com

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20111127/NEWS0103/111270308/-N-Ky-kids-teeth-risk?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

“Added to our drinking water: A chemical 'more toxic than lead'? “ by Joe Conger

http://www.kens5.com/news/local/More-toxic-than-lead--134366538.html

Evidence that fluoridation fails to reduce tooth decay in New York State and fails to level out decay between haves and have nots

Fluoride From a Rock????

2011-06-10T08:08:00.000-04:00

America's chief fluoridationist, dentist Howard Pollick, told the San Diego City Council that fluoride comes from a rock. This is true. But the reason it is taken out of the rock is because it is so toxic that animals fed the stuff died. So, instead, its fed to humans. The following explanation of how and why that happens was put together by Chris Gupta.

Here is a bit of history that illustrates why they feed us hydrofluorosilcic acid in our water. Show this to those who ask why should the authorities slow poison us!

"One of the main reasons for processing the raw phosphate rock for agricultural purposes is because of the fluoride content mainly in the form of fluorosilicates/silicon tetrafluoride.

Back in the early part of the 20th century when industrial farming was first starting-up, they did many experiments on cheap mineral supplements for animals to keep costs down and profits up.

Raw, powdered phosphate rock was the first choice because of the abundance and it was dirt-cheap. Bone meal was the second choice, but it was more expensive because it had needed cooking in ovens (calcining) at high temperatures before the animals could digest it properly.

When the animal nutrition researchers did the first experiments with the powdered phosphate rock, the animals started to get sick. The cow�s milk was drying-up, and there was a high rate of calf stillbirths.

It was really knocking the pigs health for a loop many of them became so sick, they just quit eating, quit breeding, and the researchers said they seemed to give up the will to live.

Well, as for the chickens, they just up and died after eating food supplemented with the raw phosphate rock.

They knew that fluorides were toxic and determined that it was the fluorides, but in later experiments, they found that it wasn't just any type of fluoride, but the fluorosilicates* that were doing most of the damage. They used sodium fluoride (like what they use in toothpaste) and sodium fluorosilicate to compare the poisonous effects on the farm animals, and found that the sodium fluorosilicate was a much more effective poison. Another reason for processing the raw phosphate rock is that the fluoride content is also enough to be toxic to many agricultural crops the raw rock will actually inhibit the growth of crops. Some plants like gladiolas will just wilt will die when fertilized with raw phosphate rock because of the fluoride content.

* Also known as hydrofluorosilcic acid.

The outcome of those early studies strongly suggested that using raw phosphate rock as a cheap fertilizer or animal mineral supplement is not the way to go if you wanted to make a profit and have healthy plants and animals."

Extracted form the book: "Phosphate Fluorides - Toxic Torts" By Gary O. Pittman (page 26)

For more see: Earth Island Journal - Special Feature: "Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection." It was an expose about how America�s public drinking water is fluoridated with pollution scrubber liquor from phosphoric acid processing. This is must read! (Note: Investigative Journalist, George Glasser, wrote this several years ago when Florida was virtually the only source of fluoridation chemicals. Now, countries with proven lax safety standards such as Mexico and China are supplying the US with its phosphate fertilizer waste to be used for fluoridation.)

Fluoridation Chemicals Endanger Workers

2011-06-02T13:46:00.000-04:00

New Book: "Fluoride Phosphates Toxic Torts," by Gary O. Pittman

Gary Pittman gave up his life for his job.

That wasn’t Gary’s plan when he started working at Occidental Chemical Corporation’s phosphate plants. He just wanted to make a decent living and provide for his family. Occidental offered the best pay and best benefits for a high school graduate.

Gary was exposed to 100’s of toxic chemicals with only a hard hat and safety glasses for “protection.” So it’s no surprise that he and many of his co-workers developed debilitating chemical-induced diseases. Most workers were uneducated. Some could barely read and write, Gary says. They were no match for Occidental’s highly-paid corporate lawyers. But Gary refused to back down and pursued a personal injury lawsuit (toxic tort litigation) against Occidental with several co-workers.

Gary paints a bleak picture of what’s inside the plants – the noise, the smell, the darkness, the boot-eating acids. It’s what you would imagine that Hell would look like, Gary says.

Occidental may have protected themselves legally. But ethically, it stinks as badly as the sulfuric acid stench permeating the plants. However, the one deadly chemical all employees were exposed to didn’t have a smell – fluoride – yes, the stuff they put on your teeth and into your drinking water in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay.

Fluoride, in the form of fluorosilicates or silicon tetrafluoride, is a toxic contaminant of the phosphate rock. These fluorides must be removed to make safe fertilizer and animal feed products.

Gary says, when researchers fed raw powdered fluoride-containing phosphate rock to farm animals, cows’ milk dried up and had high rates of calf stillbirths. Pigs quit eating and breeding. Chickens died almost instantly.

And to avoid killing animals and plants surrounding the factory, fluorosilicates must be captured or scrubbed out of air emissions. This captured and contaminated waste product is sold unpurified to fluoridating communities.

Gary writes, “When we had to clean the pollution scrubbers, most of us went home with acid burns and coughing up blood.”

“Once inside those vessels and scrubbers, we had no respirators, and had to breathe that stale, moist acidic air all shift. Sometimes, workers would fall ill with flu-like symptoms, the older workers called it ‘chemical pneumonia,’” writes Gary.

“I remember one time when they assigned me the task of cleaning the filter hood on the pollution scrubber. Powdery fluorosilicate dust was everywhere. As we were cleaning, the dust covered us. It was very hot - 100 to 120 degrees - and we were sweating profusely. When the fluorosilicate dust mixed with the perspiration, it formed acid on the skin and blistered us if we didn't wash it off in time. We were breathing those dusts, too. They didn't give us respirators,” Gary writes.

The pollution scrubbers’ fluorosilicates contain heavy metals such as lead and mercury and radionuclides including radium-226, radon-222 and uranium-238.

An autopsy of a man who died from several minutes exposure to concentrated fumes at a phosphate fertilizer plant revealed a coating of silica on his lungs. The cause of death, however, was fluorine poisoning, reports Gary.

A dentist speaking at a San Diego City Council meeting, when asked where fluoridation chemicals comes from, answered “from a rock.” He wasn’t lying. He just didn’t tell the whole truth.

Some fluoridation promoters soften fluorosilicates image by calling them “co-products” as if the phosphate fertilizer industry made the stuff on purpose. Whatever it’s called, fluorosilicates have never been safety tested in animals or humans. Yet, it's dumped as is into about 70% of US public drinking water supplies and given a stamp of approval by organized dentistry and its followers.

Gary’s story reveals the horror of working in an industry that provides the chemicals of modern living and how poorly the workers were treated by their employer whose main concern was money. Most of us have no idea how we indirectly put lives in peril. Maybe Gary’s book will get people thinking about it – especially those who endorse, promote or legislate fluorosilicates into our public water supplies.

Maybe the US phosphate fertilizer industry has improved worker conditions. But now, unbelievably, China, Mexico, Japan and Belgium are selling us their phosphate fertilizer waste fluorosilicates.

China has a history of selling us products with unwanted and/or toxic ingredients. Chinese fluorosilicates have already clogged up water systems in the US.

Organized dentistry, both inside government and out, and the officials they influence have a moral, ethical and maybe legal responsibility to know what toxins are in all fluoridation chemicals, where they come from and whose lives were endangered by handling them. They all need to read this book.

Support Gary's Work:

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/phosphate-fluorides-toxic-torts/15739397

Dentists Protect Fluoride Instead of Babies

2011-03-25T16:57:00.003-04:00

For Babies, Fluoride is Nothing to Smile About

Almost half of US children have fluoride-discolored teeth (dental fluorosis). So, health officials advise avoiding mixing fluoridated water into infant formula. But New Hampshire dentists, not only fought against publicizing such efforts but, glorified fluoride instead.

The New Hampshire Dental Society (NHDS) lobbied against required formula/fluoride warnings on water bills (1) then promoted fluoride with a new website and press release conspicuously excluding infant warnings.

Fluoride is added to water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay. There is no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth and bones.

Fluoride is also present in all infant formulas, according to Dr. Howard Koh, Assistant Secretary for Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Koh says, “…tooth enamel formation occurs from birth until about 8 years old. This is also the time when dental fluorosis may occur with excess fluoride consumption...low-fluoride bottled water [should] be used for routinely reconstituting infant formula.” (2)

Similar warnings have been made by the Centers for Disease Control, American Dental Association, Academy of General Dentistry, Mayo Clinic, Health Canada, Vermont Dep’t of Health, Minnesota Dental Association, Delta Dental, Environmental Working Group and many fluoride researchers. But new parents and pediatricians, who see more babies than dentists, are rarely informed.

According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), the NHDS and the NH Oral Health Coalition “claimed that they supported educating parents about infant exposure to fluoride, but believed that the notice should be given only in the doctor’s office, and not be placed on water bills where they claimed it could ‘scare’ water customers.”

NH Legislators suggested that the bill be re-introduced in 2012, and require warning notices on annual consumer confidence reports. New Hampshire dentists agree, reports FAN. So why didn’t they incude this information on their “Fluoride Facts” website? Maybe the rest of their fluoride "facts" aren't so factual either.

“Exposure to excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may lead to increased likelihood of bone fractures in adults, and may result in effects on bone leading to pain and tenderness,” according to the Environmental Protection Agency. (3)

Dental fluorosis afflicts more than 41% of adolescents, reports the CDC. We don't know if these fluoride-overdosed children have weakened bones because no such studies have been done.

Other health defects linked to fluoride have also not been studied in fluoride-overdosed children such as lower IQ, thyroid dysfunction, irritable bowel syndrome, arthritis. Absence of evidence shouldn’t be misinterpreted as absence of harm.

HHS recently lowered recommended water fluoride levels to 0.7 ppm because they acknowledge US children are fluoride overdosed. However, it makes more sense to stop fluoridation entirely to protect our children from further fluoride abuse to satisfy the politics of organized dentistry.

Fluoride never was FDA safety-tested for human ingestion. FDA regulates fluoridated toothpaste as a drug for topical application which requires poison warning labeling. The EPA regulates fluoride as a water contaminant and air pollutant. The CDC does not do original fluoride research. The CDC's Oral Health Division is hired to promote fluoridation. The American Dental Association represents the best interests of fluoride manufacturers.

According to a study in The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology ”Fluorosis has some hormonal, gastrointestinal, hematological, skeletal, renal, respiratory, cardiovascular, immunological, neurological and development side effects.”

Public water supplies should not be used to dispense fluoride drugs to the entire population. People need to take back their water supply from Organized Dentistry and demand their legislators side with science which shows ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and harmful to health.

Dentists prefer to treat the water of low-income people rather than their teeth. 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients. 100 million Americans don’t have dental insurance. US children have died from the consequences of untreated tooth decay and the inability to find a dentist willing to treat them. Our emergency rooms are flood with people in dental pain costing the tax payers thousands of dollars which an $80 filling could have prevented.

Dentists need to be mandated to treat more low income people – either for free, on a sliding scale or accept government sponsored insurance. If not, they need to step aside and allow Dental Therapists to do the job. We know dentist love mandates because they are behind virtually every fluoridation mandate in this country.

References:

1) Dental leaders in Dover tout economical benefits of fluoride

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110325/GJNEWS_01/703259936

Government Perspectives on Healthcare

HHS: Proposed Guidelines on Fluoride in Drinking Water

A Commentary By Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738322

3) http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm#three

Austin Texas Dentist Condemns Fluoridation

2011-01-09T00:31:00.002-05:00

This is an excerpt from an ABC Radio News story:

Dr. Griffin Cole, a dentist in Austin, Texas, said he has seen several cases of mild to severe fluorosis in his practice.

While he applauded the feds' proposal [to lower water fluoride levels], he'd like to see the recommendations go even lower.

"I still don't think it's enough, honestly," he said. "I don't think there should be fluoride in the water at all.

"I think it's a nice move in the right direction," he said.

Cole said he began his dentistry career in the early 1990s, working for a dentist who was openminded about fluoride use and believed that his patients were getting too much.

Cole said he had never once prescribed fluoride supplements to his patients.

He cited studies from the past decade that have linked excess fluoride to not only fluorosis but to higher instances of bone cancer in the test subjects. He also said osteoporosis was an additional concern, since ingested fluoride is known to sit in a person's bones.

"Ingesting fluoride in any form does nothing for your teeth," he said. In cases of "rampant" tooth decay, applying a topical fluoride can improve dental health, but only minimally.

Fluoride, Cole said, molds to the tooth's enamel. So while it will aid in preventing decay, it can also make teeth brittle.

"When you see a case of somebody coming in with bad fluorosis, to restore those teeth you either have to crown them completely or at least do a veneer," he said. "So it's a very costly thing to fix."

Depending on the dentist and the region of the country, restoration could cost between $900 and $1,600 a tooth.

http://www.670kboi.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=116&itemid=29618599

Confronting the Myths of Water Fluoridation Promoters

2010-12-02T08:14:00.000-05:00

The following are excerpts adapted from the recently-released book, The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett, PhD; James Beck, PhD; and H. S. Micklem, DPhil (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2010) from an excerpt published in its entirety on the truth-out website

Proponents of fluoridation have made a number of claims that have been effective with an ill-informed public. Let’s take a look at them.

Claim 1: Fluoride is “natural.” We are just topping up what is there anyway.

There is nothing “natural” about the fluoridating chemicals. They are obtained largely from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The chemicals used in most fluoridation programs are either hexafluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt, and those silicon fluorides do not occur in nature. What is more, under international law they cannot be dumped into the sea.

Claim 2: Fluoridation is no different than adding iron, folic acid, or vitamin D to bread and other foodstuffs.

There is a world of difference:

1. Iron, folic acid, and vitamin D are known essential nutrients. Fluoride is not.
2. All of those substances have large margins of safety between their toxic levels and their beneficial levels. Fluoride does not.

3. People who do not want those supplements can seek out foods without them. It is much more difficult to avoid tap water.

Claim 3: The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is so small it couldn’t possibly hurt you.

Promoters use analogies such as 1 ppm is equivalent to one cent in $10,000 or one inch in sixteen miles to make it appear that we are dealing with insignificant quantities of fluoride. Such analogies are nonsensical without reference to the toxicity of the chemical in question. For example, 1 ppm is about a million times higher than the safe concentration to swallow of dioxin, and 100 times higher than the safe drinking water standard for arsenic; it is also up to 250 times higher than the level of fluoride in mother’s milk.

Claim 4: You would have to drink a whole bathtub of water to get a toxic dose of fluoride.

Here again, proponents are confusing a toxic dose with a lethal dose—that is, a dose causing illness or harmful effect as opposed to a dose causing death. Opponents of fluoridation are not suggesting that people are going to be killed outright from drinking fluoridated water, but we are suggesting that it may cause immediate health problems in those who are very sensitive and, with long-term exposure, persistent health problems in others.

Claim 5: Fluoridated water is only delivered to the tap. No one is forced to drink it.

Unfortunately, that is not a simple option, especially for families of low income who cannot afford bottled water or expensive fluoride filtration systems. Even those who can afford alternatives cannot easily protect themselves from the water they get outside the home. Fluoridated tap water is used in many processed foods and beverages (soda, beer, coffee, etc.).

Claim 6: Fluoridation is needed to protect children in low-income families.

This is a powerful and emotional argument. However, it ignores the fact that poor nutrition is most prevalent in families of low income, and the people most vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects are those with a poor diet. Thus, while children from low-income families are a special target for this program, they are precisely the ones most likely to be harmed. Moreover, some of the many distressing newspaper accounts of children suffering from tooth decay in low-income areas located in cities that have been fluoridated for over thirty years. In fact numerous state oral health reports indicate the continued disparity in tooth decay between low-income and high-income families, even in states with a high percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water.

Claim 7: Fluoridation has been going on for over sixty years; if it caused any harm, we would know about it by now.

Such statements would start to be meaningful only if fluoridated countries had conducted comprehensive health studies of their fluoridated populations. Most have not. Only a few health studies have been performed in the United States, most many years ago; very few health studies have been performed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the UK; and none has been performed in Colombia, Ireland, Israel, or Singapore (all coun tries with more than 50 percent of the population drinking fluoridated water).

Claim 11: Every major dental and medical authority supports fluoridation.

Here we return to the dubious nature of endorsements not backed up by inde pendent and current reviews of the literature. Many of the major associations on the list frequently cited by the American Dental Association endorsed fluoridation before a single trial had been completed and before the first health study had been published, in 1954.

Claim 12: When fluoridation is stopped, tooth decay rates go up.

There now have been at least four modern studies showing that when fluo ridation was halted in communities in East Germany, Finland, Cuba, and British Columbia (Canada), tooth decay rates did not go up.

Claim 13: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is effective.

On the contrary, the UK’s York Review was able to identify very few studies of even moderate quality, and the results were mixed.

Claim 14: Fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 20–60 percent.

The evidence for fluoridation’s bene fits and found is very weak. Even a 20 percent reduction in tooth decay is a figure rarely found in more recent studies. Moreover, we have to remember that percentages can give a very misleading picture. For example, if an average of two decayed tooth surfaces are found in a non-fluoridated group and one decayed surface in a fluoridated group, that would amount to an impressive 50 percent reduction. But when we consider the total of 128 surfaces on a complete set of teeth, the picture—which amounts to an absolute saving in tooth decay of a mere 0.8 percent—does not look so impressive.

Claim 15: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is safe.

When proponents are asked to produce just one study (a primary study, not a governmental review) that has convinced them that fluoridation is safe, they are seldom able to do so. Apparently, they have taken such assurances from others at face value, without reading the literature for themselves. The fact is, it is almost impossible to prove conclusively that a substance has no ill effects. A careful and properly controlled study may show that, under the conditions and limitations of the investigation, no harm is apparent. A hundred such studies may permit a considerable degree of confidence—but in the case of fluoridation, very few studies have even been attempted. As fluoride accumu lates progressively in the skeleton and probably the pineal gland, studies need to extend over a lifetime. Meanwhile, fluoride at moderate to high doses can cause serious health problems, leav ing little or no margin of safety for people drinking fluoridated water.

Claim 16: Opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications.

Some opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications (of course); many do. Many highly qualified doctors, dentists, and scientists have opposed fluoridation in the past and do so today. Currently, over 3,000 individuals from medicine, dentistry, science, and other relevant professions are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. Furthermore, many opponents without professional qualifications have educated themselves on the science relevant to fluoridation and are qualified to evaluate many aspects of it.

Claim 17: Opponents of fluoridation get their information from the Internet.

No one denies that plenty of rubbish appears on the Internet. But just because a published study can be found using the Internet does not invalidate it. In fact, scientists now do much of their reading of the scientific literature online. The Fluoride Action Network maintains a Health Effects Database on its Web site, which provides citations, excerpts, abstracts, and in some cases complete pdf files of many published studies. Proponents would do well to read some of these papers, rather than trying to dismiss them because they are available online.

Claim 18: There is no evidence that fluoride at the levels used in fluoridation schemes causes any health problems.

There are three weaknesses to this argument. First, it does not make clear that fluoridating countries have done few basic health studies of populations drinking fluoridated water. Absence of studies does not mean absence of harm. Second, just because a study is conducted at a higher water fluoride level than 1 ppm does not mean that it is not relevant to water fluoridation. Toxicologists are nearly always extrapolating from high-dose animal experi ments to estimate safe doses for humans. In the case of fluoride, we have the luxury of a large number of human studies conducted in countries with moderate to high levels of exposure to naturally occurring fluoride. What is required here is a “margin-of-safety” analysis to see if there is a sufficient safety margin between the doses that cause harm and the doses likely to be experienced in fluoridated communities. In our view, there is not. And third, it is not true that there is no evidence of ill effects from fluoride at present levels of fluoridation.

Claim 21: Skeletal fluorosis is very rare in fluoridated countries.

It is difficult for promoters of fluoridation to deny that high natural levels of fluoride have caused severe bone damage in millions of people in India, China, and several other countries. However, proponents insist that skeletal fluorosis is a rare occurrence in countries with artificial fluoridation like the United States. What they really mean by this is that the crippling phase (stage III) of this condition is rare in the United States; they fail to recognize that the earlier phases (stage I and stage II) are associated with pains in the joints and bones, symptoms identical to the early symptoms of arthritis, a condition that affects many millions of adults in the United States.The 2006 NRC review recommends that stage II skeletal fluorosis be considered an adverse effect: “The committee judges that stage II is also an adverse health effect, as it is associated with chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, slight calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones.” No fluoridating country has undertaken a study to see if there is a relationship between fluoridation and arthritis.

The complete chapter can be found here:

http://www.truth-out.org/confronting-myths-water-fluoridation-promoters65562?print

Treatment for Dental Fluorosis

2010-07-18T18:01:00.000-04:00

From the Journal of Conservative Dentistry, Volume 13, Issue 1, 2010

Fluorosis: Varied Treatment

In case A, patient had mild grade of fluorosis and therefore in-office vital bleaching procedure with McInnes solution was advocated. McInnes solution has been successfully used for treating mild fluorosis. Advantage of this procedure is that it is relatively non-invasive compared to other restorative procedures and also it could be done with minimum chair side time. The main disadvantage of this procedure is the postoperative sensitivity it produces and that it cannot be employed in patients with more severe grade of fluorosis. [24] Vital bleaching is more successful for fluorosis in younger patients presenting with opaque to orange colour stain rather than older patients with darker type of brown stains. [25]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case B patient had mild grade fluorosis and micro and macro abrasion were employed. Advantage of micro and macro abrasion being its much faster procedure in achieving the desired result compared to other treatment options. However, the main disadvantage is that these procedures employ high speed rotary instrument which can lead to excessive removal of tooth structure is operator does not have the desired skill level. [17]

Abrasion techniques can be successfully employed for discoloration presented either as single line discoloration or patchy type of discoloration, it cannot be successfully employed for discoloration which is more diffuse in nature. [26] Both the bleaching technique and abrasion procedures could be employed only for mild to moderate grade fluorosis. [25],[26] Most of the times, a combined treatment regimen of bleaching and abrasion procedures is employed to produce the desired aesthetic result in patients with yellowish discoloration due to fluorosis. [27]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case C, the patient had moderate type of fluorosis which necessitated that the patient was treated by veneer procedure. Veneers have been successfully employed for management moderate grade fluorosis, [15] Because of the time constraint given by patient, direct composite veneer treatment option was selected. Advantage of direct composite veneer is that it is done with minimal chair time when compared to indirect ceramic veneers, disadvantage being its long term wear resistance, color stability. [17]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case D, patient had loss of vertical dimension of occlusion and patient's inter-occlusal space was 4mm at rest. Therefore a treatment plan was evolved to increase the vertical dimension of occlusion by 4mm which was within the limit for the patient. [20] Full mouth restorations were planned with metal ceramic crowns. This treatment option of restoring vertical dimensions of occlusion for severe fluorosis patients requires careful investigations and preparation. This treatment option is limited to cases with severe fluorosis and loss of inter-occlusal space. Advantage of this procedure is that it is an extensive procedure by which the desired aesthetic results and functional efficiency is achieved. The main disadvantage is also its extensiveness in treatment procedure which requires extensive lab procedure and operator skill, knowledge.

In each of the treatment options described above, each one has its own advantages and disadvantages; a good clinician should be aware of all the treatment options available assess its merits and demerits and select the best treatment option according to individual patient needs.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883808/?tool=pubmed

Let's Work Together to Stop Fluoridation in the U.S. and Canada

2010-07-01T19:42:00.001-04:00

How Lead Gets into Your Fluoride

2010-05-30T13:05:00.000-04:00

Fluoride and Lead
by
Frances Frech

Originally presented at a State Lead Commission hearing in
Hannibal, Missouri in 1994

All of the fluoride products used in the artificial fluoridation of water are contaminated with lead and arsenic. (We received the evidence from Margaret Stasikowski, an official with the EPA, in the form of copies of pages from Water Chemicals Codex, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1982.)

The lead contamination is considered the most serious so we'll deal with that one rather than with both substances. Lead is creating the most concern today we'll go into the arsenic angle in a later paper.

So How does the tainting occur? In the matter of the fluosilicates (such as hydrofluosilicic acid); the most commonly used fluoride substances in community water systems, this is the story:

The fluosilicates are the by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. In the manufacture of this kind of fertilizer, phosphorus is obtained from phosphate rock, which has to be broken down with sulfuric acid.(1) Fluorine occurs naturally in combination with the phosphates.(2) In these two facts lie the keys to the presence of lead in the fluosilicates.

Step One: Sulfuric acid is prepared by either of two ways, the lead chamber process(3) or the contact method.(4) In its purest form (made by the contact method) it is used in pharmaceuticals; in its lowest grade (produced by the lead chamber process) it is used by the fertilizer industry.(5) It is also frequently recovered for re-use, but this form is too impure for any purpose except the manufacture of fertilizer, for which it is quite suitable.(6)

In the lead chamber process purification is carried out only to the extent of removing substances that could clog the machinery.(7) Of the common metals, only lead is resistant to cold sulfuric acid in concentrations up to 100%. But in hot acid the resistance is up to about 70%.(8) The lead chamber type uses heat (about 600 C) and isn't cooled during the process. That's why a certain amount of lead is leached during this procedure.

If a pure product is needed, the contact method is used, but it's more expensive, more complicated. In the making of fertilizer, however, a pure grade is not necessary. After all, neither fertilizer nor its by-products were intended for human consumption.

Step Two: Fluorine, which is a highly reactive element capable of joining with any other element except oxygen, is able to leach lead from the contaminated sulfuric acid. In the past hydrofluosilicic acid was simply neutralized and discarded. The picking up of lead wouldn't have been a problem. But eventually it was decided that the acid, being already in solution, would be better, simpler to use, and less expensive than sodium fluoride.(9) The lead contamination, apparently, was forgotten (if, indeed, it had ever been noticed.)

Another way in which fluoridation contributes to lead in the water is through its action on whatever lead pipes may still be in existence in older homes. Any lead pipes would be old lead. These are ordinarily covered by a protective coating made by the lead itself which is impervious to diluted acids (as all of them would be in water.) Water acts slowly on lead, forming lead hydroxide, but the action is slight if the water contains carbon dioxide or carbonates or sulfates which interact with lead to form these protective coatings.(11) It's interesting that the lead pipes in Roman aqueducts, 2000 years old, are still in such good shape the numbers and letters engraved on them are clearly legible.(12)

In fluoridated water, though, it's a different matter. Fluorine can and does destroy the protective coatings; it can and does leach lead.

A pediatrics textbook published in 1964 (13) noted that the incidence of lead poisoning had been rising in certain metropolitan areas in Eastern United States. The blame was laid on old lead paint flaking from walls and woodwork. But most of the lead chips were old before 1964; some children chewed them long before then. But a new source of lead had arisen--unnoticed: The fluoridation of water, with lead-contaminated fluoride, a substance also capable of leaching lead from the pipes. Although there were scattered places fluoridating throughout the nation, larger numbers of eastern metropolitan communities were doing so.

Today one in nine children under the age of six is said to have unacceptably high blood lead levels (14) even though lead paint was banned in 1978 (and hadn't been used extensively since the 1950's!) Lead in gasoline has been phased out, and lead solder hasn't been permitted on copper tubing since 1986 (eight years ago.) The EPA says that lead stabilizes in five years. So except for fluoride use, any pipes, whether of lead or lead-soldered, should not now be hazardous. The most revealing statistics, though, are the high blood lead levels in 400,000 newborns each year. Newsweek in its article on lead and the threat to children (15) said that pregnant women passed this toxic substance to their unborn children by eating, drinking, or breathing it. But even though pregnant women do sometimes have weird cravings, it's not likely more than a tiny percentage would be chewing paint chips, nor would a significant number of them be engaged in renovating old houses. The lead is in the water--and in foods and beverages prepared with the water.

The EPA estimates that 10-20% of the lead in children comes from the water.(16) That agency, which knows of the lead contamination of fluoride products, insists the amount is too small to be of regulatory concern. What they have overlooked, though, is that it concentrates in the body tissues, and over time, would add up to quite a lot. In addition, it becomes concentrated in products processed with the water. The 10-20% directly from the water can easily become three or four times as much.

The EPA lists as health problems caused by lead the following conditions: Interference with formation of red blood cells, anemia, kidney damage, impaired reproductive function, interference with Vitamin D metabolism, impaired cognitive performance, delayed neurological and physical development, elevations in blood pressure.(17) The agency also suggests lead my be a carcinogen, possibly causing kidney tumors and lymphocytic leukemia.(18) Furthermore, it's a known scientific fact that lead poisons the bone marrow.(19) Surely, then, it would be prudent to avoid even "a little bit of lead," assuming that's all fluoridation contributes.

But the evidence shows it's much more than that. Let us tell you a tale of two cities--Tacoma, Washington, and Thurmont, Maryland. Both of them saw significant decline in lead levels only six months after fluoridation was stopped. (In Tacoma, that was due to equipment problems, in Thurmont, it was a temporary ban by the city council.) Tacoma registered a drop of nearly 50% (20); in Thurmont it was 78%.(21) To the best of our knowledge, no other explanations were offered. In Thurmont the ban is now permanent.(22) In Tacoma, we're told, a battle continues over whether or not to resume fluoridating.

We have more points to add. As we've already mentioned, the EPA says that lead may be implicated in causing leukemia. A booklet published by the Leukemia Society in 1987 noted that chemicals which damage the bone marrow can cause leukemia. The Book of Popular Science, 1974, pointed out that bone marrow is poisoned by lead. (23) Are we to believe, then, nothing is wrong with putting a little bit of lead into the water (from which it will also enter, more concentrated, food and beverages prepared with the water?)

The EPA permits lead-contaminated fluorides to be added; they do not require it. Thus, any community, anywhere, could halt the program any time, with the consent of its citizens, who surely would consent if given the facts.

Lead-tainted fluorides are waste products mainly of the aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industries, largely from US companies. But we've learned that in some communities sodium fluoride imported from Japan or sodium silicofluoride from Belgium are used. Neither of these nations fluoridates its own water supplies. (24) (Don't you get the feeling we're in the same category as a Third World country becoming a toxic waste dump for others?)

In California recently the Attorney General and two environmental groups have sued the makers of brass pumps containing lead which could contaminate water from wells. (24) But who is suing companies who sell lead-tainted products to cities for their fluoridation purposes? Who is suing the EPA for allowing it? Where are the lawsuits against the US Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control for adamantly promoting it?

In conclusion, there's still the matter of lead being leached from old pipes. Anyone who argues that fuoridation had nothing to do with it will have to explain those well-preserved lead pipes from more than 2000 years ago in unfluoridated Roman water.

REFERENCES:

(1) Book of Popular Science, Grolier, Inc., 1974, Vol.7, 63.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3, 167-169.
(4) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 7, 62.
(5) Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1957, Vol.21, 545.
(6) Ibid., 545.
(7) Ibid., 546.
(8) Ibid., 545A
(9) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 7, 63-64.
(10) Encyclopedia Americana, 1945, Vol. 1, 456.
(11) Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1957, Vol.1, 715.
(12) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3, 39.
(13) Textbook of Pediatrics, Nelson WS, MD, WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia,London, 1964, 1557.
(14) Newsweek, "Lead and Your Kids," July 15, 1991.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Ibid.
(17) Federal Register, Bol. 56, No. 110, June 7, 1991, 264.
(18) Ibid., 265-70.
(19) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3, 74.
(20) Letter from the Tacoma Public Utilities, Dec. 2, 1992.
(21) Fluoride Report, newsletter, April, 1994, 5.
(22) Ibid.
(23) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3,74.
(24) Letter from Tacoma Public Utilities, May 22, 1992.
(25) Kansas City STAR, April 19, 1994.

Home | Environment

Expert: Fluoride Linked to Stillbirths & Miscarriages.

2010-02-04T09:01:00.001-05:00

News Release Posted on TruthMovementAustralia.com.au

World-renowned Professor (Dr) A K Susheela presently visiting Australia Warns on Fluoride Link to Miscarriages, Stillbirths and Retardation.

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, there were more than 2,900 perinatal deaths in Australia. In addition, each year many more parents experience the loss of a baby early in the pregnancy. Sadly, one in every four pregnancies ends in a loss from miscarriage and stillbirth. http://www.sandsvic.org.au

Professor (Dr) A.K. Susheela who is visiting Australia says long-term studies show fluoride is a serious threat to public health. It has not only has been linked to increased rates of stillbirth and miscarriages among Indian populations exposed to fluoride in water, but poses a serious risk of birth abnormalities including mental retardation.

Professor (Dr) A.K. Susheela of India, who has researched fluoride for more than 20 years, has listed a range of health issues linked to fluoride ingestion, she has more than 80 scientific publications in leading Western and Indian Journals.

Dr Susheela says the studies have shown fluoride destroys muscle structure and muscle function, depletes muscle energy; destroys the bone and teeth, red blood cells, blood vessels and the lining of the stomach and intestine.

“We now have ample scientific evidence to substantiate the fact that ingestion of fluoride prevents biosynthesis of hemoglobin leading to anemia in human beings. We have studied this problem in pregnant mothers. The danger of anemia in pregnancy is that it would lead to abnormalities in the development of the embryo/foetus,’’ says Dr Susheela.

“Studies also indicate it harms fetuses carried by pregnant women and may cause abortions and stillbirths.”

Dr Susheela says results of reducing fluoride in water include reduced abortions and stillbirths as fluoride is known to induce calcification of blood vessels of the fetus.

“It has been shown that when fluoride-contaminated water (>1.0 mg/L) and dental products are consumed or used by pregnant mothers, it destroys the thyroid gland of the embryo/foetus,’’ says Dr Susheela.

“When children with dental fluorosis were investigated, there were severe derangements in the thyroid hormone levels T3 (Triiodothyronine) and T4 (Tetraiodothyronine) along with Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH). Such children suffer from sub-clinical hypothyroidism, T3 toxicosis, low T3 syndrome, primary hypothyroidism and disturbed hormone conversion.

“Thyroid hormone defects results in mental retardation (low IQ) in children, deaf mutism, knock-knee, bow-leg and cretinism.”

Dr Susheela says the results of the studies on women ingesting fluoride were reported at the 27th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, Beijing, China, Oct. 2007. The study is: Fluoride Ingestion and Health Hazards with Focus on Anaemia in Pregnancy and low birth weight babies: Guidelines for rectification: Susheela A.K, Mondal NK, Rashmi G, Ganesh Kamala, Bhasin Shammi, Gupta Gunjan.

“The evidences we have provided on the harmful effects of fluoride on human health, unequivocally prove the point that fluoride is disease-causing and not disease preventing. Our scientific publications would not only stand the test of time but also before any judiciary in any part of the world, as it is based on biomedical research of highest standards,’’ says Dr Susheela.

“With a high degree of scientific accuracy and certainty, I conclude that artificial fluoridation of drinking water is an ineffective means of improving dental health, and is in fact quite dangerous to those forced to consume it.”

In regard to claims by Australian health authorities that water fluoridation strengthens teeth surfaces and prevents dental caries (cavities), Dr Susheela’s research indicates the opposite.

“The findings emerging from the studies on both tooth and bone have made significant contributions to negate the belief that fluoride is good for teeth. Instead, fluoride does more damage to teeth than any good and prolonged use of fluoride leads to a decrease in the organic matrix of rabbit tooth but dermatan sulphate content is increased,” says Dr Susheela.

Dr Susheela says India launched a Technology Mission on “Safe Drinking Water” in 1986 (now re-designated after the late Prime Minister Sh. Rajiv Gandhi, as Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission) in which every drinking water source in the rural sector is checked for water quality, especially for fluoride.

“People are keen to defluoridate the water due to gastrointestinal problems and are adopting indigenous technology for obtaining potable (defluoridated) water,’’ she said.

“Substantial scientific evidence has emerged in recent years from studies conducted on human subjects and hospital patients and those residing in areas/regions/villages where fluoride content ranges in drinking water from 0.5 ppm to 38.5 ppm,’’ said Dr Susheela.

She said the findings came after 20 years of follow-up studies that have now been concluded. The findings also included:

Gastro-intestinal complaints are the earliest manifestations of fluoride toxicity and fluorosis. The most common complaints include (1) headache; (2) nausea (loss of appetite); (3) pain in the stomach; (4) gas formation in the stomach (bloated feeling); (5) constipation; (6) intermittent fermentation diarrhea.

As a result of the above, gastro intestinal complaints in endemic areas are considered as early warning signs of the fluoride toxicity and are used as a diagnostic parameter under field based conditions. See report: Fluoride Ingestion and its Correlation with Gastrointestinal Discomfort.

Fluoride in circulation has an affinity to get deposited in tissues rich in calcium although some amount is excreted. In children, the fluoride ingested has adverse effects on kidney function. See Fluoride: Too Much Can Cripple You.

Significant findings emerged from studies on human patients with skeletal fluorosis. Degenerative changes were well defined at the ultrastructural level in the fluoresced muscle obtained from patients with skeletal fluorosis.

Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in rabbits and may occur in human subjects as well.

Fluoride inhibits protein and DNA synthesis in cultured lymphocytes.

“I am absolutely certain that large numbers of persons all around the world are suffering from fluoride toxicity, to one degree or other,’’ said Dr Susheela.

Dr Susheela is executive director, of the Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation in India, Professor of Anatomy (Histocytochemistry) and Chief of the Fluoride and Fluorosis Research Laboratories, at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.

Her post-doctoral training was under Lord Walton (Neurologist) of U.K. and Dr. Ade Milhorut of the Muscle Institute, New York, USA, (no longer exists).

Professor Susheela has written six doctorate papers in more than 20 years of scientific research in the field of fluoride toxicity and fluorosis.

Other academic positions:

Visiting Professor at the Allan Hancock Fn. at the University of Southern California during 1974-76.

Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medical Sciences. She has held Faculty positions at the same Institute since 1969

Winner of the prestigious Ran Baxy Research Foundation Award for outstanding research in medical sciences.

Teacher of medical students of all levels and carrying out research and guiding research in the field of muscle diseases and Fluorosis for more than 20 years.

An Ashoka Fellow recognised by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.

Dr Susheela is a Visiting Professor at the Allan Hancock Fn. at the University of Southern California during 1974-76.
She is a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medical Sciences.
She has won the prestigious Ran Baxy Research Foundation Award (Cash Prize) for outstanding research in medical sciences.
She has been involved in teaching medical students of all levels and carrying out research and guiding research in the field of muscle diseases and Fluorosis for more than 20 years.
She is currently the executive director of Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation Saransh.
She is also an Ashoka Fellow recognised by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India & Registered under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976 under Section 6 (1) Permanent Eligibility No. 2 3 1 6 6 0 0 1
Numerous funding organizations have been calling upon her during that time for evaluating projects for funding in the field of Biomedical Research.
She has been a member of several National Committees since early 1970s, where issues related to Fluoride are debated and discussed.
She has convened an International Conference on Fluoride and Fluorosis research in India in 1983. I edited a book on Fluoride Toxicity during 1985.
She has been invited to speak on my experience in the field of Fluoride Research at various scientific meetings held in: (1) Japan; (2) Denmark; (3) Switzerland; (4) Kenya; (5) U.S.A. (several times); and (6) Hungary.
She has guided 6 PhD theses in the subject of Fluoride and Health Hazards. A 7th Project is ongoing.
Professor (Dr) A K Susheela has more than 80 scientific publications in leading Western and Indian Journals.
Professor (Dr) A K Susheela Departs Australia February 9TH 2010

Contact Phones
Professor (Dr) A K Susheela Adelaide 8 7001 2259
Dr Andrew Harms Adelaide Bus. 8 8239 1711 – Prvt. 8 8268 7977
Anthony Halpin - Welcome Australia - 7 55775 971 mob 0414259562

Professor (Dr) A K Susheela is available for Interviews for Radio, News Paper and Television untill February 8th 2010.

PS. Intending and Expectant Mothers urgently require to read or hear Professor A K Susheela speak on what may well save their Infants life or quality of life.

http://www.truthmovementaustralia.com.au/2010/02/world-renowned-professor-dr-a-k-susheela-presently-visiting-australia/

Pres Obama's Science Czar on Fluoridation

2009-10-17T07:54:00.000-04:00

John P Holdren is now President Obama's Science Adviser or "Science Czar"

The following is from a book Holdren co-wrote in 1977, "Eco Science" with Paul R Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich:

(page 575 "Direct Assaults on Well-Being")

Fluorides

Fluoridation of public water supplies for partial protection against tooth decay is an emotion-charged subject. The scientific evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of mass fluoridation at the generally recommended level of 1 milligram per liter of water (1 ppm) is not as good as it ought to be, but neither is there convincing evidence that it is harmful. although there are certainly some cranks in the antifluoridation school, there are also some serious and competent scientists and responsible laymen who have been unmercifully abused because of the position they have taken on this controversial issue. Perhaps the strongest argument against mass fluoridation of drinking water is that individual treatment with fluoride is simple and can be supplied cheaply on public funds for those wishing to use it.

There is no question that fluoride is toxic in high concentrations, and fluoride pollution from a variety of industrial activities is a significant problem. Fluorides are discharged into the air from steel, aluminum, phosphate, pottery, glass, and brick works. These sources together emit perhaps 150,000 tons of hydrogen fluoride annually, and the same activities emit some tens of thousands of tons of fluorides annually into waterways. Intentional addition of fluorides in fluoridation programs makes a modest but not negligible contribution of perhaps 20,000 tons per year to the human-caused fluoride inputs to the environment.

The main problems encountered in trying to evaluate health threats from fluoride pollution are familiar ones: the boundary between safe and unsafe levels is a fuzzy one; some individuals are more sensitive than others; and fluorides may act in combination with other pollutants to do damage at concentrations where the fluorides alone would not be harmful.

Fluorides have been shown to concentrate in food chains, and evidence suggesting a potential for significant ecological effects is accumulating. Harm to terrestrial plants and algae at concentrations encountered in polluted environments has been documented, and the ability of certain plants and microorganisms to synthesize particularly toxic organic fluorides has been demonstrated. The toxicity of inorganic and organic fluorides to soil organisms is essentially unexplored and is a potential danger point.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18564724/Eco-Science-One

Dentists Continue to Ignore Low-Income Children

2009-10-10T12:31:00.002-04:00

Children in America are dying from untreated tooth decay. And dentists are resisting any change that might alleviate the problem. Sixty-six percent of Medicaid eligible children (12.6 million) are not receiving any dental care. And the number of dentists has gone down in recent years and the number of dentist-shortage areas has gone up.

At least 50 percent of the average dentist's income now comes from elective cosmetic procedures. If dentists spent less time giving wealthier Americans artificially whitened grins, they would have more time to treat the serious oral disease that plagues millions of poorer Americans.

In 2000, the US Surgeon General revealed the ugly truth - that the low-incomed and minorities aren't getting the dental care wealthier Americans take for granted.

Many reports, meetings, symposiums, studies, conferences and years later, nothing has changed. Representative Dennis Kucinich held his fourth hearing on this issue on October 9, 2009 as chairman of the Domestic policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In his opening statement, Kucinich said:

"On February 25, 2007 Deamonte Driver, a twelve-year-old boy from Prince George's County, Maryland died from a brain infection caused by untreated tooth decay. Deamonte's tragic death could have been easily prevented by access to dental care - dental care he was entitled to.”

About two dozen dentists contacted refused to treat Deamonte Driver because he was on Medicaid.

"At our first hearing in May 2007, we learned that Deamonte Driver was not the only Maryland youth who wasn't receiving dental care to which he was entitled by Medicaid, said Kucinich. His investigation found that approximately 11,000 Maryland children on Medicaid had not seen a dentist in at least four years.

Representative Elijah Cummings, a member of the committee, said he grew up without dental care and believed his constant tooth decay pain was normal. He doesn't want any kids to have to endure that, especially when it's easily treated, he said.

Cummings said he has lots of kids from fluoridated Baltimore going to the University of Maryland for dental care, partially because of Deamonte Driver's death because "I want them to grow up," he said. Many of them have such bad tooth infections that traveled to and infected their eyes - which happens before the infections reaches the brain which killed Deamonte Driver, said Cummings.

Kucinich said, “A GAO report (2007), the first of its kind since 2000, revealed that millions of Medicaid-enrolled children suffer from tooth decay - almost one-third of the total Medicaid population. Medicaid children are roughly twice as likely as privately-insured chidren to suffer from tooth decay. Moreover, this pattern has persisted for years; very little had been done to improve access to and utilization of dental services. In a sense, the problem of tooth decay is getting worse because the rate of decay in the teeth of children aged two through five has increased in recent years."

Today, there are millions of children just like Deamonte Driver - entitled to dental care but not getting it, said Kucinich

Fluoride as a factor in premature aging

2009-06-24T09:18:00.002-04:00

Abstract from: Annales Academiae Medicae Stetinensis (article in Polish)
Volume 50 Suppl 1, 2004, Pages 9-13 by Machoy-Mokrzyńska, et al.

The use of fluorine compounds in various areas of medicine, particularly in dentistry, as well as in agriculture and industry became very popular in the second half of the 20th century.

Fluorine owed this widespread acceptance to observations that its compounds stimulate ossification processes and reduce the prevalence of caries. Unfortunately, growing expectations overshadowed the truth regarding interactions of fluoride on the molecular level.

The fact was often ignored that fluoride is toxic, even though laboratory data stood for a careful approach to the benefits of usage. Excessive exposure to fluoride may lead to acute poisoning, hyperemia, cerebral edema, and degeneration of the liver and kidneys. Acute intoxication through the airways produces coughing, choking, and chills, followed by fever and pulmonary edema. Concentrated solutions of fluorine compounds produce difficult to heal necrotic lesions.

In spite of these dramatic symptoms, acute intoxications are relatively rare; the more common finding is chronic intoxication attributable to the universal presence of fluorine compounds in the environment.

The first noticeable signs of excessive exposure to fluoride in contaminated water, air, and food products include discolorations of the enamel. Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds. Abnormalities in mineralization processes affect by and large the osteoarticular system and are associated with changes in the density and structure of the bone presenting as irregular mineralization of the osteoid.

Fluorine compounds also act on the organic part of supporting tissues, including collagen and other proteins, and on cells of the connective tissue. These interactions reduce the content of collagen proteins, modify the structure and regularity of collagen fibers, and induce mineralization of collagen.

Interactions with cells produce transient activation of osteoblasts, stimulate fibroblasts to produce collagenase, and trigger toxic reactions in osteocytes and chondrocytes of trabecular bone.

Growing deformations of the skeleton reduce mobility and result in permanent crippling of the patient. Fluoride increases the mass of non-collagen proteins such as proteoglycans and glucosaminoglycans, accelerating skin aging even though protein biosynthesis is generally suppressed. The final outcome includes progressive vascular lesions and disorders of energy metabolism in muscles.

In conclusions, the use of fluoride, particularly by dentists and pediatricians, must be controlled and adapted to individual needs. It is worth remembering that fluoride: is the cause of disability due to bone deformations and abnormalities in the musculoskeletal system; reduces the incidence of caries but do not protect against tooth loss; exerts an adverse effect of metabolic processes in the skin; accelerates calcification of vessels and thus reduces their elasticity; inhibits bioenergetic reactions, in particular oxidative phosphorylation, reducing physical activity of muscles. These findings suggest that fluorine may be yet another factor in accelerated aging and revive the dispute started more than two and half thousand years ago whether aging is a physiologic or pathologic process. The understanding of factors modifying the process of aging is the basis for preventive measures aimed at extending life and maintaining full psychosocial activity.

http://www.scopus.com.ezproxy.uvm.edu/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-33750590946&view=basic&origin=inward&txGid=-2NCY6kDRHKLEbS0zrxGxel%3a6

Still Waiting for Promised NIH Cancer Study

2009-06-19T08:40:00.003-04:00

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK BULLETIN 1078
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org

Still waiting for Chester "Godot" Douglass

June 18, 2009 -- It has now been over three years since Professor Chester Douglass of the Harvard Dental School trashed Bassin's (his own student!)[published and peer-reviewed] study associating fluoride exposure to osteosarcoma [bone cancer], with the promise that his paper (to be co-authored by Robert Hoover and Gary Whitford) - to be published in the Summer of 2006 - would refute her findings. We've been waiting and waiting, but still no paper has appeared. Meanwhile, proponents of fluoridation such as

1) Dr. Peter Cooney, chief dental officer of Canada
2) the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2007) and
3) the South Central Strategic Health Authority in the UK,

continue to cite Douglass' letter as if it were a fully fledged research article scientifically rebutting Bassin's findings. So much for authorities who insist upon "peer-reviewed and published" science!

For those new to the Chester Douglass scandal, here is a short time line.

1977. In the wake of the furor generated over the research by Drs. Dean Burke and John Yiamiouyannis showing cancer rates had increased in 10 American cities after fluoridation had begun in the 1950's, the US Congress ordered the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to do animal studies investigating a possible connection between fluoride and cancer.

1990. After a delay of 13 years the NTP finally reported back on the animal-cancer study. They found a number of cancers - all but the osteosarcomas were subjectively downgraded by a government review body, much to the disgust of Dr. William Marcus, who was the chief toxicologist for EPA's Office of Drinking Water. Marcus was fired by the EPA for being too noisy about the matter. Even so, the finding of a dose related increase in osteosarcomas in the male rats, created quite a stir in the media and in dental circles.

1991. Very quickly an article was published in the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) co-authored by Douglass. In this study by McGuire et al., the authors reported that they had found no evidence of an association between fluoridation and osteosarcoma and even suggested the opposite: that fluoridation was actually protective against osteosarcoma. This article was given lavish treatment by JADA. The beautiful cover, featuring a huge glass of water with a lake and mountain in the background, carried the statement: "Fluoride and Cancer. Study points to protection."

McGuire et al. made it clear in the text of this article that a positive finding of a relationship between fluoridation with osteosarcoma would have serious consequences for the fluoridation program, a possibility they were clearly worried about, as the following quotes make clear:

"An incorrect inference implicating systemic fluoride carcinogenicity and its removal from our water systems would be detrimental to the oral health of most Americans, particularly those who cannot afford to pay for increasingly expensive restorative dental care" (p.39)

"Because of its strengthening action, fluoride has been widely accepted as the responsible agent for the dramatic declines in the tooth decay rates of U.S. children and adolescents." ( pp.39-40)

"A disruption in the delivery of fluoride through municipal water systems would increase decay rates over time." (p.40) (The authors cited the dubious Antigo study to support this claim, PC)

"Linking of fluoride ingestion and cancer initiation could result in a large-scale defluoridation of municipal water systems under the Delaney clause." (p.40)

The authors concluded, based on this small study, that there was no relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma, and even suggested that:

"fluoridation at recommended levels may provide a protective effect against the formation of osteosarcoma" (p.44)

This allowed Douglass and his co-authors to reach the final conclusion that they clearly wanted out of this study:

"Given present knowledge, every effort should be made to continue the practice of fluoridating community water supplies." (p. 45)

1992. The NIEHS chose Chester Douglass to undertake further research to investigate the possible relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. It is incredible, that such a sensitive research effort should have been given to a dental professor, let alone one who had clearly articulated how serious it would be for the fluoridation program should a positive finding be found.

Over the next 10 years (or more), this funding from NIEHS kept on being renewed, despite the fact that, apart from one abstract, Douglass had published nothing on this research. A total of over a million dollars flowed into Douglass' Harvard coffers for this work. These are really patient people at NIEHS!

2001. Then in 2001, Elise Bassin (Douglass' graduate student) successfully defended her PhD thesis. In this, she reported, in what she herself called a robust study, that young boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th, 7th and 8th years had a 5-7 fold increased risk of succumbing to osteosarcoma by the age of 20.

2002. In a presentation that Douglass gave to the British Fluoridation Society (BFS), he assured the members of the BFS that his work had found no linkage between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. He somehow failed to mention that his graduate student had found the very opposite to be the case. The BFS reported Douglass' claim in their pamphlet, and used it in their continued promotion of fluoridation. There was no mention of Bassin. The BFS pamphlet went unchanged, long after the existence of Bassin's study had been revealed.

2004. Douglass sent a letter to the National Research Council (NRC) fluoride review panel talking about his research (NRC, 2006). Again he claimed that his work had found no relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. Again he made no mention of Bassin's work, but this time he gave her thesis as a footnote. Any casual reader would have reasonably assumed that Bassin's thesis supported Douglass' claim. Douglass sent a similar letter to his funders at NIH.

2005. In January, acting on a tip-off from Myron Coplan, Michael Connett visited one of the libraries at Harvard and located Bassin's thesis in the rare books section. He was able to photocopy the chapter dealing with osteosarcoma. FAN sent this chapter both to the NRC review panel and to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in Washington, DC. EWG called for an NIH enquiry into Douglass' behavior and released the story to the media claiming that Douglass was covering-up this important finding. They also mentioned that Douglass was a consultant for Colgate (he edited their monthly bulletin, "Colgate Oral Care Report'). This triggered wide coverage in the media including an important article in the Wall Street Journal (Begley 2005). However, the NIEHS meekly handed over the investigation to Harvard.

2006. One year later, Harvard exonerated Douglass of "deliberately" covering-up Bassin's work. A video clip from Fox News showing Douglass holding up the Harvard "get out of jail free" card, can be accessed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xR47jUqX9g&feature=channel_page

In March, the National Research Council fluoride report was released and stated:

"A relatively large hospital-based case-control study of osteosarcoma and fluoride exposure is under way (Douglass 2004) and is expected to be reported in the summer of 2006 (C. Douglass, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, personal communication, January 3, 2006)."
Ref: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030910128X&page=329

In May, Bassin, with three other Harvard researchers, published her findings in the Journal Cancer Causes and Control (Bassin et al., 2006). In the same issue, the editors published Douglass' effort to discount Bassin's findings and his promise that his "larger" study would show that Bassin's thesis didn't hold (Douglass & Joshipura, 2006).

The summer of 2006 comes and goes. No published paper from Douglass.

2007. The summer of 2007 comes and goes. Still no published paper from Douglass.

2008. The summer of 2008 comes and goes. Still no published paper from Douglass.

2009. June 18. The first day of summer is just three days away and still no published paper from Douglass.

Meanwhile, those who have examined Douglass' proposed methodology have concluded that there is no way that it can actually disprove Bassin's thesis because the measure of exposure they are using is bone fluoride levels - and there is no way that this can test Bassin's thesis since this is based on which year the young boys are exposed to fluoride. The bone level will only give the cumulative exposure after 20 years . Moreover, another extraordinary weakness of this matched case and control study, is that the controls are young men with other forms of bone cancer (other than osteosarcoma). Clearly, if fluoride was to also cause any these cancers - as it well might - that would completely eliminate any significance of this study!

With such huge weaknesses to this study it is quite conceivable that no reputable journal will touch it. So standby for another cover issue of JADA!

Meanwhile, some believe that Douglass was a "stooge" in all this, and that the person really pulling the strings was Dr. Robert Hoover at the National Cancer Institute. It was Hoover who had done battle with Burke and Yiamiouyiannis in the 1970s. It was also Hoover who conveniently found a reason to discount his own findings of an increase in osteosarcoma in young men living in fluoridated counties covered by the SEER registry (Hoover et al., 1991). Hoover was also the co-author of the paper delivered by Douglass to the BFS in 2002. Hoover was aware of Bassin's findings but apparently went along with Douglass in not revealing them in this paper. Moreover, Hoover has been a part of the Douglass study from the very beginning. Currently, he is listed as the Principle Investigator of the Douglass study, and the current funding appears to all be coming directly from "intramural" funding at NCI. NIEHS funding ran out several years ago.

Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director Fluoride Action Network
http://www.FluorideAction.Net

References

Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8.

Begley S. 2005. Fluoridation, cancer: did researchers ask the right questions? Wall Street Journal. July 22. p B1. Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/media/2005h.html

Hoover RN, et al. 1991. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: DHHS (1991) Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs US Public Health Service. Appendices E & F.

Douglass CW, Joshipura K . 2006. Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes & Control 17:481-2.

McGuire SM, Vanable ED, McGuire MH, Buckwalter JA, Douglass CW. 1991. Is there a link between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma? J Am Dent Assoc 122:39-45.

National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in drinking water: a scientific review of EPA's standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. Report available to read and search at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

###

Dentists Neglect Poor Kids 364 Days a Year

2009-02-10T13:31:00.004-05:00

Most dentists neglect low-income Americans all year, except for one “Give-Kids-A-Smile” day, filled with media events, feel-good stories,corporate sponsorship, costly T-shirts, but little drilling and filling. When the media spotlight goes out, so do the dentists. At the same time, organized dentistry fights hard against any viable group willing to alleviate the US dental health epidemic year-round.

Theoretically, government sponsored dental care, under Medicaid, is free for children living in poverty. Sadly, “nationally, only about 10% of all dentists accept Medicaid patients,” according to a report by the Children’s Defense Fund. And over 108 million Americans lack dental insurance, according to the American Dental Association (ADA).

According to American Family Physician, more than three out of four dentists do not treat the uninsured.

Dentists’ income is derived mostly from private insurance and patient’s pockets, says the ADA. Dentists aren’t hurting. Rated among the highest-paying jobs by bizjounrnals.com, the top ten money-making cities for dentists range from Charlotte ($195,540) to Omaha ($176,830).

Meanwhile, 6.5 million children aged 2 through 18 in Medicaid have untreated tooth decay, according to the Government Accounting Office, often forcing them to get expensive hospital emergency care when the decay spreads, the pain is unbearable, costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars to treat. Some have died from untreated tooth decay.

The logical solution is to require dentists to treat more low-income Americans – either for free, for what Medicaid offers, or on a sliding scale. But dentists don't like mandates – well for themselves anyway. They do like fluoridation mandates, though. Dentists prefer to treat the water rather than the individual.

Dentists didn’t make it on their own. Government subsidizes dental tuition and dental schools and regulates their licenses. Dentists need to give back or allow other viable groups to fill the void.

Dental Health Aide Therapists are currently repairing and pulling teeth in rural Alaska where no dentist would live or work. The American Dental Association and the Alaska Dental Society spent $1 million on a lawsuit trying unsuccessfully to stop them.

Organized dentistry now lobbies against solo-practicing dental hygienists, denturists (false teeth makers) from working directly with the public and Dental Therapists in any other state.

Organized dentistry uses its credentials, political clout and deep pockets filled up with corporate cash to lobby our legislators to pass laws that benefit themselves while an oral health epidemic occurs on their watch. See: http://tinyurl.com/PoliticalClout

Unfortunately, organized dentistry uses GKAS day to convince legislators to give them more money to treat Medicaid patients and to promote water fluoridation - a tax-wasting scientfically failed method of reducing tooth decay.

Although the District of Columbia is 100% fluoridated and has the nation’s highest density of dentists, 44% of children in a typical elementary school have cavities in primary teeth – 34% is unfilled. Just 30 dentists (2.5 percent) are Medicaid billing dentists with at least one paid claim, according to “Issue Brief: Oral Health Is Critical to the School Readiness of Children in Washington, DC.”

The Raleigh News & Observer reports, that the ability of patients to pay and the lack of dentists have negatively affected access to dental care and the problem likely will get worse in North Carolina, which is 88% fluoridated About 200 emergency department dental cases occur daily throughout the state, they report.

“Nearly half of [60% fluoridated] Massachusetts children experience tooth decay before third grade…’We struggled over the last several years, particularly in part of the district I represent, which is Cape Cod, to even get any dentists to accept Medicaid patients,’" reports the State House News Service on February 2000.

Rochester, NY, is fluoridated: "Hundreds of local children are ending up in the operation room because of cavities that could have been prevented...The Eastman Dental Center sees more than 300 of these kinds of cases a year. In [fluoridated] Buffalo, 700 plus cases, and thousands state wide [NYS is 73% fluoridated],” according to NBC News

Although Kentucky is 99.8% fluoridated, “Last year, four area hospitals had 1,500 visits from patients seeking help with tooth pain…About a third of those cases involved children and teens, reported the Messenger-Inquirer on March 8, 2008 .

“State officials have found that 4,500 Kentucky 3-year-olds have dental pain each day, McKee said. Nearly half of preschoolers have untreated tooth decay,” they report.

Minnesota is 98% fluoridated: "Last year, there were 22,000 emergency-room visits for dental problems." reported the Star Tribune on January 22, 2009.

In West Virginia, 92% fluoridated, "It's especially difficult to find an oral surgeon who accepts Medicaid patients in Southern West Virginia where dental health problems are rampant,” reports the Charleston Gazette on January 11, 2009.

New York State Department of Health statistics illustrate fluoridation’s inability to equalize cavity rates between low and high socio-economic-status groups, and that fluoridation and tooth decay rates are not inversely related See chart: http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/chart.htm

Connecticut mandates fluoridation. Yet 48% of 4-year-olds suffer
untreated cavities partially because 85% of dentists won’t or can’t treat
patients with low-paying government-sponsored insurance, according to Elements of effective action to improve oral health & access to dental care for Connecticut’s children & families.

More evidence of dental needs despite fluoridation http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com

What is needed is to train Dental Therapists in this country. The ones working in Alaska were trained for two or three years in New Zealand. They drill, fill and pull teeth as effectively as dentists and have been working for decades in developed countries. As a result, children in New Zealand have no unfilled cavities because they are seen in school by Dental Therapists every year and rural Alaskans aren't pulling their own teeth. Organized dentistry is at odds with public health dentists on this. The former doesn't like any groups infringing upon its lucrative monopoly - even if it means Americans must suffer from dental neglect 364 days a year.

Another Embarrassing Fluoridation Birthday

2009-01-26T15:49:00.001-05:00

Sixty-four years ago, on January 25, sodium fluoride was slowly poured into Grand Rapids, Michigan’s public water supply to prove that fluoridation reduces children’s tooth decay. Five years into the experiment, things weren’t going as expected. Cavities declined equally in the non-fluoridated control city of Muskegon, too. So to blur the truth or prove their expectation, Muskegon was fluoridated also.

So what’s happening today?

Ingested fluoride is not stopping cavities and is causing dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth.

For example, according to data presented at the 2006 American Association for Dental Research’s annual meeting:

-- Researchers following children from birth found almost twice the amount of dental fluorosis in children drinking fluoridated water but no less decay than children drinking non-fluoridated water. (1)

-- No significant relationship was found between fluoride exposure and cavities in permanent teeth of 6 to 9-year-old's in Campeche, Mexico(2). Previously, it was reported that 56% of this group has dental fluorosis.(3)

-- A U.S. national study reports cavity prevalence increased by 15% in 2 to 5-year-olds, in surveys taken between 1988-1994 and 1999-2002,(4) The Centers for Disease Control report that 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. schoolchildren display dental fluorosis.(4a)

-- Breastfed US children have less cavities than non-breastfed.(5) even though breast milk has 250 times less fluoride than dentists claim is optimal to reduce cavities. Breastfeeding is also protective against fluorosis.(5a)

-- Although New York City fluoridated in 1965, NYC children of Chinese descent suffer a much higher prevalence and severity of tooth decay than the national average (63% vs 38%). (6)

-- About half of 7 to14-year-old children from fluoridated Rochester, NY, have cavities. Latino children had significantly higher caries experience than African-American and Caucasian children, thus indicating that disparities exist among different ethnic groups even when the water is fluoridated.(7)

Grand Rapids children are showing high rates of tooth decay and dental fluorosis. According to the Grand Rapids Press, one pediatric dentist said in 2007 “…we see children under the age of 2 with active decay…Rather than just a few cavities, we're seeing a lot of cavities. It's not unusual to see a child with 8 to 10 cavities."

Detroit Michigan is also fluoridated.

A study shows that, although fluoridated tap water is the most consumed item, 83% of low-income Detroit African-American adults, 14-years-old and over, have severe tooth decay. Almost all Detroit’s African-American 5-year-olds have cavities, most of them go unfilled.

In fact, there are cavity crises in all fluoridated cities and states (See: http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com ) because 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients and over 108 million Americans lack dental insurance.

Our food supply has become fluoride-polluted. The USDA had to create a database of fluoride content of some foods to help Americans tally their daily fluoride intake to avoid dental fluorosis and the National Institutes of Health just granted $3 million to a researcher to find out why children are getting dental fluorosis.

It makes better fiscal sense to stop adding fluoride chemicals into the public water supply instead of feeding the research community millions of dollars to tell us we are over-fluoridating our children.

These studies add to a growing body of evidence pointing to fluoride's ineffectiveness and lack of safety: See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/fluoridation.html#top

Take action to end fluoridation here: http://congress.FluorideAction.net

References:

(1) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0153 - Dental caries and fluorosis in relation to water fluoride levels, I Hong, SM Levy, J Warren, B Broffitt http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_73811.htm

(2) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 1995 - Cross-Sectional analysis of dental caries in children with mixed dentition, AA Vallejos-Sanchez, CE Mendina-Solis, JF Casanova-Rosado, G Maupome, AJ Casanova-Rosado, M Minaya-Sanchez http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_73452.htm

(3) Prevalence of dental fluorosis and additional sources of exposure to fluoride as risk factors to dental fluorosis in schoolchildren of Campeche, Mexico, PR Beltran-Valladares, H Cocom-Tun, JF Casanova-Rosado, AA Vallejos-Sanchez, CE Medina-Solis, G Maupome, Rev Invest Clin. 2005 Uly-Aug;57(4):532-9

(4) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0458 - Trends in Dental Caries of Primary Teeth, United States, 1988-2002, F Jaramillo, E Beltran, L Barker, S Griffin, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_76323.htm

(4a) Beltrán-Aguilar et al. Surveillance for Dental Caries, Dental Sealants, Tooth Retention, Edentulism and Enamel Fluorosis – United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2002. MMWR. CDC August 26, 2005
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm

(5) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0881 - No association between breastfeeding and early childhood caries: NHANES 1999-2002, H Iida, P Auinger, M Weitzman, RJ Billings http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_75842.htm

(5a) Breastfeeding is Protective Against Dental Fluorosis in a Nonfluoridated Rural Area of Ontario, Canada, D Brothwell, H Limeback, Journal of Human Lactation, Vol. 19, No. 4, 386-390 (2003) http://jhl.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/386
(6) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0l50 - Caries Experience among Chinese-American Children and Adolescents in Lower Manhattan, CH Chinn http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_74008.htm

(7) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0478 - Dental Caries in Latino Elementary School Children, S Gajendra http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_74009.htm

(8) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 1992 - Severity of Dental Caries Among African American Children in Detroit, AI Ismail, M Tellez http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_73168.htm

Fluoride in Tap Water a Health Hazard

2008-10-07T12:55:00.001-04:00

Even small amounts of fluoride consumed from tap water can damage your bones, teeth, brain, disrupt your thyroid function, lower IQ and/or cause cancer, according to evidence revealed in a groundbreaking 2006 National Research Council (NRC) fluoride report produced by a panel of experts who reviewed hundreds of published fluoride studies.

Fluoridation cheerleaders such as the American Dental Association (ADA) and the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) claim this report has nothing to do with fluoridation (the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies). However, because of the NRC report, both the ADA and CDC now recommend that infant formula NOT be mixed with fluoridated water.

Citing the NRC report, the National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of fluoridation and replaced it with this warning: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.”

A January 2008 Scientific American article reported that after 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, the NRC expert panel “concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid – the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism,” reports its author Dan Fagin.

Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC expert panel: “The thyroid changes do worry me.”

“Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with iodine deficiency,” said Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, co-author of the government-sponsored NRC report. “The recent decline in iodine intake in the U.S could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals,” says Thiessen. She and at least two other panel members publicly call for an end to water fluoridation.

“A low level of thyroid hormone can increase the risk of cardiac disease, high cholesterol, depression and, in pregnant woman, decreased intelligence of offspring,” said Thiessen.

An analysis of published fluoride/IQ studies e-published 8/10/08 “found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ (published in Biological Trace Element Research el al.).

An Institute for Children’s Environmental Health report published February 2008 and revised July 2008 said "The primary question remains as to whether exposures to fluoride via multiple routes of exposure, from drinking water, food and dental-care products, may result in a high enough cumulative exposure to contribute to developmental effects…(E)merging science suggests we need to further study the dose at which fluoridation may increase risks of neurodevelopment disorders, cancer and skeletal or dental fluorosis, particularly for sensitive individuals."

Over 1,840 professionals signed a statement urging Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted.. See: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on the Fluoride Action Network's web site, http://congress.fluorideaction.net

Organized dentistry and many individual dentists in government and in private practice continue to ignore and/or lie about this extremely scientific NRC report in favor of promoting fluoride. This is beneficial to corporations who financially support dental union groups such as the American Dental Association and its state constituent groups. They have made the American Dental Association into one of the richest and politically powerful lobbying groups in the country which continually legislates for laws that benefits dentists.

Because of the ADA’s money and power, most dentists make three times as much as physicians while working fewer hours and days doing less critical work. They are the rich "guys" contributing to political coffers. However, 80% of dentists refuse to treat Medicaid patients and 108 million Americans don't have dental insurance. People in America are dying from untreated tooth decay.

Fluoridation gives legislators a false fact to fall back upon when asked why they support water fluoridation. The truth is they support the American Dental Association and the fluoride producing corporations who shore up political campaigns to get re-elected. In return, they pass laws favorable to dentists.

The New York Times reported how the NY Dental Society, in effect, buys laws that benefit themselves. (July 16, 2008 editorial “Dental Decay in Albany”)

Health Canada Cuts Fluoride to Protect Kids Teeth

2008-08-07T12:34:00.002-04:00

To avoid fluoride-induced yellow and tan discolored teeth (moderate dental fluorosis), fluoride chemicals injected into Canadian water supplies should be lowered, says an expert panel, including two American dentists, convened by Health Canada. Less fluoride in children’s toothpaste and infant formula is also recommended.

Because scientific evidence shows that even low amounts of ingested fluoride poses dental and health risks, many environmental groups, eleven US Environmental Protection Agency Unions and over 1,790 professionals
urge that fluoridation be stopped worldwide. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals.statement.html

"The best way to lower children’s fluoride intake, as Health Canada suggests, is to stop fluoridation," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network (FAN). "It makes no sense to prescribe fluoride drugs to children via the water supply at levels which are between 150 and 250 times higher than the level in mothers’ milk,” says Connett.

Despite breast milk’s extremely low fluoride content, it’s both protective against dental fluorosis and tooth decay, studies show.
Canadian water fluoride levels, now between 0.8 and 1.0 milligrams fluoride per liter of water (mg/L), should be lowered to 0.7 mg/L, says Health Canada’s fluoride panel

The level of fluoride in Toronto, Canada’s water was reduced from 1.2 to 0.8 mg/L in 1999 and to 0.6 mg/L in 2005. In 2000, moderate dental fluorosis was reported in 14% of 7-year-olds and 12% of 13-year-olds.

Toronto-based Citizens for a Safe Environment (CSE) wants fluoridation stopped entirely in Toronto and will co-host two public fluoride meetings with FAN in downtown Toronto on Monday August 11.

“These meetings will give the public information they don’t get from our government or dental organizations,” says CSE director Karen Buck. “In the afternoon, a panel will address the question of whether Toronto should stop fluoridating its water. In the evening, experts will explain fluoride’s dangers to health.”

After receiving an invitation to attend, the Ontario Dental Association (ODA) sent out a news release urging legislators and communities to stand up in support of fluoridation; but the ODA will not do so, themselves.

"The best way that the ODA can get communities and politicians to stand up for water fluoridation is to provide, in person, a cogent and scientifically-referenced defense of fluoridation at the afternoon forum," says Buck

For more info on the conferences: http://fluoridealert.org/august.11.html

Dentists who promote fluoridation often dismiss mild dental fluorosis (white spots) as “not a problem.” However, Dincer reports in the NYS Dental Journal that even white-spotted teeth can damage children’s self-esteem. Cosmetic dentists happily cover up any dental fluorosis, mild, moderate or severe, often for very high out-of-pocket fees.

American children consume much more fluoride than Canadian children evidence shows.
The six-member Health Canada panel included American dentist, Jayanth Kumar of the New York State Department of Health which still recommends water fluoride levels between 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L

Unlike American authorities, Health Canada does not recommend fluoride drops or tablets for children under age three who live in non-fluoridated communities.
The US EPA also allows high amounts of (sulfuryl) fluoride pesticide residues to remain on foods which is not so in Canada, according to Health Canada.
In the US, up to 48% of children have fluorosis, with 4% moderate/severe, according to the CDC.

While dental Fluorosis is an obvious sign of fluoride toxicity, unseen is fluoride’s toxic bodily effects.

A March 2006 National Research Council (NRC) fluoride report reveals science showing how fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, bones, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers, infants, and others and can severely damage children's teeth. At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water and Panel Chairman, toxicologist John Doull, is worried about the thyroid effects.

Because of the NRC report, the National Kidney Foundation withdrew its fluoridation support and both the ADA and CDC advise that infant formula should not be mixed with fluoridated water.

The NRC found plausible studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ.

The Health Canada fluoride panel claims that “the weight of evidence does not support a link between fluoride and intelligence quotient deficit.”

However, “It is hard to believe that any "weight of evidence" analysis could possibly dismiss fluoride's neurological impacts. There have now been over 40 animal studies which show that fluoride can damage the brain, and no less than 18 studies which show that fluoride lowers IQ in children, and only 2 that don't,” says Connett

The latest issue of the journal, Fluoride http://www.FluorideResearch.Org , published 12 newly-translated Chinese studies, which report fluoride’s effects on the brain, including the lowering of IQ in children. These and other brain studies will be reviewed at both conferences.

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, an infant and fetal pathologist, and president of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, will be presenting a major review of studies on fluoride’s brain effects, including the translated Chinese studies.

END

Dentists Admit Fluoride a Risk to Kidney Patients

2008-07-02T14:37:00.001-04:00

On June 19, 2008 the American Dental Association updated its website indicating that fluoride is a concern to all kidney patients, not just those on dialysis.

Along with false assurances of safety, fluoride chemicals are added to some public and bottled water in the unscientific belief it reduces cavities.

Fluoride-induced bone damage could occur in kidney patients who consume even "optimally" fluoridated water because malfunctioning kidneys do not properly sift fluoride from the blood and out of the body. Fluoride builds up in bones making them brittle and fracture.

For this reason, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) withdrew its fluoridation endorsement in October 2007, which they made public in a fluoride paper dated April 15, 2008 with advice that “individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.”

After the 2006 National Research Council's (NRC) fluoride toxicology report was brought to their attention, the NKF withdrew its fluoridation endorsement.

The NRC fluoride report 12-member panel was created to review current fluoride toxicology data at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether the maximum contaminant level goal (4 mg/L) of fluoride in public water supplies is safe. The NRC says that level must be lowered. But neither the NRC nor the EPA has determined how low it should go.

At least three NRC panel members conclude that water fluoride levels should be close to zero, not only to protect kidney patients, but also thyroid patients, infants and high water drinkers.

This would effectively shut down fluoridation in the U.S. But organized dentistry isn't going to let go of its pet project and diminish its political viability by admitting fluoridation is a failed experiment. So they downplay anything negative about fluoride and in this case they want you to know that fluoride is only a secondary concern. And, of course, I want you to know that secondary doesn't mean no concern.

However, even the ADA seems to be covering their legal assets with this statement in their Fluoridation Facts booklet, “decreased fluoride removal may occur among persons with severely impaired kidney function who may not be on kidney dialysis.”

Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director who states the CDC is "America’s health protection leader" has yet to post any of this information on its website. They usually follow the lead of the ADA concerning fluoride and fluoridation.

The CDC’s website still erroneously claims, ““The findings of the NRC report are consistent with CDC’s assessment that water is safe and healthy at the levels used for water fluoridation (0.7–1.2 mg/L)”

The NRC reports “Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal [kidney] function...Several investigators have shown that patients with impaired renal function, or on hemodialysis, tend to accumulate fluoride much more quickly than normal."

New York State Department of Health employee, Dr. J. Kumar received the ADA’s fluoridation award. With money and support from the CDC Kumar is promoting fluoridation in New York State by conducting fluoridation spokesperson training among other activies.

Kumar is ignoring his own 1990 health department report published in Oral biology and Medicine which concluded "The available data suggest that some individuals may experience hypersensitivity to fluoride-containing agents. Further studies on hypersensitivity are required" and "Studies on the effects of fluoride in individuals with renal insufficiency are needed."

That advice wasn’t heeded. Those studies were never conducted. But Kumar and the NYS Department of Health is using our tax money to push even more fluoride into us.

According to the Fluoride Action Network,: “The bone changes commonly found among patients with advanced kidney disease closely resemble the bone changes found among individuals with the osteomalacic-type of skeletal fluorosis. This raises the possibility that some individuals with kidney disease are suffering from undiagnosed skeletal fluorosis.”

More fluoride/kidney information here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/kidney/index.html

References:

1) USDA Fluoride in Foods Database
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/fluoride.pdf

2) National Kidney Foundation, “Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease,”
April 15, 2008
http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf

3) Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
“Effects of fluoridation of community water supplies for people with
chronic kidney disease,” (2007) 22: 2763–2767, Ludlow et al.
http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/KHAFluoridation_CKD-NDT_2007.pdf

4) National Kidney Foundation, “Fluoride”
http://www.kidney.org/atoz/atozItem.cfm?id=205

5) September 18, 2007 letter, Reeves to National Kidney Foundation
http://www.fluoridealert.org/NKF_letter01.pdf

6) October , 2007 news release “Did Kidney Foundation Leave Millions at Risk by Failing to Warn about Fluorides and Fluoridated Drinking Water?” by Daniel Stockin, MPH, The Lillie Center
http://fluoridealert.org/press/nkf.htm

7) American Dental Association,
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/compendium.asp

8) Louisiana Dental Association, “Health Smiles Coalition”
http://www.healthysmileslouisiana.org/coalition.html

9) American Dental Association, “Fluoridation Facts”
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf

10) U.S. Centers for Disease Control, MMWR “Prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease and Associated Risk Factors --- United States, 1999—2004
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a2.htm

1945 Human Experiment Predicted Current Fluoride Health Woes

2008-01-26T07:41:00.000-05:00

In 1945 dentists set out to prove that adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies safely prevented children’s tooth decay, not IF it did. The studies failed; but early fluoridationists ignored this inconvenient truth and forged ahead. Now Americans are fluoride overdosed, suffer from fluoride’s toxic effects and cavity rates climb.

In 1955, ten years into the experiment, researchers reported more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation in children purposely dosed with sodium fluoride-laced drinking water (1956. Journal of the American Dental Association). This is the first, and only, fluoridation human health experiment and it was carried out on the entire population in the city of Newburgh NY.

How did this happen?

In the early 1900’s, brown and yellow discolored, but decay resistant, teeth were prevalent in healthier, wealthier U.S. populations drinking and irrigating their crops with naturally calcium-fluoridated water.

Researchers discovered fluoride was the tooth discoloring culprit and mistakenly thought fluoride was also the cavity-fighting hero – unaware that calcium was required to grow sound dentition. And also unaware of Dentist Weston Price’s extensive research published in 1939 showing that without fluoride, healthier populations had healthier teeth because of good diets.

Public health officials, so sure sodium fluoride safely benefited children’s teeth, had no misgivings about carrying out this very unusual experiment without first doing animal studies, without informed consent and without thought or interest about how sodium fluoride could afflict adults.

Mistakenly assuming all fluorides are the same, in 1945, sodium fluoride, waste products from industries such as Alcoa Aluminum Company (not natural calcium-fluoride), was added to Newburgh NY’s water supply at about one milligram fluoride per liter of water. Kingston NY, the control city for comparison purposes, was left fluoride-free.

Kingston and Newburgh are thirty-five miles apart on the Hudson River in New York State and in 1940 had populations of 31,956 and 28,817, respectively. In Newburgh, 500 children were examined after ten years and 405 in Kingston. Adults were never tested.

Although planned to last ten years, due to political pressure, the Newburgh/Kingston study was declared a success after five years which caused many U.S. cities to start fluoridation prematurely.

Newburgh's children were given complete physicals and x-rays, over the course of the study, from birth to age nine in the first year and up to age eighteen in the final year.

“(R)outine laboratory studies were omitted in the control group during most of the study, they were included in the final examination,” according to Schlesinger and colleagues, in “Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.”

The researchers report after ten years of fluoridation in Newburgh New York:

-- “The average age at the menarche was 12 years among the girls studied in Newburgh and 12 years 5 months among the girls in Kingston.”

--Hemoglobin (iron-containing part of a red blood cell): “a few more children in the range below 12.9 grams per hundred milliliters in Newburgh”

--“…a slightly higher proportion of children in Newburgh were found to have a total erythrocyte (red blood cell) count below 4,400,000 per milliliter”

--Knee X-rays of Newburgh children reveals more cortical bone defects, and irregular mineralization of the thigh bone.

Only twenty-five Newburgh children had eye and ear exams. Two had hearing loss; eight had abnormal vision. Even though researchers discovered more adult cataracts in surveys conducted before 1944 in communities with naturally high water fluoride concentrations Newburg and Kingston adults were never checked for this defect.

Only two groups of twelve-year-old boys were tested for fluoride’s toxic kidney effects.

In a statewide survey conducted in 1954, J. A. Forst, M.D a New York public health official reported observing one-third more dental defects, including malposition of teeth, in fluoridated Newburgh, New York, than in the non-fluoridated control city of Kingston.

The 2004 book "The Fluoride Deception," by Christopher Bryson, reveals that in addition to NYS Dep't of Health examinations “the University of Rochester conducted its own studies, measuring how much fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues. Health Department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Rochester scientists,” writes Bryson. Three times as much fluoride was found in the placentas and blood samples gathered from Newburgh as from non-fluoridated Rochester, reports Bryson.

Following back the scientific references in all current fluoridation safety literature will invariably lead back to the Newburgh/Kingston study which actually failed to prove fluoridation is safe for all who drink it although public health officials and dentists tell a different story..

On January 25, 1945, Grand Rapids Michigan was actually the first U.S. city to fluoridate; without health effects measured.. Even that study is scientifically dishonest. After five years tooth decay declined equally in Grand Rapids and its control city Muskegon Michigan so Muskegon’s water was fluoridated which actually invalidated this experiment.

So it’s not surprising that a toxicological review of current fluoride science by the prestigious National Academies shows that fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid
gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth. Further studies linking fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible, they report.

In 1998, the New York Department of Health reported that fluoridated Newburgh NY children have more cavities and more fluorosis than never fluoridated Kingston NY children.(Figure 1, Page 41, "Recommendations for Fluoride Use in children"
NYS Dental Journal, February 1998 (NYS Department of Health).

References:
Fluoridation researcher, Peter Meiers, has more information about the Newburgh/Kingston study on his website:

http://www.fluoride-history.de/bartlett.htm

Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study. XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.
J Am Dent Assoc. 1956 Mar;52(3):296-306. SCHLESINGER ER, OVERTON DE, CHASE HC, CANTWELL KT.
http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2006/01/human-experiment-predicts-fluoride.html

"In making comparisonson these data it should be remembered that Muskegon started fluoridation in July 1951"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1551218&blobtype=pdf

Dentists Are Big Fat Liars

2007-05-15T06:46:00.000-04:00

May 10, 2007

Dentists Are Big Fat Liars

By Sally Stride

Dentists have been very derelict in their duty to educate Americans about the real reason why they are getting more cavities. Poor nutrition and too much fluoride.

Sufficient intakes of protein, calcium, phosphorus, vitamins A, C, and D are required to form healthy teeth, according to the American Dental Association.

Most cavities happen in poor children. Poor children are deficient in almost all of the above nutrients, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Low Income Americans are also less likely to be able to afford nutrient dense fruits and vegetables to satisfy the 7-9 servings required daily to keep healthy.

There are zero, nada, zip, NO studies showing any American child is fluoride deficient. In fact, the opposite is true. Loads of studies show American Children get way over recommended levels of fluoride from many sources - not just drinking water. And there is NO dispute between those for and against fluoridation that too much fluoride is harmful and can actually damage teeth (dental fluorosis).

In fact, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control, recognizing this problem, both advise that infant formulas should not be mixed with fluoridated water to avoid dental fluorosis which now occurs in about 50% of U.S. schoolchildren, according to the CDC.

Fluoride is inhaled via ocean mist, cold mist humidifiers, showers, and air pollution. It's a component of cigarette smoke, coal burning, brick, fertilizer, aluminum and other industrial air emissions. Fluoride is naturally high in tea and ocean fish and, because of fluoride containing pesticide residues, in some grape juices. Fluoride is in chicken baby food in concentrations high enough to cause dental fluorosis in the child if consumed daily. Any product made with mechanically deboned chicken such as chicken nuggets, vienna sausages and baby food contains bone dust. Bones contain fluoride.

Since the EPA now allows sulfuryl fluoride to be used as a fumigant on many foods, even more foods will contain fluoride.

Unfortunately, most dentists compelling us to drink more fluoride don't know this and won't be able to discern when and how you've reach fluoride saturation.

Dentists are holding our poor children hostage and won't actually treat their dental disease unless the government gives them more money. In my opinion, they should be fined or sued for allowing this dental health crisis to occur on their watch.

Fluoridation is just a diversion to distract you from the real tragedy facing the poor - lack of dentists who really care.

If a dentist says your child requires more fluoride, he or she is either lying or fluoride-ignorant.

Authors Website: http://www.fluoridedangers.blogspot.com

Fluoride Not Reducing Cavities

2007-02-16T07:09:00.000-05:00

Plans are underway to add unnecessary fluoride chemicals into Corning NY's Water Supply, not to purify the water, but to treat water drinkers' teeth. Modern science shows that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of tax dollars. Here's why:

New York State Department of Health statistics (2) illustrate fluoridation’s inability to equalize cavity rates between low and high socio-economic-status (SES) groups, and show that fluoridation and tooth decay rates are not inversely related (3) See chart: http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/chart.htm

For example, non-fluoridated Nassau, Suffolk and Rockland Counties’ third-graders decay rates: 50, 54 and 46, percent respectively. In slightly fluoridated Albany County 38% have cavities.

Highly fluoridated NYS Counties include Monroe, Erie, Chemung, Broome, Wayne and Jefferson. Third-graders decay rates: 56, 59, 55, 63,66 and 66, percent respectively.

There is no evidence that any Corning resident is fluoride deficient. However, 40% of Steuben County low-income third graders have unfilled cavities (3a) mirroring a national trend of dentists unwilling or unable to treat the population with the most need. Fluoridation is an illusory remedy.

Despite fluoridated water reaching about ¾ of New Yorkers, 54% of third-graders have cavities and more untreated decay than third-graders nationally (33% vs 26%). Only one-fourth of NYS dentists submitted Medicaid claims (4).However, NYS dentists income was $1.8 billion in 2005 - up from $1.7 billion in 2004. (4a)

Third-graders in 100% fluoridated New York City had more untreated cavities (38%) than their state and national counterparts (4).

Before organized dentistry became fluoride fixated, a 1950 Connecticut study, before fluoridation, clearly linked more fruit, vegetable and milk consumption to less cavities (5) Dentist Weston Price reported a similar correlation world-wide in his 1938 book, “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.”

Today Connecticut mandates fluoridation. Yet 48% of 4-year-olds suffer untreated cavities (6) partially because 85% of dentists won’t or can’t treat patients with low-paying government-sponsored insurance (7).

A very recent Illinois study (7a) shows that, despite a state-wide fluoridation mandate, 70% of Spanish-speaking-only third-graders have cavities compared to 50% of English-speaking-only third-graders. Clearly water fluoridation had no effect in reducing minority oral health disparities in Illinois just as it hasn't in New York State, Connecticut and elsewhere.

After 60 years of water fluoridation reaching 2/3 of Americans via public water supplies, virtually 100% via the food supply and fluoridated dental products a multi-billion dollar international business, up to ½ of U.S. schoolchildren sport fluoride overdose symptoms as dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow or brown, sometimes pitted teeth (8) But tooth decay is still a national epidemic, especially among low-income Americans who can't find dentists willing or able to fix their rotting teeth.

Regardless of fluoride intake, modern science continues to show that young children with fewer cavities eat more produce (9). Only 12% of US kids eat enough fruits and vegetables.(10) And, the poor are priced out of healthful eating. (10a)

Children need dental care not more fluoride. In fluoridated Arlington, Texas, 61 percent of children examined had active decay After dentists donated their services, tooth decay was cut to less than half of what it was when the program started.(13)

Nationally, up to 48% of poor children, 8-year–olds and under, have unfilled cavities, whether their water is fluoridated or not. (13a).

Unfortunately, fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data
presented in a recent National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report.

According to Dr. Robert Carton, retired Environmental Protection Agency scientist , "Scientists now believe that fluoride at low doses causes the following health effects: bone fractures, dental fluorosis (loss of tooth enamel), arthritis (inflammation in the joints), brain damage (actual destruction of cells), thyroid dysfunction, and possibly bone cancer (osteosarcoma). Besides thyroid damage, it cites other effects on the hormone system including impaired glucose tolerance (Type II diabetes) and earlier sexual maturity." Dr. Carton's full analysis of the NRC report is published in the Fluoride Journal here: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf

References:

More evidence that fluoridation fails New York State:

http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/fluoridation-fails-new-york-state.html

(1) U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, “Dental Care Improving Access and Quality”

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/dentalcare/dentria.htm#poor

And

U.S. General Accounting Organization, “Oral Health Factors Contributing to Low Use of Dental Services by Low-Income Populations,” September 2000

http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00149.pdf

(1a) "Disparities in Oral Health and Access to Care: Findings of National Surveys," by Edelstein Ambulatory Pediatrics, March-April 2002

(2) New York State Department of Health, Community Health Assessment Indicators (Oral Health) http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/chac/chai/index.htm

(3) Fluoridation rate of NYS Counties provided by Tim Cook, DDS, former NYS Dep’t of Health employee

(3a) http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/chac/chai/docs/ora_steuben.htm

(4) The Impact of Oral Disease in New York State,” New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Dental Health, December 2006, Green et al (page 8)

http://www.nyhealth.gov/prevention/dental/docs/impact_of_oral_disease.pdf )

(4a) http://www.eyeonwashington.com/agd/ (click on State)

(5) Potgieter, M., Morse, E.H., Erlenbach, F. M., and Dall, R.: The food habits and dental status of some Connecticut children. J. Dent. Res., 35:638. 1956

http://tinyurl.com/2lagfg

(6) Connecticut State Department of Public Health, “Open Wide Curriculum – Lesson 1: Dental Decay,” http://www.dph.state.ct.us/bch/oralhealth/publications_reports/openwide_curriculum/OW_Lesson_1.pdf

(7) “Elements of effective action to improve oral health & access to dental care for Connecticut’s children & families,” Commissioned by Connecticut Health Foundation and Children’s Fund of Connecticut, Prepared by James J. Crall, DDS, ScD and Burton L. Edelstein DDS, MPH (page 4)

http://www.cthealth.org/matriarch/documents/oralhealthsum.pdf

(7a)

http://www.voices4kids.org/KC07chap1.pdf (page 7)

(8) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s403a1t23.gif

(9) “The relationship between healthful eating practices and dental caries in children aged 2-5 years in the United States, 1988-94,” J. Am Dent Assoc, January 2004, by Dye et al.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14959875&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

(10) “U.S. Kids’ Health Habits Put Them at Risk,” Healthscout.com, Jan 26, 2007 http://www.healthscout.com/news/1/601319/main.html

(10a) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0129-06.htm

(11) http://www.anthc.org/cs/chs/dhs/

(12) http://www.anthc.org/cs/chs/dhs/upload/UAATheNothernLight-DentalDebateGoesToCourt_2-21-06_AFleming.pdf

(12b) http://www.adn.com/front/story/8566500p-8459175c.html

(13) http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/16566335.htm

(13a)http://drc.hhs.gov/report/dqs_tables/dqs_1_1_1.htm

(14)

http://www.colgateprofessional.com/app/ColgateProfessional/US/EN/Products/ProductItems/ColgateDuraphat.cvsp

(15) http://groups.google.com/group/Fluoridation-News-Releases/browse_thread/thread/51981fb711662057

(16) http://www.aapd.org/pediatricinformation/faq.asp

http://www.fluoridedangers.blogspot.com

Fluoride Expert: Fluoride Perilous

2006-05-15T13:41:00.000-04:00

GUEST VIEW: The evidence that fluoride is harmful is overwhelming by Hardy Limeback PhD DDS

"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," writes Limeback.

Dr. Limeback was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the 2006 report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards." Dr. Limeback a dentist, researcher and an associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto.

The argument against fluoridation is strong when all the points listed below are taken together.

1. Fluoridation is no longer effective.

Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth eruption and, therefore, simply delays dental decay (Komarek et al, 2005, Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation work are over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous modern studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia (Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology. 32:283-96). Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al 2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).

Public health services will claim there is a dental decay crisis. With the national average in the U.S. of only two decayed teeth per child (World Health Organization data), down from more than 15 decayed teeth in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as much as half of all children grow up not having a single filling. This remarkable success has been achieved in other developed countries without fluoridation. The "crisis" of dental decay in the U.S. often mentioned is the result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially soda pop. A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of their daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft drinks are themselves fluoridated, the small amount of fluoride is obviously not helping.

The families of these children with rampant dental decay need professional assistance. Are they getting it? Children who grow up in low-income families make poor dietary choices, and cannot afford dental care. Untreated dental decay and lack of professional intervention result in more dental decay. The York review was unable to show that fluoridation benefited poor people.

Similarly, early dental decay in nursing infants (baby bottle syndrome) cannot be prevented with water fluoridation. The majority of dentists in the U.S. do not accept Medicaid patients because they lose money treating these patients. Dentists support fluoridation programs because it absolves them of their responsibility to provide assistance to those who cannot afford dental treatment. Even cities where water fluoridation has been in effect for years are reporting similar dental "crises."

Public health officials responsible for community programs are misleading the public by stating that ingesting fluoride "makes the teeth stronger." Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It does not make developing teeth better prepared to resist dental decay before they erupt into the oral environment. The small benefit that fluoridated water might still have on teeth (in the absence of fluoridated toothpaste use) is the result of "topical" exposure while the teeth are rebuilding from acid challenges brought on by daily sugar and starch exposure (Limeback 1999, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71), and this has now been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control.

2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis.

Fluoride doses by the end user can't be controlled when only one concentration of fluoride (1 parts per million) is available in the drinking water. Babies and toddlers get too much fluoride when tap water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback, 2003 Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily fluoride comes from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006).

We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third child with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek extensive restorative work costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).

3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for safety.

All the animal cancer studies were done on pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride. There is more than enough evidence to show that even this fluoride has the potential to promote cancer. Some communities use sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even that chemical is not the same fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities instead use hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6 is concentrated directly from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants and trickled directly into the drinking water. It is industrial grade fluoride contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium, which are harmful to humans at the levels that are being added to fluoridate the drinking water. In addition, using hydrofluorosilicic acid instead of industrial grade sodium fluoride has an added risk of increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al 2000, Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found in the pipes of old houses. This could not be ruled out by the CDC in their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134).

4. There are serious health risks from water fluoridation.

Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been identified as a risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr. Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the seven-fold increase risk of bone cancer.

Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per million increases your risk for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride accumulates in bone, the same risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day of artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per million, or in people with renal disease. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown that fluoride is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in patients who retain too much fluoride.

Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy of Sciences report (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Fluoridation should be halted on the basis that endocrine function in the U.S. has never been studied in relation to total fluoride intake.

Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. While some recent Chinese studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (NAS, 2006), we need to study this more in depth in North America.

Date of Publication: May 14, 2006 on Page B02

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-06/05-14-06/02opinion.htm

Fluoride Supplements: Don't Use Them

2006-04-22T07:18:00.000-04:00

“Ten year old, Gradon..., got some nasty news from his dentist and it wasn’t a cavity,” reports CBC-TV. “I saw this yellow stuff and thought it was my toothpaste and kept trying to wash it off; but it wouldn’t come off,” says Gradon.

Those patches are fluorosis a condition that shocks many parents because of the cause - too much fluoride. “It was even a bigger surprise to his pediatric dentist - he’s Gradon’s father,” said the Canadian broadcaster. (1)

“We don’t really know how much fluoride it takes to cause fluorosis; and it’s not something we really knew much about ten years ago,” said the Canadian dentist in 1998.

Fluoride overdose symptoms can range from mild, white spots on teeth to moderate and severe fluorosis - yellow, brown or black and sometimes pitted and crumbling teeth.

Things haven’t changed much since 1998. Many American dentists and pediatricians still routinely prescribe fluoride supplements to babies and toddlers believing they prevent tooth decay. Never FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) approved (2), fluoride supplements do more harm than good(8.

Fluoride’s alleged beneficial effects are topical, not systemic as once believed. Scientists discovered old fluoride studies are flawed (3) and that swallowing fluoride discolors teeth but doesn’t reduce tooth decay.

This is why mainstream dental groups such as the Canadian Dental Association, the Western Australia Health Department's Dental Service and the German Scientific Dental Association stopped recommending routine fluoride supplementation. And, if dentists believe children with severe decay must be given a topical fluoride supplement,such as lozenges, dentists are urged to wait until the child is older than 7 years when fluoride will no longer discolor the permanent teeth.

Fluoride was mistakenly discovered as a decay-preventative in the early 1900’s when Americans drinking naturally calcium-fluoridated water supplies displayed cavity-free, discolored teeth. Fluoride stains teeth from the inside. So dentists assumed fluoride prevented cavities, also. But, they overlooked calcium, magnesium and other teeth building components in the water supplies.

Those early studies are dismissed as inaccurate. Still not ready to give up on fluoride, dentists claim fluoride must work topically. However, no well done studies exist comparing cavity rates between similar populations of fluoride users vs. fluoride non users.

Neither a nutrient nor essential to health, fluoride is simply used as a drug to treat tooth decay. Unlike vitamin and mineral supplements often discouraged in favor of a balanced diet, fluoride supplements are encouraged by the medical establishment even though slightly more than recommended leads to adverse effects and no American child is fluoride deficient.

Fluoride is so toxic that children have died from swallowing too much(4).

Knighted fluoride experts by the media and other physicians, dentists often are painfully ignorant about fluoride’s adverse effects and toxicity.

Dental researchers gobble up government grant money to study fluoride but fail to reveal their negative fluoride findings to the tax-paying public and, even more importantly, to the dentists who treat them.

In order to influence California legislators to vote for fluoridation, a dentist swallowed a whole vial of fluoride tablets in front of them and then said ‘Hey, guess what? I’m still alive.’”(5) A similar stunt by a child could have been lethal.

Warnings on the back of fluoridated toothpaste tubes and boxes are there because, if a small child swallowed the whole tube, he or she could die (4). Children died from swallowing too many fluoride pills. One child died after swallowing instead of expectorating his dentist’s fluoride treatment. The dentist didn’t think it was toxic. People have become sickened and died because water engineers injected too much fluoride into water supplies.

Over 65% of America is fluoridated and virtually all Americans consume fluoride in their foods, beverages and dental products. One would expect tooth decay would be obliterated by those fluoridated toothpastes, mouthrinses, supplements, dental treatments, varnishes and water supplies as predicted.

Instead tooth decay rates climb. And so do dental fluorosis rates, with more children displaying moderate and severe symptoms than ever before(6).

The only prediction of future tooth decay is present tooth decay. And the only sure thing linked to extensive tooth decay is poverty.

Prescribing fluoride supplements to toothless or cavity-free children is absolutely ludicrous. Prescribing fluoride to children with loads of cavities won't help. Fixing their diet will have better long term results with only beneficial side effects. Fluoride can't change the consequences of a poor diet.

"The notion that systemic fluorides are needed in nonfluoridated areas is an outdated one that should be abandoned altogether," says Canada's leading fluoride authority, Hardy Limeback, head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto and past president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research. “Fluoride gets into every cell of the body and can especially damage the bones and teeth." says Limeback.

END

References:
(1)http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Sci-Tech&story=/news/1998/12/29/fluoride981229

(2)http://www.citizens.org/Food_water_safety/Fluoridation/Materials/web_pages/letter%20_%20to_FDA.htm
and
Crystal Wyand, spokesperson, FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, e-mail correspondence.

(3) http://consensus.nih.gov/news/releases/115_release.htm
and British Medical Journal (B.M.J.), October 7, 2000,McDonagh, et al

(4) "The Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride," by Gary Whitford

(5) Journal of the California Dental Association, January 1997, “The Fluoride Victory,” by Joanne Boyd

(6) Journal of the American Dental Association, February 2002

(7)http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/03/08/financial1058EST0079.DTL

(8)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10682335&dopt=Abstract

Sally Stride
http://www.fluoridedangers.blogspot.com

CDC recommendations Part 2

2006-04-12T11:54:00.000-04:00

CDC: “Two studies reported that extended consumption of infant formula beyond age 10--12 months was a risk factor for enamel fluorosis, especially when formula concentrate was mixed with fluoridated water...The Iowa study also reported that infant formula and processed baby food contained variable amounts of fluoride.”

ME: So are you asking formula and baby foods also be fluoride labeled?

CDC: silence

ME: So, if ingested fluoride doesn’t reduce tooth decay and if saliva fluoride levels aren’t high enough to prevent tooth decay, what good is fluoridation?

CDC: “ drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold.”

ME: When I do the math this works out to 0.6 ppm to 6 ppm in non-fluoridated communities and 1.6 - 16 ppm in fluoridated communities. Isn’t that high enough to cause fluorosis since all fluorides get absorbed into the bloodstream via the mucous membranes of the mouth and some fluoridated dental products get swallowed inadvertently.

CDC: The concentration returns to previous levels within 1--2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization.

ME: Assuming you haven’t brushed away the plaque. But you didn’t answer my fluorosis question.

CDC: “Some persons choose to modify this condition with elective cosmetic treatment”

ME: Is this cost factored into the cost/benefit of water fluoridation?

CDC: “most persons would be classified as low risk (for cavities) at any given time.”

ME: There you go again changing the subject. So, if the dentist isn’t sure, he/she treats my child as a low risk cavity person.

CDC: “when classification is uncertain, treating a person as high risk is prudent until further information or experience allows a more accurate assessment. This assumption increases the immediate cost of caries prevention or treatment and might increase the risk for enamel fluorosis for children aged <6 years...”

ME: So you’d rather make more money and give my kid fluorosed teeth than give less fluoride which you say doesn’t work inside the teeth or outside a clean tooth. To tell you the truth I’m doubting the necessity of fluoride at all, doc. What else should I know?

CDC: “Adherence to the recommendations in this report regarding appropriate use of fluoride for children aged <6 years will reduce the prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis”

ME: Why, is there a problem?

CDC: “The U.S. Publc Health Service (PHS) developed recommendations in the 1940s and 1950s regarding fluoride concentrations in public water supplies. At that time, public
health officials assumed that drinking water would be the major source of fluoride for most U.S. residents.”

ME: Assumed?

CDC: “...fluoride-containing products, including toothpaste (i.e., dentifrice), mouthrinse, dietary supplements, and professionally applied or prescribed gel, foam, or varnish. In addition, processed beverages, which constitute an increasing proportion of the diets of many U.S. residents and food can contain small amounts of fluoride, especially if they are processed with fluoridated water. Thus, U.S. residents have more sources of fluoride available now than 50 years ago.

ME: You forgot fluoride in medicines, inhaled and absorbed fluoride from ocean mist, fluoridated shower and bath water and cold mist humidifiers as well as fluoride air pollution from industry emissions, coal burning, electric plants, and even volcanoes. OK, so I know a little about fluoride.

CDC: “...The United States does not have comprehensive recommendations for caries prevention and control through various combinations of fluoride modalities. Adoption of such recommendations could...(reduce) the prevalence of enamel fluorosis...”

ME: What do I do in the meantime?

CDC: “...attention to fluoride intake among children aged <6 years to decrease the risk for enamel fluorosis.”

ME: I understand that dentists are taught to prescribe fluoride supplements for all children over 6 months who live in non-fluoridated or low fluoride communities.

CDC: “Fluoride supplements can be prescribed for children at high risk for dental caries and whose primary drinking water has a low fluoride concentration.”

ME: Oh so it’s only for children at high risk of cavities.

CDC: “For children aged <6 years, the dentist, physician, or other health-care provider should weigh the risk for caries without fluoride supplements, the caries prevention offered by supplements, and the potential for enamel fluorosis.”

ME: Why is that?

CDC: “A few studies have reported no association between supplement use by children aged <6 years and enamel fluorosis but most have reported a clear association.”

ME: So, no supplements for my 5 year old. But do supplements reduce tooth decay?

CDC: “The evidence for using fluoride supplements to mitigate dental caries is mixed.”

ME: Even this, you are not sure of?

CDC: “fluoride supplements also could increase the risk for enamel fluorosis at this age” (6 and under)…”

ME: What about all that science you said you had to support their use?

CDC: “Many studies of the effectiveness of fluoride supplements in preventing dental caries among children aged <6 years have been flawed in design and conduct.”

ME: Oh, so fluoride supplements are more likely to cause fluorosis than decrease tooth decay in the under six year old group. So now your supplement and fluoridation studies are flawed. I guess those anti-fluoridationists were right all along. What else?

CDC: “Consideration of the child's other sources of fluoride, especially drinking water, is essential in determining this balance. Parents and caregivers should be informed of both the benefit of protection against dental caries and the possibility of enamel fluorosis.”

ME: No dentist ever told me the risks of fluoride. So that’s a good one. What else.

CDC: “Parents and caregivers should consult a dentist or other health-care provider before introducing a child aged <2 years to fluoride toothpaste.”

ME: How about fluoride treatments at the dentist

CDC: “Whether fluoride varnish or gel would be most efficiently used in clinical programs targeting groups at high risk for dental caries or should be reserved for individual patients at high risk is unclear.”

ME: What about low risk people?

CDC: “Routine use of professionally applied fluoride gel or foam likely provides little benefit to persons not at high risk for dental caries, especially those who drink fluoridated water and brush daily with fluoride toothpaste.”

ME: Oy. What else?

CDC “Parents and caregivers should not provide additional fluoride to children aged <6 years without consulting a dentist or other health-care provider regarding the associated benefits and potential for enamel fluorosis.”

ME: Sounds reasonable to me; I just hope my dentist knows all this stuff. They say many doctors get their medical information from the media. The media told us 100 million Americans are deprived of fluoride but that’s not what you are telling me.

ME: What’s up with these school fluoridation programs?

CDC: “ a fluoride concentration of 4.5 times the optimal concentration … to compensate for the more limited consumption of fluoridated water. At the peak of this practice in the early 1980s, a total of 13 states had initiated school water fluoridation in 470 schools serving 170,000 children

ME: How many now?

CDC: “... the current extent of this practice is not known.

ME: I think that’s something you should know.

ME: What about fluoride mouthrinses.

CDC: “The National Preventive Dentistry Demonstration Program (NPDDP), a large project conducted in 10 U.S. cities during 1976-1981 to compare the cost and effective-ness of combinations of caries-prevention procedures, reported that fluoride mouthrinse had little effect among schoolchildren, either among first-grade students with high and low caries experience or among all second- and fifth-grade students”

ME: Why am I not surprised. What about school fluoride mouthrinse programs?

CDC: Throughout the 1980s, approximately 3 million children in the United States participated in school-based fluoride mouthrinsing programs

ME: What about now?

CDC: “The current extent of such programs is not known.”

ME: Again, you don’t know? What do you know.

CDC: “Use of fluoride supplements by pregnant women does not benefit their offspring”

ME: You crafty little devils conveniently left unmentioned that the fluorides used to fluoridate drinking water are mostly silicofluorides, waste products of the fertilizer industry, contaminated with arsenic, lead, and more, which have never been safety tested in humans or animals according to the EPA. (See http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/letter.jpg)

THE END

The actual CDC from which this is dervied can be found here:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

Look Ma - More Cavities

2006-03-18T11:08:00.000-05:00

Before Crest, Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) experimental Teel toothpaste with sodium fluoride, actually caused cavities in 1940’s tests. (1) Teel was scrapped in favor of Crest, with stannous fluoride. In 1955, Crest received the American Dental Association’s (ADA) seal of approval generating loads of money for P&G. Since then, even more evidence shows fluoride could cause instead of cure tooth decay.

In February of 1972 the ADA reported that, in fluoridated cities, dentists reaped a net profit 17% higher than in nonfluoridated cities.

In fact, in their zeal to promote fluoridation as their gift to the poor, and maybe help sell more Crest, someone forgot to check tooth decay statistics against fluoridation rates. Organized dentistry actually awarded the most toothless and cavity-prone states and cities in the name of water fluoridation in 2004. (1a)

Lots of evidence shows tooth decay crises in fluoridated cities and states: (1b)

The ongoing Iowa Fluoride Study reports in March 2006 that children in fluoridated communities have more fluorosis, but no less tooth decay, than children who live in sub-optimally fluoridated areas.(9)

A 1992 University of Arizona study found that "the more fluoride a child drinks, the more cavities appear in the teeth."

After 50 years of water fluoridation, Newburgh, New York, children have more cavities than kids from never-fluoridated Kingston, New York.(2)

After Kentucky required fluoride chemicals be dispensed into drinking water to reduce cavities, tooth decay rates almost doubled in pre-school children.(3)

A majority of Asian-American children living in areas with fluoridated water suffer with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities, according to a California study.(4)

In fact, many studies show that when fluoridation ceases, cavity rates go down.(5)

African children from Uganda, enjoy fewer cavities than American children even though fluoridated toothpaste and toothbrushes are virtually unknown to them. However, Ugandan children who drink high fluoride water have more tooth decay than their equals in low fluoride districts.(6)

Based on thirty years of study on .4 million children, Teotia and Teotia report "Our findings indicate that dental caries is caused by high fluoride and low dietary calcium intakes, separately and through their interactions." (6a)

Ireland, 73% fluoridated since the 1960’s, has a higher tooth decay rate than five other European countries that don’t add fluoride chemicals into the water, according to the June 30, 2001, Irish Independent.

Consistent with previous findings, Wondwossen and colleagues found a positive association between water fluoride levels and cavities. (7)

Tooth decay declined substantially in prevalence and severity when Hong Kong children consumed less fluoride, indicative of a world-wide scientific trend revealing, with fluoride, less is best; none is better.(7a)

Dentists once predicted that fluoridation would put them out of business. Instead, after 60 years of water fluoridation and 50 years of fluoridated toothpaste, dentists make much more money than physicians while working less hours, less days and with less responsibility. (7b)

References:

(1) http://64.177.90.157/pfpc/html/bibby_radike.html

(1a) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/newyorkstatecoalitionopposedtofluoridation/_pgg1.php3

(1b) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof2/_pgg6.php3

(2) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg2.php3

(3) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/newyorkstatecoalitionopposedtofluoridation/_pgg3.php3

(4) "The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity among California Preschool Children, by Shiboski, Gansky, Ramos-Gomez, Ngo, Isman, Pollick, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Winter 2003, pages 38-46 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12597584

(5) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/fluoridation.html#cessation

(6a) Teotia SPS, Teotia M. (1994). Dental Caries: A Disorder of High Fluoride and Low Dietary Calcium Interactions (30 Years of Personal Experience. Fluoride 27: 59-66.

(7) 1) Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004 Oct, “The relationship between dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with moderate- and high-fluoride drinking water in Ethiopia,” by Wondwossen F, Astrom AN, Bjorvatn K, Bardsen A.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15341618

(7a) http://www.enn.com/press.html?id=97

(7b) http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/05apr/care_dentist.htm

(8)http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=1350

(9) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0153 - Dental caries and fluorosis in relation to water fluoride levels, I Hong, SM Levy, J Warren, B Broffitt http://snipurl.com/n8hg

Return to Fluoride Dangers Home: http://www.fluoridedangers.blogspot.com

Human Experiment Predicts Fluoride Dangers

2006-01-14T09:19:00.000-05:00

New York - March 1956 - Bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation occur more often in children dosed with sodium fluoride-laced drinking water, according to an unprecedented human cavity-prevention experiment conducted upon the population of Newburgh, New York, reported in the March 1956 Journal of the American Dental Association. This is the first research into ingested fluoride's effects to the body and not just the teeth.

Brown and yellow discolored, but decay resistant, teeth are prevalent in populations drinking and irrigating their crops with naturally calcium-fluoridated water. Public health officials wondered if sodium fluoride injected in small doses into “fluoride-deficient” water supplies, then ingested by children and incorporated into their developing teeth, would prevent cavities without endangering their health or mottling their teeth, now called dental fluorosis.

So, ten years ago Newburgh’s faucets began spouting 1.2 parts per million (ppm) sodium fluoride. Nearby Kingston, New York, the control city for comparison purposes, was left fluoride-free. Kingston and Newburgh are thirty-five miles apart on the Hudson River and have 1940 populations of 31,956 and 28,817, respectively. In Newburgh, 500 children were examined after ten years and 405 in Kingston. Adults were never tested.

Due to political pressure, the Newburgh/Kingston study was declared a success five years ago before these ill health effects were found. As a result, many U.S. cities started fluoridation believing it is safe and effective.

Sodium fluoride ingestion is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is on the market as a rat poison. Once any drug is on the market for any reason, doctors are allowed to prescribe it for other diseases. Hence, many physicians and dentists are “off-labeling” sodium fluoride as a cavity preventive for children who don’t drink fluoridated water supplies, of course, in much smaller doses than needed to kill rats.

Newburgh's children were given complete physicals and x-rays, over the course of the study, from birth to age nine in the first year and up to age eighteen in the final year. “(R)outine laboratory studies were omitted in the control group during most of the study, they were included in the final examination,” according to Schlesinger and colleagues, in “Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.”

The researchers also report:

“The average age at the menarche was 12 years among the girls studied in Newburgh and 12 years 5 months among the girls in Kingston.”

Hemoglobin (iron-containing part of a red blood cell): “a few more children in the range below 12.9 grams per hundred milliliters in Newburgh”

“…a slightly higher proportion of children in Newburgh were found to have a total erythrocyte (red blood cell) count below 4,400,000 per milliliter”

Knee X-rays of Newburgh children reveals more cortical bone defects, and irregular mineralization of the thigh bone.

Only twenty-five Newburgh children had eye and ear exams. Two have apparent hearing loss. Eight have abnormal vision. Even though researchers discovered more adult cataracts in surveys conducted before 1944 in communities with naturally high water fluoride concentrations (1)Newburg and Kingston adults were never checked for this defect.

Only two groups of twelve-year-old boys were tested for fluoride’s toxic kidney effects.

--------------------------------------------------

The above is a report of the 1956 Newburgh/Kingston fluoridation study as it should have been reported.

It’s the reference that’s still used today to substantiate claims that fluoridation is safe for everyone. No other comprehensive health study of water fluoridation has ever been conducted to the best of my knowledge.

The 2004 book "The Fluoride Deception," by Christopher Bryson, reveals that in addition to NYS Dep't of Health examinations “the University of Rochester conducted its own studies, measuring how much fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues. Health Department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Rochester scientists,” writes Bryson. Three times as much fluoride was found in the placentas and blood samples gathered from Newburgh as from non-fluoridated Rochester, reports Bryson.

Following back the scientific references in all current fluoridation safety literature will invariably lead back to the Newburgh/Kingston study which actually failed to prove fluoridation is safe for all who drink it.

After sixty years of fluoridation fed to over 2/3 of Americans, the U.S. Surgeon General reports, tooth decay is a silent epidemic.

However, dental fluorosis is occuring across the land instead of just in isolated communities, affecting upwards of 42% of American schoolchildren, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

Reference:
(1) Fluoridation researcher, Peter Meiers, has more information about the Newburgh/Kingston study on his website:

http://pmeiers.bei.t-online.de/bartlett.htm

Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study. XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.
J Am Dent Assoc. 1956 Mar;52(3):296-306. SCHLESINGER ER, OVERTON DE, CHASE HC, CANTWELL KT.

Fluoride Harmful

2006-01-05T05:48:00.000-05:00

Research that fluoride (the decay-preventative added to water and dental products) can make people sick; but improved diet and complete fluoride withdrawal can relieve symptoms.(a)

Fluoride’s harmful health effects, except to teeth, are rarely studied in the U.S. and, in fact, are often discouraged(b).

In areas of India, where food and water are naturally fluoride-abundant, severe fluoride toxicity is common and manifests as debilitating and disfiguring diseases(d). Well-known is that fluoride excess irreversibly cripples bones and crumbles teeth (fluorosis).

Lesser-known are early fluorosis warning signs, or soft tissue toxicity, whose manifestations and resulting clinical complaints are reversible with a diet adequate in calcium, vitamins C, E, other antioxidants and withdrawal of all fluoride sources (the intervention), report researchers Madhu Bhatnager and Professor (Dr.) A.K. Susheela, the CEO and Director of India’s Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation.

“It is now an established fact that fluoride ingestion over a period of time can affect the structure and function of cells, tissues, organs and systems resulting in a variety of clinical manifestations," writes Dr. Susheela who researches fluoride extensively (http://education.vsnl.com/fluorosis/publication.html). The following symptoms can occur even when fluoride consumption is at the low level added to most US water supplies.

1) aches and pain in the joints, i.e. neck, back, hip, shoulder and knee without visible signs of fluid accumulation

2) non-ulcer dyspepsia such as nausea, vomiting, pain in the stomach, bloated feeling or gas formation in the stomach, constipation followed by diarrhea

3) polyuria (frequent urination) and polydipsia (excessive thirst)

4) muscle weakness, fatigue, anemia with low hemoglobin level

5) complaints of repeated abortions/still birth

6) complaints of male infertility with abnormality in sperm morphology, oligospermia (spermatozoa deficiency in the semen), azoospermia (spermatozoa absence in the semen) and low testosterone levels.”

Susheela and Bhatnager recommend physicians consider fluoride toxicity for the above-listed patient complaints and/or any loss of shine or discoloration in the patient’s front row of teeth, which may be due to dental fluorosis.

“Americans are unaware that their arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome or other symptoms may be fluoride-related,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “This information should be heeded by physicians and members of the medical and scientific communities. Dr. Susheela is a world authority on the health effects of fluoride to the human body,” says Beeber.

“Pediatricians need to be educated about fluorosis. Perhaps water fluoridation and indiscriminate promotion of fluoridated dental products in the name of prevention of dental caries (cavities) need to be reviewed,” writes Susheela and Bhatnager

“U.S. studies show American children are fluoride saturated, ruining their teeth with dental fluorosis; yet cavity rates are rising (1-8),” says Beeber. “These children should be studied for fluoride’s other adverse health effects and correlated to essential nutrient consumption and cavities.”

Also never studied, incredibly, are the most widely-used artificial fluoride chemicals Americans drink daily - silicofluorides (j), derived from fertilizers, purposely added to water supplies, at about 1 milligram fluoride per quart of water, in an attempt to reduce tooth decay. Recent published studies indicate that children who live in silico-fluoridated communities have higher blood lead levels than children who live in sodium fluoridated or non-fluoridated communities (k).

Ironically, higher blood lead levels are also linked to higher rates of tooth decay (L) and are associated with higher rates of diseases and behavioral problems (including hyperactivity, substance abuse, and violent crime).

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential to health. Fluoride deficiency does not lead to tooth decay. Poor diet causes cavities and fluoride can’t fix a poor diet.

Fluoride has been linked to many other health problems such as thyroid dysfunction, bone fractures, lowered IQ, allergic and intolerant effects and more.

(a) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12162452&dopt=Abstract

(b) http://www.fluoridealert.org/mullenix.htm

(d) http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluorosis-india.htm

(e) September, 2001, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, “Fluoride Content of Foods Made with Mechanically Separated Chicken,” by Fein and Cerklewski http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11559124&dopt=Abstract

(f) http://bruha.com/fluoride/html/f-_in_food.html

(g) ASCD J Dent Child 2001 Jan-Feb, “Fluoride content of infant formulas prepared with deionized, bottled mineral and fluoridated drinking water http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11324405&dopt=Abstract

(h)Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2002 Aug, "Primary tooth fluorosis and fluoride intake during the first year of life," Levy SM, et al http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12147170&dopt=Abstract

(i) March 1999 Journal of the American Dental Association “Fluorosis of the primary dentition: what does it mean for permanent teeth?” by Warren JJ, Kanellis MJ, Levy SM http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10085657&dopt=Abstract

(j)http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf

(k) http://www.fluoridealert.org/sf-masters.htm

(L) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12361944&dopt=Abstract

(1) “Are Cavity Rates Rising,” Delta Dental
http://www.deltanj.com/kids_club/news_wisdom_1002.shtml#6

(2) NBC Arkansas News Report
http://www.arkansasnbc.com/weeklys/parenting/apr02/index.shtml
“Are the amount of cavities rising in children?”

(3) University of Rochester News Release “Dental cavities on the rise again;
back to 'drill and fill'“
http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/2000/eurekaalert040800.htm

(4) “Rise in tooth decay may be tied to sugary pop, sports drinks and even
bottled water,” Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/healthscience/134458074_cavity21.html

(5) “Early Childhood Tooth Decay,” by Stephen R. Branam, D.D.S
http://www.drbranam.com/pgeArticle_Early.htm

(6) “Special Report: Cincinnati's dental crisis,”
http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/10/06/loc_special_report.html

(7) The Wall Street Journal, “Health Journal: As kids' cavities rise, some
dentists advocate using tooth sealants,” Tara Parker-Pope, March 8, 2002

(8) “Dentists Show Fluoridation a Failure,”
http://www.healthsentinel.com/News/Flouride.htm

Return to Fluoride Dangers Home:
http://www.FluorideDangers.blogspot.com

The Politics of Fluoridation

2006-01-04T12:11:00.000-05:00

Fluoridation was adopted more by politicking than by science according to Edward Groth III, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, with Consumers Union, publishers of the popular Consumers Reports magazine.

In a presentation made at the February 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Groth reported that, with three experimental fluoridation trials incomplete, enthusiastic fluoridation proponents successfully lobbied and persuaded the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) to endorse fluoridation in 1950 who, then with a few state dental officials, began vigorously promoting fluoridation with little, if any, scientific support.

According to Groth, whose 1973 Stanford University doctoral dissertation partially evaluated the use of scientific information in fluoridation policy-making. “There were no significant studies examining the long-term health of people in communities with naturally fluoridated water. .. (However,) exposure via drinking water, at levels not much higher than what was proposed for fluoridation, had been associated in numerous published studies, beginning around 1940, with serious adverse skeletal and neuromuscular effects, in India and other countries. Opposition to fluoridation initially came from scientists concerned about the lack of good evidence on possible health risks,” writes Groth

In order to get fluoridation passed, proponents often belittled opponents and used slick public relations schemes, while refusing to debate the issue, to get fluoridation accepted, reports Groth. Something they still do today

Said Groth, “Those who did openly oppose fluoridation were often subject of personal attack and professional reprisals. For decades, mainstream scientific journals would reject for publication any paper that did not articulate a strictly pro-fluoridation position on risk and benefit questions.”

“I myself had three manuscripts based on my doctoral dissertation rejected by U.S. public health journals in the 1970s,” says Groth. “My reviews of the evidence on risks and benefits of fluoridation were sent to anonymous pro-fluoridation referees, who found them “biased.” One editor advised that he wished to do nothing that might offer anti-fluoridationists any political leverage...(However,) I was politically outside the fray; my interest was exploring the interplay between political controversy and interpretations of scientific data. My papers were still rejected by several leading American journals in the 1970s, I believe because of a pervasive bias in favor of defending and promoting fluoridation,” writes Groth.

Groth reports of the early days of fluoridation, “ Leading PHS dental researchers lobbied every leading scientific organization, to gain endorsements of fluoridation. They cast fluoridation as a product of scientific progress under siege from anti-scientific forces, and rallied the scientific community in political support of the measure. They carried out a few studies looking for possible adverse effects of fluoridation; the studies were poorly designed and inconclusive, by today’s standards, but they found no convincing evidence of harm. The PHS declared the issues closed, the debate over. The studies were roundly criticized as inadequate and biased by leading opponents of the day but fluoridation advocates rapidly took the stance that there was no longer any scientific doubt that fluoridation was safe and effective. Their political strategy was simply to steamroll the opposition, to insist that opponents had no basis for any valid objections. They focused on political campaigning, not on research; in fact, research all but halted, as it was politically inexpedient for the PHS to be studying questions they had already declared adequately answered.”

Times haven’t changed much from the early days of fluoridation as Groth reports it. Dentists still denigrate the opposition, fund huge billboards, radio and TV spots, newspaper ads, and brochures to influence Americans to vote for fluoridation. Organized dentistry often uses their clout to censor fluoridation opponent information from reaching the media, even when it is accurate, while refusing to publicly debate the issue knowing the media likes a controversy and mostly ignores opponents otherwise.

At the same time, some dentists admit the benefits vs. the risks of fluoridation is a legitimate scientific controversy. Fluoridation may be immoral and outdated argues David Locker, BDS, PhD, professor and director of the Community Dental Health Services Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto in the November 2001, Journal of the Canadian Dental Association (http://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-67/issue-10/eng/578.html ).

And in a new devious twist, the American Dental Association, acting like teenage hackers, bought the domain name “www.fluoridealert.com” and “www.fluoridealert.net” to deceive web surfers away from fluoridation opponents’ website, http://www.fluoridealert.org , the website of the Fluoride Action Network, an international coalition of organizations opposed to fluoridation. Instead, with a slip of a “dot com,” unsuspecting web surfers are tricked to the American Dental Association’s pro-fluoridation information.

Why would dentists do such a thing? Dentistry was a maligned profession before fluoridation gave it respectability. And fluoridation birthed the National Institutes of Dental Research. Fluoridation gives organized dentistry political power as well as millions of federal tax dollars to study fluoride’s effects in humans. Many dentists are stuck in their old-time beliefs and haven’t actually read the literature themselves. Those that do often switch sides.

“Fluoridation campaigns provide a unique opportunity for dentistry to help reduce the incidence of dental disease while establishing political viability...,” according to the Journal of the American Dental Association, “Fluoridation Election Victory: A Case Study for Dentistry in Effective Political Action,” April 1981.

Also, there’s an interesting “marriage” between organized dentistry and fluoride manufacturers who fund dental journals, dental schools, research, awards, symposiums and dental meetings, buy equipment, and do much more for dentists and their organizations.

Dentists censor negative fluoride information whenever they are able to. They discourage newspapers from using fluoridation opponent letters (See http://www.mtn.org/~newscncl/determinations/det_24.html ), encourage internet news services to shut-off fluoridation opponents information (See Fluoridation and Censorship:
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg10.php3 ) while ignoring the misinformation disseminated by their own profession about fluoride and fluoridation on the internet and elsewhere.

A 1999 dental textbook, “Dentist, Dental Practice, and the Community,” by prominent researchers and dental university professors, Burt and Eklund, reports that Groth’s assessment is correct even today - that fluoridation is based more on unproved theories than scientific evidence.

END

Groth’s entire presentation can be found here: http://www.consumersunion.org/food/debate/bio1.htm
page one is at http://www.consumersunion.org/food/debate/bio.htm

Fluoridation Fails New York State

2005-12-30T07:03:00.000-05:00

Organized dentistry is oblivious that their 1950’s concept, fluoridation, fails modern America as they continue to misrepresent fluoridation’s value. Since fluoridation began, dentists got richer and the poor were left behind. Take New York State, for instance:

Almost three fourths of New Yorkers have consumed tap water injected with fluoride for decades. Yet, New York State’s fluoridated counties and cities suffer worse dental health than those without fluoride-laced water supplies.

America’s oral health crisis is not due to lack of fluoride but because poor people can’t get dentists to fix their teeth. In fact, the American Dental Association says, “Low income is the single best predictor of high caries experience in children,” not lack of fluoridation. Low-income populations have the highest levels of dental disease but are least likely to be cared for, according to the General Accounting Office (1).

"In surveys conducted in Wyoming, Washington, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho (WWAMI project), higher levels of dental disease correlated with counties having the least access to dental care,” according to Oral Care Report paid for by Colgate and edited by Harvard professor Chester W. Douglass DMD, PhD(1a). Other studies show cavities decline when fluoridation ends.(1b)

Starting fluoridation now is like locking the gate after the dogs have escaped. Every unfilled cavity will cost the taxpayers ten times as much or more in hospital emergency room visits. Fluoridated communities are still pouring money into oral health measures trying to fix a very broken public health dentistry problem (4).

Money spent on fluoridation is money wasted! With states cutting dental Medicaid benefits to balance their budgets, the situation will just get worse.

Most people get cavities. Imagine your smile never touched by a dentist. America’s poor and minorities, also the unhealthiest, suffer the most tooth decay. Most dentists reject low-paying government subsidized insurance or don’t live in low-income or rural neighborhoods. So the underprivileged often have no choice but to wait until their teeth rot so badly and hurt so much it justifies a hospital emergency room visit. Fluoridation is supposed to prevent this; but doesn’t.

Despite fluoridation, severe tooth decay is responsible for two thirds of hospital visits by children under six in New York State (2). In New York City, fluoridated since 1965, more children required cavity-related hospitalizations, proportionately, than two of New York State's largest non-fluoridated counties, Suffolk and Nassau (Long island) whether payment was made by Medicaid or privately.(2)

This is how Jonathan Kozol explains life in the South Bronx (a NYC borough) in his book, Savage Inequalities, “Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are routine matters for children..... Children live for months with pain that grown-ups would find unendurable. …I have seen children with teeth that look like brownish, broken sticks. I have seen teenagers who were missing half their teeth....”

Far from “putting themselves out of business,” as they once predicted by insisting water supplies be spiked with fluoride, today’s dentists work fewer hours a day, less days a week but make more money than physicians (3). At the same time, most dentists refuse to treat poor patients with the most dental needs except maybe once a year with much fanfare and publicity. Emergency room dental costs are staggeringly higher than a dental visit. And taxpayers foot the bill.

One New York City hospital charged from $900 to $12,000 to treat 96 children with severely decayed teeth, excluding the dentist and anesthesiologist fees. Children needed extensive work including stainless steel crowns, extractions, root canal therapy, fillings, other restorations, periodontal procedures, surgeries and/or more. (2)

NYS hospital costs were between $2.5 and $33 million for the 2,726 childhood cavities-related surgical visits required by children under six, in 1999. (2) Even after hospital treatment, these children return with new lesions.

Cavities are, largely, another disease of poverty and/or poor nutrition that only dentists or dental therapists can fix-–but not with fluoridation.

Further evidence shows fluoridation neither saves NYS money nor reduces cavities:

• According to New York University’s School of Dentistry, "The need for dental care is especially acute among impoverished (NYC) children, who have 60 percent more untreated cavities than their peers at higher socioeconomic levels." (4)

• Lack of oral health care for adults in Harlem is a hidden crisis, write researchers in the American Journal of Public Health. (5)

• "Adolescents in northern Manhattan (another NYC borough) have higher caries prevalence than their national counterparts,” The Journal of Public Health Dentistry, reports." (6)

• Latinos and African American seniors suffer high rates of tooth decay and tooth loss in Northern Manhattan (7), according to the Journal of Community Health.

• A higher prevalence of dental decay is found in New York City African Americans, aged 18 - 64, than found nationally, reports Dental Clinics of North America. (8)

• Dental caries, among disadvantaged 3 to 4-year-old children in northern Manhattan, are higher than the national average (9), according to Pediatric Dentistry.

• After over fifty years of water fluoridation, many children in Newburgh, New York have more cavities and more fluoride--caused discolored teeth (dental fluorosis) than children in never-fluoridated Kingston, New York, according to a New York State Department of Health study published in the New York State Dental Journal (10).

• Second-graders from non-fluoridated Long Island, New York, are more cavity-free than second graders nationally (11) where two thirds of Americans drink fluoridated public water supplies.

• Despite a tremendous effort to improve oral health in fluoridated Rochester and Monroe County, lack of dental care has created a tooth decay crisis.(12)

• In fluoridated Syracuse and Massena, many children are raised in homes where they feel it's their destiny to have tooth decay and tooth pain.(13)

• "Poor oral health was identified as the number one complaint in a population-based survey of Central Harlem conducted in 1992-1994." (14)

• In Harlem, N.Y., forty-six percent of African-American seniors were missing teeth, compared with twenty-two percent of Latinos. (15)

• "The state also has increased dental payment rates by 250 percent over the past few years, with little success in improving access to dental care." in fluoridated Syracuse, New York.(16)

• Cavities are rising in fluoridated Rochester’s 10-year-old population. (17)

• Eighteen percent of older New Yorkers lost six or more teeth due to dental disease, (18) while only sixteen percent of non-fluoridated Long islanders did. (19)

• Similarly twenty-one percent of Brooklyn’s and twenty percent of Queens’ residents have less teeth (20), than non-fluoridated Suffolk and Nassau Counties.

• Cavity crises occur in many fluoridated cities and states. (21)

By neglecting the poor, organized dentistry helped create an oral health epidemic (22). Promoting fluoridation may deflect government regulators from forcing dentists to actually treat poor children (23).

Besides, after six decades of water fluoridation, cavity rates have increased recently in America’s 2 to 4 year-old population who should be the most “fluoride-protected.” (23a)

And, according to the American Dental Association News, average net income of a full time independent non-solo pediatric dentist was $336,860 in 2001, up more than twenty-five percent since 1998. Since eighty percent of all decay occurs mostly in the dentist-abandoned poor, some public health dentists ask, what kinds of necessary dental services are provided to higher socio-economic kids to generate a net income of $336,860 annually?

In 1984, NYC spent $2.4 million for fluoridation chemicals, equipment and manpower, according to the NYC Department of Environmental Protection. In 2003, fluoride chemicals, alone, cost NYC $6 million, according to the New York Sun.

Fluoridation money, literally flushed down the toilet, should be earmarked to treat poor NYC children’s dental pain immediately.

Even more worrying is that higher blood lead levels are found in New York State (and other) children whose water supplies contain the fluoride chemicals, silicofluorides, when compared to non-fluoridated or sodium fluoridated communities, reports Masters and Coplan and substantiated by CDC scientists.(24) Ironically, higher blood lead levels are linked to more cavities. (25)

The cost of fluoridation isn’t the only price we pay when silicofluorides are put into drinking water. “Silicofluorides have very costly side-effects,” says Roger Masters, PhD, co-author of the silicofluoride/lead studies. “Lead lowers IQ and influences behavior in many ways. Epidemiology shows that where silicofluorides are used, there are higher rates of learning disabilities, substance abuse, and violent crime. Our studies do not find similar effects for sodium fluoride,” says Masters.

“The result is that silicofluoride usage has the effect of increasing public expenses and taxes,” says Masters. For example costs of jailing criminals, adversely affected by silicofluorides and special education classes for children with lower IQ due to high-blood-lead levels could be diminished if the offending silicofluorides were removed from public water supplies, Masters explains.

"The oral health crisis facing America today shows fluoridation and public health dentistry is failing America’s neediest children. Why is organized dentistry less supportive of a public health approach to improving access to care? Perhaps that’s because Americans spent roughly $64 billion on dental procedures last year with more than half of those procedures being cosmetic—fillings, crowns, implants, and high-end restorative procedures, according to government data," reported in Access, an American Dental Hygienists' Association publication.(26)

Organized dentistry often hinders programs designed to reach out to America's underserved, protecting their monopoly rather than America's neediiest. The ADA publicly invalidates dental hygienists solo practices along with their "Give-Kids-A-Smile" public relations materials. The hygienists lash back with their own news release (27) The ADA also frowns on dental therapists, specially trained hygienists who can fill the cavities dentists refuse to.(28)

References:

(1) September 2000 “Oral Health Factors Contributing to Low Use of Dental
Services by Low-Income Populations,” General Accounting Office
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00149.pdf

(1a) Colgate Oral Care Report Volume 14 No. 4, November 4, 2004 http://www.colgateprofessional.com/app/cop/repository/article-201/frameset.jsp

(1b) (1b) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg6.php3

(2) "Early Childhood Caries-related Visits to Hospitals for Ambulatory Surgery in New York State," Wadhawan, Kumar, Badner, Green, Journal of Public Health Dentistry Vol 63 No.1, Winter 2003

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12597585

(3) “Dentists' pay tops doctors' Even with fewer cavities to fill, dentists' earnings are skyrocketing.” By Mark Maremont, The Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2005
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/business/10614433.htm

(4) New York University, School of Dentistry, “Speaker Miller and City Council Expand Dental Services for Needy Children” http://www.nyu.edu/dental/news/needychildren.html

(5) “Lack of Oral Health Care for Adults in Harlem: A Hidden Crisis,” Zabos, et al, American Journal of Public Health, January 2002, Vol 92, No.l
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11772760

(6) Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Summer; 63(3): 189-94
"Dental caries experience in northern Manhattan adolescents.".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12962473

(7) Journal of Community Health, August 2003, " Oral disease burden and dental services utilization by Latino and African-American seniors in Northern Manhattan."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12856796

(8) Dental Clinics of North America, January 2003 "Dental caries prevalence among a sample of African American adults in New York City,"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12519005&dopt=Abstract

(9) Pediatric Dentistry, May-June 2002, "Dental caries among disadvantaged 3- to 4-year-old children in northern Manhattan"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12064497

(10) NYS Dental Journal,"Recommendations for Fluoride Use in children," February 1998 by dentists Kumar and Green. Figure 1, Page 41, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9542393

(11) Page four of ERIE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT - FAMILY HEALTH
http://wings.buffalo.edu/wny/health/den.pdf

(12) Democrat and Chronicle, "Dental care is luxury for many locals," October 2004
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041002/NEWS01/410020317/1002/NEWS

(13) Small Smiles gives kids a reason to grin
Updated: 12/1/2004 by Al Nall, News 10 Now Web Staff
http://news10now.com/content/all_news/?ArID=32340&SecID=83

(14)
Abstract presented at meeting of American Public Health Association
“Community DentCare Network: Community-academic partnerships as a model in identifying, addressing, and reducing oral health disparities”

http://apha.confex.com/apha/132am/techprogram/paper_85424.htm

(15) U.S. News and World Reports 11/9/04
Open wide
A report looks at the dental health of African-American males,
By Elizabeth Querna

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/briefs/oral/hb041109b.htm?track=rss

(16) Cost Concerns Grow Despite New Health Plan Competition in Syracuse
Community Report No. 7
Summer 2003
http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/572/

(17) University of Rochester News Release
Dental cavities on the rise again; back to 'drill and fill'
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-04/UoR-Dcot-0704100.php

(18) U.S. Centers for Disease Control statistics: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/display.asp?cat=OH&yr=2002&qkey=6605&state=NY

(19) http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss-smart/MMSARiskChart.asp?yr=2002&MMSA=83&cat=OH&qkey=6605&grp=0

(20) http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss-smart/MMSACtyRiskChart.asp?MMSA=61&yr2=2002&qkey=6605&CtyCode=91&cat=OH#OH

(21) Cavity Crises in Fluoridated Cities and States compiled by New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof2/_pgg6.php3

(22) “FIRST-EVER SURGEON GENERAL'S REPORT ON ORAL HEALTH FINDS PROFOUND DISPARITIES IN NATION'S POPULATION,” News Release, May 2000, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/pressreleases/pr_oral_52000.htm

(23) Oregon Dental Association newsletter, April 2004, Volume 9, Number 11 (Page 6)
http://www.oregondental.org/oda/section.cfm?wSectionID=1277

(23a)
Data Presentation by Dr. Edward Sondik
Director, National Center for Health Statistics
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/hpdata2010/focusareas/fa21-oral.htm

(24) More Lead in Children Who Drink Fluoridated Water, by Sally Stride, June 2004
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/fluoridation/109036

(25) Moss, M.E. 1999. Association of dental caries and blood lead levels. Journal of the American Medical Association 281(June 23/30):2294.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10386553&dopt=Abstract

(26) "Why Millions Suffer with preventable oral disease," by Bryan L. Scott, June 2002 . Access, an American Dental Hygienist Association’s publication
By Bryant L. Scott
http://www.adha.org/downloads/0506lead.pdf

27) ADHA’s Response to ADA Study: The Economic Impact of Unsupervised Dental Hygiene Practice and its Impact on Access to Care in the State of Colorado , February 4, 2005
http://www.adha.org/news/012805-study.htm

(28) "First Alaskan dental therapists to qualify," RDH
http://de.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=219527&p=56

Fluoridation Harms Kidney Patient

2005-12-27T21:06:00.000-05:00

anet Lail learned to live for years with the constant pain she likens to brillo pads rubbed over scorched skin (ouch) and monthly hospitalizations due to a kidney disease (chronic pyelonephritis) that requires she drink loads of water.

Then suddenly the pain disappeared and her hospital visits became fewer and farther between. Even the doctors were confounded-–nothing had changed – except the water-–it was no longer fluoridated.

Lail’s water provider, the South Blount Utility District in Tennessee opened a new plant in June 2004 and started providing unfluoridated water.
Lail told this story to Lesli Bales-Sherrod, a reporter for the Daily Times of Maryville, Tennessee (1)

“`I thought it was a fluke or something,’ (Lail) acknowledged. ‘When you’ve been sick like that for so many years, you don’t want to analyze why (your’re doing better). I didn’t want to talk about it; I was afraid it might go away,’” Bales-Sherrod writes.

Lail is willing to show her medical records to the skeptical. But she probably doesn’t know that the literature is littered with warnings that people with pyelonephritis should avoid fluoride.

But, for some reason, otherwise sensible people trust dentists’ opinions on fluoride’s bodily effects-–as if looking into mouths all day can detect kidney problems.

So legislators follow dentists’ advice and put fluoride into their constituents’ water supplies. Media knight dentists as fluoride experts and write positive fluoride stories, not at all shy to belittle their readers opposed to fluoridation-–a script handed to them by the fluoridationists.

Dentists assure anyone who will listen that, when added to drinking water, fluoride, like a miracle drug, prevents tooth decay with absolutely no harmful effects, except maybe some discolored teeth.

Dentists need to get acquainted with Lail and the scientific literature. It’s well known that fluoride harms kidneys and/or people whose kidneys don’t excrete fluoride properly.

“Kidney patients retain as much as 60% more fluoride than do persons in normal health,” writes physician George Waldbott, the leading medical expert on the clinical aspects of chronic fluoride toxicity when he wrote “Fluoridation the Great Dilemma,” published in 1978 with Harvard educated Albert Burgshthler, Phd, university professor and now Editor of the journal, “Fluoride.”

Waldbott describes two of his patients harmed by fluoridated water.

Twenty-seven year old G.L.’s kidney disease was so bad, she was slated to have her left kidney removed. Additionally, she suffered from pain and numbness in her arms and legs, spastic bowels, mouth ulcers, and headaches.

After, following Waldbott’s advice to avoid the fluoridated water, not only did the above symptoms disappear, but her left kidney began to function again. A five year follow-up found her still healthy.

E. P., 39 years old, had advanced pyelitis (another name for pyelonephritis, Janet Lail’s disease) of the left kidney, bone changes and the same clinical picture as G.L.

E.P.’s diseased kidney and other symptoms improved markedly within six weeks after she stopped drinking her artificially fluoridated water supply.

“One of the most striking features in the early stage of fluorosis is the craving for fluids, accompanied by excess production of urine. Indeed, the more water the patient drinks the thirstier he or she becomes,” writes Waldbott.

Dentists rely on outdated and questionable data to absolve fluoride in kidney problems. For instance Hodge and Smith wrote that “no soft tissue stores fluoride.” We now know that Hodge’s main concern in the 1940’s was to downplay fluoride’s bad effects to protect the super-secret Manhattan Project, which produced the first atomic bomb that ended World War II.

Hodge knew that fluoride emissions from Manhattan Project contracters were killing and maiming nearby farm crops and animals. (See “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson). But stopping the fluoride emissions could kill the project. So instead they downplayed or ignored fluoride’s ill effects.

In 1991 the U.S. government admitted fluoride’s harm. “...subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with magnesium deficiency, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems,” is reported in, the “Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine,” by the U.S. Department of Health (1991).

It was even known in 1965 that fluoride adversely affects people with Lail’s disease.

"A patient with renal disease (probably chronic pyelonephritis) has been reported whose bone contained fluorine in a concentration exceeding 5,000 ppm. There was no history of exposures to fluorides, and her usual drinking water contained less than 0.5 ppm of fluorine. This is of interest because in a postmortem study in Utah the highest concentrations of fluorine were found in those with chronic pyelonephritis… Sauerbrunn and associates have reported in this issue of the ANNALS the development of skeletal fluorosis in a patient with chronic polydipsia [excessive thirst]; the fluorine content of his drinking water was high but it was not at a level generally associated with the production of skeletal disorder. It seems probable that in this patient and in those with chronic pyelonephritis the high concentrations of fluorine found in the bone are the result of a greater consumption of water, which leads to a greater intake of fluorine,” excerpted from the Annals of Internal Medicine 1963 (1)

Two kidney patients, one with pyelonephritis, were unable to excrete fluoride properly which caused bone damaging skeletal fluorosis, researchers reported in 1972 (2).

In persons with advanced bilateral pyelonephritis, the skeletal fluoride content can be 4-fold that of similarly-exposed persons with normal kidneys, reported Marier in 1977 (2a),

Fluoride interferes with calcium to negatively affect kidneys, a 1999 study shows (3)

"As renal function declines, due either to diseases or with aging, plasma and bone fluoride content both increase," according to the Surgeon General’s 1983 committee notes, reports Chemical & Engineering News (4).

The National Kidney Foundation in its "Position Paper on Fluoridation-1980" also expresses concern about fluoride retention in kidney patients. It cautions doctors "to monitor the fluoride intake of patients with chronic renal impairment, but stops short of recommending the use of fluoride-free drinking water for all patients with kidney disease. It does recommend, however, that dialysis patients use fluoride-free water for their treatments. (4)

Studies show that children with moderately impaired renal function (such as those who have diabetes insipidus), are at some risk of skeletal changes from consumption of fluoridated water, even if the fluoride level is no higher than 1 ppm. A number of researchers have found high concentrations of fluoride in the bones of patients who suffer from kidney disease and have found symptoms of skeletal fluorosis in some of these patients. However, there has been no systematic survey of people with impaired kidney function to determine how many actually suffer a degree of skeletal fluorosis that is clearly detrimental to their health.(4)

Fluoridationists may argue that only approximatrely 1 ppm is injected into water supplies. But did dentists calculate how much hydrogen fluoride South Blount customers breathe in from nearby Alcoa aluminum smokestack air emissions? Did they measure how much fluoride is ingested from dental products, foods and beverages other than water?

I doubt it, they seldom do.

The evidence is in. After 60 years of water fluoridation delivered to 2/3 of Americans via the water supply and 100% of Americans via their food and beverage supply, American children are grossly overfluoridated Yet, tooth decay is a national epidemic.

According to the National Kidney Foundation, more than 20 million Americans - one in nine adults - have chronic kidney disease.

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

Trust me, dentists say, not those anti-fluoridationists with flawed scientific interpretation, fully aware that tagging us as "anti's" is pejorative in itself.

However, U.S. National Institutes of Health scientists were unable to find any valid science to support fluoride's use in preventing tooth decay.(6) and were "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" (over 560 studies evaluated fluoride use), according to a news release issued by the Consensus Development Conference on the Diagnosis and Management of Dental Caries Throughout Life, convened by the National Institutes of Health on March 26-28, 2001 in Bethesda, MD.

British scientists have the same problem

"We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide...An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects ...was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor," according to a news release issued by Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York, England. (7) In 1999, the UK Department of Health commissioned CRD to conduct a systematic review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water.

More studies about fluoride’s ill effect on kidney are here http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html#kidney

Fluoride toxicity symptoms are listed here: http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg1.php3

References:

(1) http://www.slweb.org/adams-jowsey.html

(2) http://www.slweb.org/juncos-1972

(2a) http://www.fluorideaction.org/nrc-fluoride.htm#5.8

(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10356089&dopt=Abstract

(4) http://www.fluoridealert.org/s-fluorosis.htm

(5) http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/203214

(6) http://consensus.nih.gov/news/releases/115_release.htm

(7)http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm

How Dentists Manipulate Legislators to Win Fluoridation Battles

2005-12-16T07:12:00.000-05:00

Ignoring the democratic process and discouraging a healthy dialogue, California fluoridationists worked secretly, quickly and dishonestly to pass a 1995 California fluoridation law, that forces most California communities to add fluoride into their water supplies, whether Californians want it or not, according to “The Fluoride Victory,” published in the Journal of the California Dental Association.(1)

California Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, working with the California Dental Association (CDA), sponsored a fluoridation bill, eventually signed into law, forcing all California water companies, with 10,000 service connections, to add nonessential fluoride chemicals into the drinking water to prevent tooth decay, without constituent or local governing body approval, discussion or vote.

“To make the most of the element of surprise, it was decided that Speier would wait until the last possible moment to introduce her fluoridation bill,” writes author Joanne Boyd.

“’We pretty much knew we’d catch (the anti-fluoridation faction) by surprise because it wasn’t well known outside of the dental community what was going on,' said Liz Snow, assistant director of CDA’s Government Relations (lobbying) Office. ‘But we didn’t want to give the other side any more time to mobilize than absolutely necessary,’” writes Boyd.

William Keese, CDA Director of Government Relations, a lobbyist, received many compliments from other lobbyists on the campaign.

“I wouldn’t say we pulled a rabbit out of a hat, but it was a coup. We worked hard at getting prepared and using the element of surprise to our advantage. We moved fast and did it in one year," Boyd quotes Keese as saying.

Many of the nation’s most familiar pro-fluoride lobbiests, were involved in the California battle including zealous fluoridationist, dentist Michael Easley brought in from Kentucky, at the time. (By the way, tooth decay doubled in Kentucky after water fluoridation (2)).

To the antifluoridation folks, Easley brags, I'm Public Enemy Number 1. (3) Easley travels world-wide touting one issue, fluoridation. Easley used taxpayer money to create a biased, document about fluoridation containing factual errors.(12)

Intending to insult anti-fluoridationists, Boyd quotes lobbiest Snow as saying, “’When you’re a single-issue person – when that issue pops up, regardless of where it is – that’s where you go,’ Snow said. They remind me of Deadheads. Anywhere the Grateful Dead would go, there would be the same group of followers.” Snow’s criticism more aptly fits Easley or the national lobbiests provided by the country-wide dentists’ union, the American Dental Association (ADA), which could be named the American Fluoridation Association.

Unlike pro-fluoridation special-interest groups, fluoridation opponents use their own time, their own money, usually to protect their own drinking water and have actually studied the issue. There are different opponents in every town.

On the other hand, the ADA, went all out to support the 1995 California fluoridation bill, assisting in spokesperson training, legislative testimony and providing literature to distribute, reports Boyd.

With decades of commercials, advertisements and organized dentistry’s web of support, influence and money working against them, and during the OJ trial, Californians opposed to fluoridation hardly had a chance to voice dissent.

The California campaign is a "blueprint" for oranized dentistry to push fluoridation across the USA. This despite evidence fluoridation fails to reduce tooth decay by the same dentists who told the California legislature the opposite.

In fact, out-of-town pro-fluoride troops are on the ground, thirty strong armed with grant money, in Joplin Missouri, right now, spreading the gospel according to Organized Dentistry(13)forcing the good people of Joplin to organize, raise money and fight their own representatives to keep their water fluoride-free (13a).

Kansas City, MO, is already fluorided, yet 31% of small children have severe tooth decay (15). A Springfield newspaper reports similar dire decay problems, not from lack of fluoride, the water is fluoridated (16); but from lack of dental care.

Fluoridation fails Missouri children, already 82% fluoridated (See: Black Holes Swallow Community
http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/0718-Blackholes-135710.html).

Back to California.

Untrained to diagnose fluoride’s adverse effects, California fluoridationist and dentist “Howard Pollick, …, likened the anti-fluoride activists to the Flat Earth Society. ‘Ever since science proved that the earth is round, there’s been a Flat Earth Society whose members refuse to acknowledge a scientific truth,”’ Writes Boyd in “The Fluoride Victory.”

Pollick should join the Flat Earth Society – in fact – he should be their President because he doesn’t even believe his own research.

According to Pollick and colleagues, "It may...be that fluoridation of drinking water does not have a strong protective effect against early childhood caries (ECC)," was reported in the Winter 2003 Journal of Public Health Dentistry(4).

Howard Pollick, DDS, is a clinical professor with the University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, and co-chairman of the California Fluoridation Task Force.

Pollick's team studied 2,520 California preschool children as part of the “California Oral Health Needs Assessment of Children Study” which helped convinced California legislators to mandate fluoridation statewide in 1995(5).

A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.

"...the primary sampling units were selected on the basis of fluoridation status: three were fluoridated urban regions, two were rural (nonfluoridated),and five were non-fluoridated urban regions," they report. "Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water," reports Pollick et al.

Pollick reports in the "International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health" that infant forumula made with optimally fluoridated water might create brown and pitted permanent teeth(17). We wonder if Pollick, turned fluoridation lobbiest in Arkansas, informs elected bodies that, if they fluoridate their water supplies, they must provide bottled fluoride-free water for infant consumption.

Many studies show children's teeth will grow in stained if fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.(18)

On 9/2/04 Pollick presented selective pro-fluoridation information to two committees of the Arkansas legislature, instigating a state-wide fluoridation law, telling legislators to disbelieve anti-fluoridationists because they use the internet. Unfortunately, for Pollick, we use his own words to contradict what he tells legislators in private. I guess that's why he doesn't recommend the internet.

Organized dentistry gets an A+ for political savvy; but an F for fluoride science. Legislators assume organized dentistry does their fluoride homework; but they don't. Fluoridating dentists are like wind-up dolls programmed to say one thing. Even if they wanted to, they can't say anything negative about fluoride or their owners would put them out of busines.

Fluoride opposition is based on sound science – not back-door political activism. Unfortunately, we don’t have the money, influence and network they do. We only have the truth.

People who get paid to promote fluoridation:

-- Dental directors in almost every state with offices, budgets, staffs and traveling expenses, most of whom aren’t passionate about fluoridation – just doing their job.

-- An army of uniformed U.S. Centers for Disease Control dentists, based in Atlanta, Georgia, who took up the front row, at taxpayer expense, in a Suffolk County, New York, legislative fluoridation meeting. The Suffolk County legislature still voted down fluoridation.

-- National Institutes of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) dentists. The NIDCR displays a magnified image of a fluoride crystal on their website’s logo as a reminder that this institute was born on the back of fluoridation. Millions of dollars are meted out to dental researchers to study fluoride’s tooth effects – but not fluoride’s bodily effects.

-- Public-health-dentists and dental professors in Universities and dental schools who sometimes require entire classes of dental students take up space and alloted time before governing bodies in local fluoridation battles to essentially silence residents opposed to fluoridation.

-- The U.S. Surgeon General who reports a dental health epidemic in the U.S. despite almost five decades of water fluoridation reaching about 2/3 of Americans and vitually 100% through the food and beverage supply.

At their disposal is a web of dentists across the U.S. too willing to follow Organized Dentistry’s instructions to lobby their legislator-patients and instigate fluoridation whenever they can, making it appear to be a local initiative. They are offered strategy materials, videos, power point presentations and a half day continuing education program entitled “Get the Drop on Community Water Fluoridation!”

Don’t expect the research community to speak on your behalf. Some who did lost their jobs, grant money and reputations such as Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, once a rising star in the research community until she discovered fluoride could pass into the brain causing mental deficits.

Instead of ordering up more studies to prove or disprove her findings, organized dentistry destroyed the messenger and ignored her findings(9) which have never been successfully refuted scientifically. However, research from China bolsters her findings.

Dr. William Marcus exposed the government’s downgrading of bone cancer in lab animals exposed to fluoride in a study by the National Toxicology Program (9a). Marcus was fired, then re-hired under the whistleblowers act with back pay; but the scientific research showing fluoride induces bone cancer in rats has never been corrected.(10)

Canadian researchers aren’t encouraged to speak out either when they disagree (11).

Timid, fearful or greedy dental researchers usually conclude "more study needed" when they unexpectedly find negative fluoride data.

The fluoridators still strategically avoid debates because they know their information doesn’t stand up to objective scrutiny.

Organized dentistry’s tactic now is to work behind the scenes forming “dental health committees” presenting one-sided, sometimes wrong, information, to local children’s, health and church groups, and the media, convincing them that fluoridation is safe, effective and cheap while insulting and denigrating those opposed or as Easley call us, “fluorophobes.” They effectively indoctrinate trusting people to love them and hate us. They are masters of manipulation.

Susan Allen, Florida's Fluoridation Coordinator wrote in a 1990 memo to St. Petersburg's Director of Inner City Governmental Relations, "There are several tactical strategies that seem to promote (fluoridation) success; the 1st being - Keep a low profile: the least amount of publicity the better.

2. Approach community officials individually. Better yet, convince someone they know and respect to convince them ...'

4. Avoid a referendum. The statistics are that 3 out of 4 fluoridation referenda fail."

It’s incredible that fluoridation opponents win any fluoridation battles against this huge fluoridating machine. But we do (8) because the evidence speaks for itself. We just present it.

Despite fluoridation since 1954, 2/3 of elementary schoolchildren and about 1/3 of San Francisco preschoolers, had cavities, according to a 1996/97 survey that also reveals cavity prevalence in fluoridated San Francisco is similar to the rest of California, mostly non-fluoridated at the time of the survey. (6)

Yet San Francisco reportedly will spend $2,500,000 on a new or updated fluoridation facility
(7). At the same time San Francisco sells non-fluoridated bottled water and brags that their Mayor and Water Department employees drink the bottled water - fluoride-free.

http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MSC_ID/72/MTO_ID/106/MC_ID/5/C_ID/1400/holdSession/1

And that’s politics!

References:

(1) “The Fluoride Victory,” by Joanne Boyd, January 1997 cover story in the Journal of the California Dental Association, Vol 25, No. 1

(2) http://www.enn.com/direct/display-release.asp?objid=D1D1366D000000F8F97F0DE9FB13C05C

(3) http://www.sdm.buffalo.edu/news/19990215_fluoride.html

(4) "The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity among California Preschool Children, by Shiboski, Gansky, Ramos-Gomez, Ngo, Isman, Pollick, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Winter 2003, pages 38-46 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12597584

(5)http://www.nofluoride.com/needs_assessment.htm

(6) http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/Reports/98ChildHealth/oralhe~1.pdf

(7) http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/5/MSC_ID/19/MTO_ID/57/C_ID/1652/

(8) http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm

(9) Excerpt from “The Fluoride Deception,” by Christopher Bryson about Phyllis Mullenix (scroll down)

http://www.sevenstories.com/closeup/index.cfm?page=excerpt/Fluoride_Excerpt.html

(9a) http://www.fluoridealert.org/marcus.htm

(10) http://www.fluoridealert.org/marcus3.htm

(11) http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1089843028895&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&tacodalogin=no

(12)

www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/cdcb/Medicine/ OralHealth/Fluoride/documents/calprojt.doc

(13) http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=123796

(13a) http://www.joplinindependent.com/display_article.php/mariwinn1093734138

(14) http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/0718-Blackholes-135710.html

(15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15022522

(16) http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/0705-Dentalcare-125845.html

(17)"Water Fluoridation and the Environment: Current Perspective in the United States," Howard F. Pollick, BDS, MPH, Internationa Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, Jun/Sep, 2004.
http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/1003_Pollick.pdf

(18) http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/11749/108203

Fluoridation profoundly fails short of promises

2005-12-15T09:02:00.000-05:00

Severe tooth decay is responsible for 2/3 of hospital visits by children under six in New York State (1), where almost 70% of the population drinks fluoridated water which is supposed to stop that sort of thing. Evidence shows we are on the wrong track in defeating early childhood cavities.

New York City spends anywhere between $6 and $14 million annually on water fluoridation. Yet more New York City children required cavity-related hospitalizations, proportionately, than two of New York State’s largest non-fluoridated counties, Suffolk and Nassau, whether payment was made by Medicaid or privately.

In New York City, where fluoride is added to water supplies to prevent tooth decay, one hospital charged from $929 to $12,199 to treat 96 children with severely decayed teeth, excluding the dentist and anesthesiologist fees. Children needed extensive work including stainless steel crowns, extractions, root canal therapy, fillings, other restorations, periodontal procedures, surgeries and/or more.

New York State hospital charges for the 2,726 early childhood cavities-related surgical visits required by children under six, in 1999, lie anywhere between $2.5 and $33 million, report NYS Department of Health Dentists, Kumar and Green, and others, in the Winter 2003 Journal of Public Health Dentistry, who also report they may be underestimating the numbers of children so treated.

National Medicaid costs for hospital treatment of early childhood cavities are between $100 to $200 million annually.

Even after hospital treatment, these children return with new lesions, say Kumar and colleagues.

Besides fluoridation, the New York State government provides dental screenings, dental sealants, early childhood cavity prevention, fluoride mouthrinse and fluoride supplement programs. (5)

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control predicts that “Every dollar spent on community water fluoridation saves from $7 to $42 in treatment costs.” (2) The American Dental Association says fluoridation will prevent early childhood cavities. But that doesn’t seem to be happening in New York City.

Dentists continue to tout fluoride, brushing, visits to see them and less sugary drinks as the antidote to tooth decay, but neglect nutrients essential to create teeth that won’t fall apart in childhood.

Early childhood cavities, once called baby-bottle tooth decay, is still blamed on inappropriate feeding practices (non-nutritive sucking, prolong bottle/breast feeding, nap-time feeding). But the majority of children put to sleep with bottle or breast do not develop cavities. The association of early childhood cavities with low-socioeconomic status is stronger and more consistent. And low-socioeconmic groups are more apt to be ill-fed and/or malnourished.

Teeth begin formation in utero. “Prenatal deficiencies of calcium and vitamin D can lead to enamel defects, and enamel defects in turn predispose teeth to caries,” report Smith and Moffatt in their article, “Baby-bottle tooth decay: are we on the right track?” (3)

“Baby-bottle tooth decay (BBTD) is especially prevalent in Aboriginal people, for whom studies have consistently reported diets deficient in vitamin D and calcium. BBTD may be a consequence of the poor socioeconomic conditions and malnutrition. Perhaps more attention should be given to primary prevention,” report Smith and Moffatt.

While few dispute sugary drinks are bad for teeth, federal surveys identify low calcium intake as a public health concern; 53% of 2-5 year-olds consume inadequate calcium.

Calcium is essential for strong teeth. Ingested fluoride is not essential to prevent cavities and has no nutritional need, write Warren and Levy in Dental Clinics of North America, April 2003.

Recently, a staunch fluoridation promoter, dentist Howard Pollick, had to admit: “It may...be that fluoridation of drinking water does not have a strong protective effect against early childhood caries (ECC),” in the Winter 2003 Journal of Public Health Dentistry.

Another fluoridation supporter, Columbia University's Burton L. Edelstein DDS, wrote: “...children with extreme (dental) disease often overwhelm the expected benefits (of fluoridation) and continue to develop new cavities despite fluoridated water availability." Edelstein reports that (88.8% fluoridated) Connecticut's poor, pre-school children's cavities increased despite water fluoridation.

Basil, the only Swiss city fluoridating water supplies, recently stopped because no evidence indicated fluoridation reduced decay. In fact, Basil children’s cavities increased despite decades of water fluoridation. And several studies show cavities decreased when fluoridation terminated.(4)

Acids and bacteria pull calcium and other essential minerals from teeth, constantly, but are replaced almost as fast by the same components in saliva. When outgo exceeds input, it’s a cavity.

Dentists might be the heroes they think they are today if they lobbied for calcium in water supplies, rather than fluoride.

“...fluorides are most effective in preventing decay on the smooth surfaces of teeth.” according to the 1984 Director of the National Institute of Health, Dr. Harold Loe. But early childhood cavities usually occur on the smooth surfaces and the incidence is growing. And fluoridation isn’t stopping it.

If governments want to spend money preventing children’s tooth decay, tax-dollars would be better spent feeding children required nutrients, not fluoride. Their teeth as well as their bodies would be stronger with less of a strain on the health care system.

Most poor children, turned away by most dentists who refuse Medicaid patients, must wait until their decay spreads and abscesses before they can get treatment at a hospital’s emergency room. Preventing one cavity over a lifetime through water fluoridation may save $42, but not filling another cavity may cost $12,199 to the taxpayers.

Dentists who graduate owing upwards to $100,000, and sometimes more, in student loans, didn’t get into the business to do charity work. They should be paid the same amount they get from private insurers. Government would save money in the long run; and children wouldn’t have to live in pain. And every American wouldn’t have to drink water that has unnecessary, harmful fluoride chemicals added.

References:

(1) “Early Childhood Caries-related Visits to Hospitals for Ambulatory Surgery in New York State,” Wadhawan, Kumar, Badner, Green, Journal of Public Health Dentistry Vol 63 No.1, Winter 2003

(2) http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/pe_factsheets/pe_oh.htm (Accessed June 1, 2003)

(3) “Baby-bottle tooth decay: are we on the right track?” by Smith PJ, Moffatt ME, International Journal of circumpolar Health 1998; 57 Suppl 1:155-62.

(4) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg6.php3

(5) http://www2.cdc.gov/nohss/bystate.asp?stateid=36

CDC Fluoridation Recommendations Part 1

2005-12-11T20:16:00.000-05:00

On August 17, 2001, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control released new fluoride recommendations. See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

This is a fictional conversation between the dentists who wrote the new report (CDC) and an average American (ME). All quotes are from the CDC report exactly as written.

CDC: “In the earliest days of fluoride research, investigators hypothesized that fluoride affects enamel and inhibits dental caries (cavities) only when incorporated into developing dental enamel...”

ME: Hey, we all make mistakes doc.

CDC: “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…”

ME: Oh, I see. But what does swallowed fluoride do?

CDC: “Fluoride ingested during tooth development can also result in a range of visually detectable changes in enamel opacity... because of hypomineralization.”

ME: What happens?

CDC: “...chalklike, lacy markings across a tooth's enamel surface... In the moderate form, >50% of the enamel surface is opaque white. The rare, severe form manifests as pitted and brittle enamel. After eruption, teeth with moderate or severe fluorosis might develop areas of brown stain. In the severe form, the compromised enamel might break away, resulting in excessive wear of the teeth.

ME: So how does fluoride reduce tooth decay?

CDC: “Fluoride concentrated in plaque and saliva inhibits the demineralization of sound enamel and enhances the remineralization”

ME: But doc, you make me brush off the plaque twice a day. Then your torturer hygienist digs out what I missed twice a year.

CDC: “...fluoride is released from dental plaque in response to lowered pH at the tooth-plaque interface.”

ME: Hello, are you listening? In fact, you or your hygienist brush my off my plaque during my semi-annual cleanings with that gritty fluoride paste.

CDC: “Fluoride-containing paste is routinely used during dental prophylaxis (i.e., cleaning). The abrasive paste, which contains 4,000--20,000 ppm fluoride, might restore the concentration of fluoride in the surface layer of enamel removed by polishing...”

ME: Oh.

CDC: “Fluoride paste is not accepted by FDA or ADA as an efficacious way to prevent dental caries.”

ME: Now you are scaring me, doc. Well, what about the fluoridated toothpaste I use every day?

CDC: “Few studies evaluating the effectiveness of fluoride toothpaste, gel, rinse, and varnish among adult populations are available.”

ME: Man, oh, man!

CDC: “Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride”

ME: Oh, I see

CDC: “The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low --- approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas.

ME: So the fluoride in saliva is killing Mr. germs!

CDC: “This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity”

ME: Hey Abbot. Who’s on first.

CDC: “In laboratory studies, when a low concentration of fluoride is constantly present, one type of cariogenic bacteria, Streptococcus mutans, produces less acid”

ME: Oh, so fluoride kills the Streptococcus mutans that causes tooth decay?

CDC: “Whether this reduced acid production reduces the cariogenicity of these bacteria in humans is unclear”

ME: Is this report supposed to be a comedy?

ME: OK, so fluoride doesn’t incorporate into developing teeth to prevent tooth decay; but does concentrate in the plaque on the outside of my teeth but I brush it off. Fluoride’s in my saliva but at doses not high enough to reduce tooth decay. So fluoride must get into my teeth somehow to prevent cavities.

CDC: “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.”

ME: Oy! So what’s good about fluoridation?

CDC: "Today, all U.S. residents are exposed to fluoride to some degree, and widespread use of fluoride has been a major factor in the decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries in the United States and other economically developed countries.”

ME: What’s your reference for that?

CDC: “Reference 1) Bratthall D, Hänsel Petersson G, Sundberg H. Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe? Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104:416--22.”

ME: BELIEVE? But doc remember what happened when you believed ingested fluoride incorporated into developing enamel to reduce tooth decay.? Can’t you do any better. What happened to those early studies with natural fluoride that gave birth to fluoridation?

CDC: “... the limitations of these studies make summarizing the quality of evidence on community water fluoridation as Grade I inappropriate.”

ME: So they just don’t make the grade, huh. That’s a shame. Well, you’ve been adding un-natural fluoride to water supplies for over 50 years. You said you had mounds of studies proving its safety and efficacy. What about those?

CDC: “The quality of evidence from studies on the effectiveness of adjusting fluoride concentration in community water to optimal levels is Grade II-1.”

ME: They don’t make top grade either. Bummer! This is upsetting you. Let’s change the subject. So you want bottled water labels to show fluoride content?

CDC: “Producers of bottled water should label the fluoride concentration of their products.”

ME: This sounds reasonable.

CDC: “In the United States, water and processed beverages (e.g., soft drinks and fruit juices) can provide approximately 75% of a person's fluoride intake.”

ME: Are you asking for the fluoride content labeled on soda and fruit juices?

CDC: (silent on this issue)

ME: What’s so bad about fluoride that it has to be listed on the labels.

CDC: “Fluoride ingested during tooth development can also result in a range of visually detectable changes in enamel opacity… These changes have been broadly termed enamel fluorosis, certain extremes of which are cosmetically objectionable… Severe forms of this condition can occur only when young children ingest excess fluoride, from any source, during critical periods of tooth development.…Concerns regarding the risk for enamel fluorosis are limited to children aged <8>

ME: So how much is too much?

CDC: “Intake that maximally reduces occurrence of dental caries without causing unwanted side effects, including moderate enamel fluorosis.”

ME: I would prefer you tell me the amount that would guarantee against any fluorosis, even mild, but give me what you have.

CDC: From Table 2 - Adequate intake of fluoride for:

· a baby 0-6 months old or 16 pounds is 0.01 milligrams day (mg/day)
· a child 6-12 months or 20 pounds is 0.5 mg/day
· a child 1-3 years or 29 pounds is 0.7
· a child 4-8 years or 48 pounds is 1.1 mg/day

ME: So babies are safe if they drink these amounts even though most of them don’t have teeth to get any topical benefits

CDC: “In a survey of four U.S. cities with different fluoride concentrations in the drinking water (range: 0.37--1.04 ppm), ... infants aged 6 months ingested 0.21--0.54 mg fluoride per day”

ME: Oh my goodness. That’s too high. They may get fluorosis. What should we do?

...Continued in Part II

Fluoride Causes Cavities

2005-12-11T20:13:00.000-05:00

Like most drugs, fluoride causes what it purports to cure. And fluoride can't protect teeth from a bad diet.

Dentists tell us that drinking “optimal” levels of fluoridated water - 1 part per million or 1 milligram fluoride per liter (quart) - each day, reduces tooth decay without serious side effects. But this dental dogma has never been proven scientifically. However, research shows, above optimal fluoride levels causes tooth decay; and most Americans get more fluoride then they need.

The severe outward sign of fluoride overdose is dental fluorosis - yellow, brown or black stained teeth. Cavities increase in people with severe fluorosis according to a dentistry textbook entitled, “Dentistry, Dental Practice and the Community,” by Burt and Eklund.

This phenomenon has been demonstrated in the United States from National Institute of Dentistry and Craniofacial Research studies in seven communities in northern Illinois. The results of the dental decay examinations, related to fluoride concentrations in drinking water, form a J-shaped curve. With increasing fluoride levels, cavity experience diminishes to a certain point and then starts to rise again, the authors report.

These data suggest that the true relationship between water fluoride levels and dental decay is the J-shaped curve, with the turning point in the J being something between 3 and 4 times the optimal level, they write.

The problem is that children already receive above optimum doses of fluoride even without drinking fluoridated water, studies show. By 1974 samples of duplicate meals indicated more than ten times as much fluoride as had been found thirty years earlier – and this study didn't factor in fluoride content of snack foods.

Maybe excess fluoride is why tooth decay is still a major U.S. dilemma. Even though U.S. children are fluoride saturated from water, air, foods, beverages and dental products, the surgeon general reports that tooth decay is still a major problem and an epidemic in our poor and minority populations.

Yet, children from the African country of Uganda have less tooth decay than American children even though most Ugandan children don’t use fluoride toothpaste or even a toothbrush to clean their teeth. In fact, Ugandan children who drink high fluoride water have more tooth decay than their equals in low fluoride districts, according to “Clinical Oral Investigations."

“No teeth were lost due to caries (cavities) in the low fluoride district but 6 of 135 (4%) in the high-fluoride district,” report authors Rwenyonyi, et al. Ugandan children, aged 10 to 14, with similar socioeconomic backgrounds and diets, who lived their entire lives in either low fluoride (0.5 mg fluoride per liter) or high fluoride water districts (2.5 mg fluoride per liter), were examined for tooth decay by the same dentist, with results verified. “Surprisingly, there was a significantly higher caries prevalence and DMFT (decayed, missing, filled teeth) score in the high-fluoride district than in the low-fluoride district,” the authors write.

“In one low fluoride area..., all children were caries-free compared to 75% to 86% in the other areas,” they report.

A different paper, presented at a June 2001 meeting of the International Association of Dental Research by Louw, et al, shows the same unexpected results with a different African population. Children drinking 3.0 mg/L water fluoride have more cavities than children drinking .19 and .48 mg/L fluoride. In contrast, only 65% of fluoride-saturated American 10-year-olds are cavity-free and a, mere, 35% of 14-year-olds are cavity-free.

Americans drink fluoridated water, use fluoridated toothpaste, eat foods and beverages made with fluoridated water, along with fluoride pesticide residues. Fluoride supplements, mouthrinses, treatments, varnishes, and other fluoridated dental products are used profusely in the U.S. And fluoride is a major industrial air pollutant.

The big difference between American and Ugandan children is diet. The basic Ugandan diet is composed of complex carbohydrates, e.g., cooking banana, cassava, potatoes, maize and sorghum eaten at regular meals. About 80% of the children reported no between-meal intake of sugar containing items.

According to “Fast Food Nation,” by Eric Schlosser, Americans drink soda at an annual rate of about fifty-six gallons per person - that’s nearly six hundred twelve-ounce cans of soda per person. And, since sales of soda is subsidizing education in many U.S. school districts, children are encouraged to drink more, rather than less, soda while in school. This leaves less room and desire for milk in schoolchildren's diets.

Schlosser reports that twenty years ago, American teenage boys drank twice as much milk as soda, now they drink twice as much soda as milk. And soft drink consumption is common among American toddlers.

Milk contains calcium and magnesium, essential nutrients required to form healthy teeth. Soda depletes the body’s calcium stores. Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential. Fluorosed teeth contain more fluoride and less calcium than normal teeth, according to A. K. Susheela, Ph.D., Director, Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation, in “A Treatise on Fluorosis.”

One would think dentists would be campaigning to have calcium placed in the drinking water but then they might lose the financial support they enjoy from fluoride manufacturers of toothpastes and other dental materials. When dentists endorse fluoride, people buy it.

Dentists report they are seeing more tooth decay among their soda drinking patients despite full fluoride “protection.” Ironically, many soft drinks and juices contain “optimal” fluoride levels because fluoridated tap water is used to make them.

And a study in the Journal of “Contemporary Dental Practice” shows that, among people who drink fluoridated water and use fluoride toothpaste, tooth decay still progresses after snacking on cola, apple juice or sweetened yogurt between meals. However, cavities remineralized (partially reversed) when snacks were whole milk, skim milk, 2% milk, cheddar cheese, plain yogurt and chocolate milk or no snacks at all.

An article in “RDH” (Registered Dental Hygienist) reports, “Dr. Carole Palmer, professor of nutrition and preventive dentistry at Tufts University, says, ‘We’re looking at why these things (nutrition in dentistry) have fallen by the wayside. There was a perception, perhaps, that fluoride had resolved the problem (of caries), but that’s far from the truth. A lack of research and funding in nutrition and oral connections has made it difficult to move forward. But nutritional counseling and diet counseling need to be important components of preventive dental care.’”

One such study presented at the International Association for Dental Research meeting this year shows, to no one's astonishment, that obesity and tooth decay are linked. There is also an epidemic of obesity in the U.S. according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Tooth decay is a disease of poor nutrition and high fluoride. Based on thirty years of study on .4 million children, Teotia and Teotia report "Our findings indicate that dental caries was caused by high fluoride and low dietary calcium intakes, separately and through their interactions."

Further substantiating the hypothesis that nutrition and not fluoride is the answer to less cavities: Ireland, 73% fluoridated since the 1960’s, has a higher tooth decay rate than five other European countries that don’t fluoridate the water, according to the June 30, 2001, Irish Independent. The Irish are also fluoride saturated; but tooth decay is still rampant in under-privileged areas of Ireland, they report.

In fact, an Irish legislator is calling for a ban on fluoridation in Ireland immediately.

Like most things American, fluoride is overblown, over-prescribed, and over-used. Along with the expansion of fast food restaurants and American waistlines, fluoride's expansion into the food supply via the water supply is out of control and may be creating instead of curing tooth decay. It's time to stop water fluoridation. Fluoride can't fix a poor diet.

Environmental Group Slams Food Fluoride Levels

2005-12-11T20:09:00.000-05:00

New food tolerances for the fluoride-based pesticide sulfuryl fluoride could be potentially damaging to public health, according to several environmental groups, reports Anthony Fletcher on foodqualitynews.com. http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?n=62899-dow-fluoride-epa

As I reported in December 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now allows very high levels of fluoride in common foods. See: “How Much Fluoride Did You Eat Today?”

There is no dispute that fluoride is toxic in large doses. The EPA sets maximum fluoride levels of 4 parts per million (or 4 milligrams per approximately 1 quart) in U.S. water supplies to protect against skeletal fluorosis – a crippling arthritic-like condition. Much less fluoride ingested daily puts children at risk of dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow or brown and sometimes pitted and crumbly teeth. But too much fluoride can and has killed.

For example, the probable toxic dose (PTD) of fluoride is less than two ounces of 1,000 ppm fluoridated toothpaste, commonly sold in the U.S., for a one-year-old child and about three ounces for the average 5-year-old, according to Whitford in the Journal of Dental Research (May 1987).

“An 8.2 ounce container of a 1500 ppm fluoride dentifrice would contain nearly 360 mg of fluoride, or seven times the PTD for a one year old and more than 3.5 times the PTD for a five year old,” writes Whitford.

“For these reasons, we recommend that parents be advised to supervise the use of dentifrices by young children, that they caution their children not to swallow or eat the dentifrice, and that, in households with young children, dentifrices be stored such that they cannot be used in the absence of a parent. Manufacturers should give consideration to including on the label the statement that the use of the product by young children should be supervised by a a parent and to developing a 'child proof' container cap,” writes Whitford in this 1987 article.

The FDA now requires a warning label on fluoridated products. But the American Dental Association actually plays down fluoride’s toxic effects whenever they can protecting fluoride’s image, for some reason, but not you or your children.

The ADA claims the warning is just to avoid the dental disfigurement fluoride can cause:

From the ADA website:

“The American Dental Association's (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs believes that one part of the warning now required on fluoride toothpastes by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could unnecessarily frighten parents and children, and that the label greatly overstates any demonstrated or potential danger posed by fluoride toothpastes.”

Fletcher reports, “[t]he new Environmental Protection Agency tolerances were requested by Dow AgroSciences following the firm's expansion of its pesticide sulfuryl fluoride - trade name ProFume – which is used to fumigate food processing facilities and storage areas.”

“The product targets stored product pests, as well as those insects that may be transported from the field on food commodities. But some environmental groups argue that the new levels are potentially dangerous,” reports Fletcher.

The Environmental Working Group, Beyond Pesticides and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) challenged the maximum legal limits for the fluoride-based pesticide in foods, which have been set at levels that dwarf the amount allowed in tap water. In just one case, the EPA is allowing 900 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride in dried eggs, as opposed to the maximum 4 ppm allowed in tap water.

One third of the nation's eggs are sold and consumed in dried, reconstituted form.
The groups noted that 900 ppm set for dried eggs is extremely close to the amount used in toothpaste (1,000 ppm), a level that is considered toxic if consumed in greater than pea sized portions.

"How can the EPA consider 900 ppm in eggs safe, while the Food and Drug Administration directs parents to call poison control centers if their children consume more than a pea sized portion of toothpaste with fluoride at 1,000 ppm?" asked Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director of FAN. "Unlike toothpaste, eggs are meant to be eaten, not spit out."

The EPA has set fluoride tolerances for over 200 foodstuffs ranging from 5 ppm in cheese all the way up to 900 ppm in powdered eggs. The groups warn that at the maximum level of fluoride a serving of scrambled eggs made with as few as two egg equivalents could make a child vomit and a four egg omelet could have the same effect on an adult.

“Dow has never conducted crucial safety tests on fluoride residues yet scientific studies point to serious health risks from ingesting even small amounts. A wealth of independent, peer reviewed studies have found adverse effects on children's developing brains, the male reproductive system, kidneys, and bones,” according to the Groups Joint News Release.

"It isn't just powdered eggs that may have dangerous fluoride levels. All processed foods will be allowed 70 ppm fluoride residues… from breakfast cereal to hamburger helper,” says Chris Neurath, FAN researcher.”

Wheat flour is allowed up to 125 ppm. For comparison, the maximum level of fluoride allowed in drinking water is 4 ppm and the natural level of fluoride in mothers' milk is approximately 0.008 ppm.

The EPA argues that most fumigated foods won't contain the highest allowed levels so there is no need to worry. Yet the USDA's surveillance program for pesticide residues on foods routinely finds samples bought at stores that exceed the EPA tolerances. The potential for a significant number of acute poisoning cases every year is very real.

"We are very concerned that total fluoride exposure is not safe for children," said Richard Wiles, Senior Vice-President of Environmental Working Group (EWG). "EPA is relying on outdated science to support this increase in fluoride exposure, and in our view has not discharged its legal duty to thoroughly consider the effects of fluoride on infants and children, from all routes of exposure, based on a thorough review of the most recent peer-reviewed science."

"This is yet another example of the EPA pesticide division protecting the bottom line of Dow AgroSciences rather than the health of the American public," says Jay Feldman of Beyond Pesticides.

"It is ironic that, while 11 EPA Unions, representing over 7000 professionals, are calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation because of its likely role in causing osteosarcoma in young males, the EPA's pesticide division has approved the highest fluoride tolerances in US history.

With the Centers for Disease Control admitting that 1 in 3 American children have dental fluorosis [the telltale sign of overexposure to fluoride during early childhood] now is not the time to be adding more fluoride to the nation's food supply,” says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Direction of the Fluoride Action Network.

UNICEF Doubts Fluoridation

2005-12-03T18:48:00.000-05:00

“More and more scientists are now seriously questioning the benefits of fluoride, even in small amounts,” says UNICEF, the international organization that protects children.

Fluoride is added to water supplies to reduce tooth decay. However, "... Fluoride inhibits enzymes that breed acid-producing oral bacteria whose acid eats away tooth enamel. This observation is valid, but some scientists now believe that the harmful impact of fluoride on other useful enzymes far outweighs the beneficial effect on caries prevention," according to the UNICEF Water Environment and Sanitation report, “Fluoride in water: An overview.” (1)

Dentists convince the public, trusting legislators and usually skeptical media that approximately one part per million fluoride added to water supplies confers “optimal” protection against tooth decay, without a shred of scientific support.

UNICEF reports that “ a single ‘optimal’ level for daily intake cannot be agreed because the nutritional status of individuals, which varies greatly, influences the rate at which fluoride is absorbed by the body. A diet poor in calcium for example, increases the body’s retention of fluoride.”

Further, they write “Fluoride ions bind with calcium ions, strengthening tooth enamel as it forms in children. Many researchers now consider this more of an assumption than fact, because of conflicting evidence from studies in India and several other countries over the past 10 to 15 years. Nevertheless, agreement is universal that excessive fluoride intake leads to loss of calcium from the tooth matrix, aggravating cavity formation throughout life rather than remedying it, and so causing dental fluorosis. Severe, chronic and cumulative overexposure can cause the incurable crippling of skeletal fluorosis.”

“Fluorosis presents a particular threat to children. According to a Swedish study, children and adolescents excrete fluoride less efficiently that adults do, and retain more fluoride in their bones,” according to UNICEF.

“It should be noted that fluoride is also found in some foodstuffs and in the air (mostly from production of phosphate fertilizers or burning of fluoride-containing fuels), so the amount of fluoride people actually ingest may be higher than assumed,” they write.

More Information From This Report:

Symptoms of fluorosis

Dental fluorosis, which is characterized by discoloured, blackened, mottled or chalky-white teeth, is a clear indication of overexposure to fluoride during childhood when the teeth were developing. These effects are not apparent if the teeth were already fully grown prior to the fluoride overexposure; therefore, the fact that an adult may show no signs of dental fluorosis does not necessarily mean that his or her fluoride intake is within the safety limit.

Chronic intake of excessive fluoride can lead to the severe and permanent bone and joint deformations of skeletal fluorosis. Early symptoms include sporadic pain and stiffness of joints: headache, stomach-ache and muscle weakness can also be warning signs. The next stage is osteosclerosis (hardening and calcifying of the bones), and finally the spine, major joints, muscles and nervous system are damaged.

Whether dental or skeletal, fluorosis is irreversible and no treatment exists. The only remedy is prevention, by keeping fluoride intake within safe limits.

Some governments are not yet fully aware of the fluoride problem or convinced of its adverse impact on their populations.

Better nutrition

Clinical data indicate that adequate calcium intake is clearly associated with a reduced risk of dental fluorosis. Vitamin C may also safeguard against the risk. In consequence, measures to improve the nutritional status of an affected population - particularly children - appear to be an effective supplement to the technical solutions discussed above.

(1) Fluoride In Water: An Overview
http://www.unicef.org/programme/wes/info/fluor.htm

Fluoridation Fallacy

2005-12-03T18:46:00.000-05:00

Fluoridation probably does more damage than good says a Canadian government report. The best solution is to cease fluoridation, the author suggests (1). Despite fraudulent news releases, a British team of investigators found that fluoridation is based on poor science, has overstated benefits, and puts children at high risk of developing dental fluorosis (2).

Dentists claim hundreds of studies prove fluoride reduces decay. However, a US National Institutes of Health (NIH) panel convened this year to actually evaluate those and other dental studies and found them lacking. (3) An NIH news release reported: “...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,” (including 562 studies evaluating fluoride use). So while the use of fluoride is often cited as the reason for decay reduction, there is little, if any, science to support that.

Furthermore, cavity rates declined in several cities that stopped water fluoridation (4), contradicting American Dental Association (ADA) predictions (5).

Fluoride overdose is widespread in both fluoridated and non- fluoridated communities(6) at the same time the United States Surgeon General dubbed oral disease a silent epidemic in his recent Oral Health Report (7). And Americans, men and women equally, are spending about $1.5 billion a year on dental bleaching products, and that may be the tip of the iceberg (8). How much is that due to dental fluorosis?

Additionally, fluoridated water should not be used to prepare infant cereals and infant formulas (10) forcing parents, who can afford it, to buy bottled water to avoid their fluoridated tap water - leaving the poor at a disadvantage, yet again.

Ironically, dentists often warn parents against using bottled water because of its lack of fluoride. Yet one of the best selling bottled water in health food stores is Trinity Springs with a natural fluoride content of 3.6 mg per Liter - enough to almost guarantee a child fluorosed teeth if he or she consumed it regularly. In some states the maximum contaminant level of fluoride which governments allow in public water supplies is only 2 mg per liter.

In the world’s most fluoridated country, where fluoride toothpastes are 95% of the market and where dental fluorosis rates are growing, the US youngest and poorest children have almost 5 times as much tooth decay as children of higher income families according to the National Institute of Dental Research and, in poor children with decay, almost 80% of it remains untreated(11). Ironically, African Americans have the highest dental fluorosis rates (14) and are among the minority groups experiencing the most decay.

In fact, after over 50 years of water fluoridation, children in Newburgh, New York, have more cavities and more dental fluorosis than children in never-fluoridated Kingston, NY(12).

Newburgh and Kingston are the experimental cities that helped launch fluoride into the water systems that 62% of Americans now drink. Research shows a much greater difference in cavity rates between poor and nonpoor children than when fluoridation status is compared (13). And the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated decay rates was a mere 6/10’s of one tooth surface (there are 128). Yet dentists routinely promise up to a 70% reduction in tooth decay for children who drink fluoridated water.

The poorest oral health in the US is found among non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians and Alaska Natives(7). However, many of these populations already live in fluoridated communities according to the US census and US fluoridation census. And not so coincidentally, these are the same groups that eat the least vegetables, consume the most sugar and have the poorest overall health, according to government statistics.

“Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are routine matters for the children I have interviewed in the South Bronx (one of the US poorest areas),” writes Jonathan Kozol in 'Savage Inequalities.' Children get used to feeling constant pain...I have seen children in New York (City) with teeth that look like brownish, broken sticks. I have also seen teen-agers who were missing half their teeth. But to me, most shocking is to see a child with an abscess that has been inflamed for weeks and that he has simply lived with and accepts as part of the routine of life.”

New York City has been fluoridated since 1965. Kozol’s book was published in 1991.

Today, researchers recommend children cut back on fluoride(15). However, that message rarely reaches parents. And it’s not unusual for dentists to instigate legislation to force more fluoride on children even when the literature suggests less. Children from Connersville, Indiana, were studied and found to already ingest more than sufficient fluoride through their food, beverages and dental products(15). Nonetheless, dentists still successfully lobbied trusting town legislators to fluoridate Connersville water supply increasing children’s dental fluorosis risk unnecessarily. (“Indiana Vote Focuses on Fluoridation, “Associated Press 10-31-1999 & “Indiana Town OKs Fluoridated Water,” AP, 2-28-00).

This happens often all over the US while 80 percent of the poorest youngsters do not receive dental care. One major reason is that dentists refuse to treat poor children because they aren’t paid enough to do so. Half of Medicaid-insured children never visit a dentist, and many who do are not given needed care(16)

The World Health Organization ranks the US 24th in healthy life expectancy because of the “miserable standards among the US poor” (NY Newsday, 6/5/2000). Over 11% of US poor children go hungry most days (17). The most cavity prone populations are also the least healthiest. Malnutrition has been associated with Early Childhood Caries (ECC)(18) or severely decayed primary dentition. ECC is currently at epidemic proportions in some US minority populations (19).

A well nourished child who gets proper dental treatment will most probably have sound teeth and the only side effect will be a sound body, too. Fluoride is not the cure for tooth decay it was expected to be. An August 1995 Journal of the American Dental Association article reported "Recent studies have identified that the incidence of dental caries among U.S. children seems to be concentrated in about 20 to 25 percent of the U.S. child population - despite access to fluoride and other preventive measures."(19a)

Dental researcher and Professor, Brian Burt, BDS, University of Michigan reported to the NIH panel in March 2001, “...avoiding consumption of excess sugar is a justifiable part of caries prevention, if not the most crucial aspect.”

It’s time to stop throwing more fluoride at children - especially since the silicofluorides most used for fluoridation have never been safety tested (sodium fluoride was used in experiments). Silicofluorides also deliver trace amounts of arsenic, mercury, lead and more along with the fluoride. Recent research by Masters, et al,(20) show that children who live in silicofluoridated communities have higher blood lead levels than children who live in non- or sodium fluoridated communities. Other studies show that high blood lead levels are associated with more tooth decay (21).

Ingested fluoride supplements aren’t the answer either since fluoride’s alleged beneficial properties are mostly topical (22) and because optimal fluoride intake was never proved scientifically (23).

Instead of spending millions of dollars funding researchers to determine just how much fluoride is too much and what kind should or should not be in the water, that money should go to feed the hungry and treat the dental disease of poor children.

Tooth decay appears to be, not a disease of the fluoride deficient, but a disease of the poor, undernourished and dentally undertreated.

END

References:

1) “Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation: An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report,” Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada, by Dr David Locker, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, November 1999 and releases January 2001,http://www.gov.on.ca/MOH/english/pub/ministry/fluoridation/fluoridation.html

2) British Medical Journal, October 7, 2000
a) “Systematic review of water fluoridation.” McDonagh MS, et al http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/855?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=McDonagh&searchid=1022727232537_2367&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10

3) National Institutes of Health, Consensus Development Conference Statement, Diagnosis and Management of Dental Caries Throughout Life, March 26-28, 2001,http://odp.od.nih.gov/consensus/cons/115/115_intro.htm

4) a) “Caries trends 1992-1998 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoridation,”
Caries Research, Nov-Dec 2000
b) “Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in LaSalud, Cuba,” Caries Research Jan-
Feb. 2000
c) “Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany,”
Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, October 2000
d) “The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis,”
Journal of Dental Research, Feb. 2000
e) “Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation,” Community Dentistry and
Oral Epidemiology, February 2001
f) “Caries experience of 15-year-old children in The Netherlands after discontinuation of water
fluoridation,” Caries Research, 1993

5) “Dental decay can be expected to increase if water fluoridation in a community is discontinued for one
year or more, even if topical products such as fluoride toothpaste and fluoride rinses are widely used.”
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts-benefit.html#5

6) Clark DC, Trends in prevalence of dental fluorosis in North America, Community Den Oral Epidemiol,
1994, 22, 148-52 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8070241&dopt=Abstract

7) Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General, Department of Health and Human Services,
May 2000

8) Kiplinger’s Magazine, April 2001, “Smile Therapy,” by Christina Lanzito

10) Pediatric Dentistry 2000, Jul-Aug, “Risk factors for dental fluorosis: a review of the recent literature,”
Mascarenhas;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10969430&dopt=Abstract

11) http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/sgr/children/kidsbyte.htm (Factoid #2)

12) Kumar, Green, Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children,” NYS Dental Journal, February 1998
See Chart (Figure 1) page 41
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9542393&dopt=Abstract

13) “Oral Health Status of Second Grade School Children in Upstate New York,” New York State Dental
Journal, February 2001, Kumar, Green Coluccio, Davenport

14) Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Summer 2000, “Low birth weight and dental fluorosis: is there an
association?,” Kumar & Swango;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11109214&dopt=Abstract

15) Rojas-Sanchez F, Kelly SA, Drake KM, Eckert GJ, Stookey GK, Dunipace AJ, Fluoride intake from
foods, beverages and dentifrice by young children in communities with negligibly and optimally
fluoridated water: a pilot study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999 Aug;27(4):288-97;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10403089&dopt=Abstract

16) "A longitudinal study of schoolchildren's experience in the North Carolina dental Medicaid program,
1984 through 1992," by Valerie A. Robison, D.D.S., Ph.D., M.P.H., R. Gary Rozier, D.D.S., M.P.H.,
and Jane A. Weintraub, D.D.S., M.P.H., in the November 1998 American Journal of Public Health
88(11), pp. 1669-1673

17) America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, Federal Interagency Forum on Child and
Family Statistics 1999

18) Ismail AI, The role of early dietary habits in dental caries development, Spec Care Dentist 1998, Jan-
Feb

19) Tinanoff N. Introduction to the Early Childhood Caries Conference: initial description and current
understanding, Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1998;26(1 suppl)

19a)"Using Anticipatory Guidance to Provide Early Dental Intervention," Nowak, et al, JADA August 1995 pg 1156

20) Masters, Coplan, Hone, International Journal of Environmental Studies, August 1999, and
“Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead,” NeuroToxicology, December
2000, Masters, Coplan, Hone, Dykes

21) a)Sci Total Environ 2000 June “Heavy metals in human primary teeth: some factors influencing the
metal concentrations,” Tvinnereim, Eide, Riise
b)JAMA 1999 June, “Association of dental caries and blood lead levels,” Moss et al

22) Burt, The case for eliminating the use of dietary fluoride supplements for young children, J Public
Health Dent 1999 Fall

23) Levy SM, Kohout FJ, Kiritsy MC, Heilman JR, Wefel JS Infants' fluoride ingestion from water,
supplements and dentifrice, J Am Dent Assoc 1995 Dec

Infant Foods and Fluoride

2005-12-03T18:45:00.000-05:00

Fluoridated water used in infant food preparation greatly increases a child's risk of developing dental fluorosis without any chance of reducing tooth decay.

Fluoride, when absorbed or swallowed into the body, seeps into unerupted teeth from the bloodstream replacing natural tooth minerals leaving a white, more porous, spot on the outer enamel that may eventually turn yellow, brown or black. It’s not removable. Only cosmetic dentistry, not usually covered by insurance, can conceal it. If baby teeth get fluorosed, chances are the permanent teeth will also.

Ingesting fluoride doesn't reduce tooth decay. Only topical application does. So swallowing fluoride, for babies without teeth, delivers risks with no benefit.

Fluoride was added to water supplies based on the theory that fluoride's decay preventing properties occurred upon ingestion but new research disproved that theory. Fluoride's alleged benefits are topical. In other words, fluoridated water doses the teeth on the way to the stomach. Also, minute amounts emerge in saliva to bathe the teeth again. However, the fluoride found in saliva is too minute to have any therapeutic effect. So there is absolutely no reason to dose a toothless infant with fluoride. And it doesn’t do much good thereafter.

While there is a scientific controversy on the benefits and risks of fluoridation, both sides agree that too much fluoride is a bad thing. The Journal of the American Dental Association, reports that infants should not be fed powder or liquid infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water. Nearly 10 percent of enamel fluorosis cases in fluoridated areas could be explained by having used infant formula in the form of powder concentrate in the first year.

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential to health so parents should not be afraid to shield their children from fluoride's toxic properties. Proper diet, especially limiting soda and other sugary foods, along with proper dental hygiene is the best tooth decay preventive.

In fact, sugar consumption is more indicative of cavity experience in children who use fluoridated toothpaste and fluoride tablets according to a new study. In other words, if you intend to give your children lots of sugar, fluoride won’t help anyway.

To avoid fluorosis the National Academy of Science advises the following daily fluoride intake from all sources (food, air, water, medicines, and supplements):

· infants up to 6 months old - less than 0.01 mg

· babies from 6 - 12 months less than 0.5 mg

· children from 1 to 3 years old - 0.7 mg

· children from 4 to 8 years old - less than 1 mg

· children from 9 - 15 years old - less than 2 mg

Ready-to-eat chicken baby foods and formed nugget-like chicken products are high in fluoride because the mechanically deboning process gets fluoride-rich bone dust into the product. Some grape juices have fluoride levels higher than the maximum contaminant level the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows in public water supplies because fluoride-containing pesticide residues remain on the fruit. Most foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas also contain fluoride.

If you think it is impossible to calculate your child's daily fluoride intake, you are right.
Since it is virtually impossible to avoid fluoride, it might be prudent to avoid known sources.

You can find out the fluoride content of some foods at this site http://www.bruha.com/fluoride/html/f-_in_food.html

or from a National Academy of Science Report on page 294 here: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063507/html/294.html#pagetop

Parents who avoid fluoridated tap water should be aware that many bottled waters have a fluoride content that’s not listed on their labels. A call to bottlers will generate a full disclosure of the water's ingredients. Some boast levels that are too high for children to consume. Call the water companies where your child lives, goes to daycare or at Grandma's house to find out if that water is fluoridated and at what level.

END

We told you first: From the Academy of General Dentistry 4/16/01 News Releases http://www.agd.org/consumer/topics/childrensnutrition/juices.fluorosis.html

Monitor Infant's Fluoride Intake

If you add fluoridated water to your infant's baby formula, you may be putting your child at risk of developing dental fluorosis, according to the Academy of General Dentistry.
http://www.agd.org/consumer/topics/baby/fluoride.html

History of Water Fluoridation

2005-12-03T18:44:00.000-05:00

Non earth-friendly fluoride chemicals are added to over 65% of U.S. water supplies and, therefore, virtually all of its food supply, as a drug to treat people for tooth decay. Studies show, fluoridation is ineffective, health-robbing, and wastes tax dollars.

This is how fluoridation started:

Early settlers of Colorado Springs, Colorado, had the strangest looking teeth. Some were yellow, light brown or an ugly dark brown others ragged with holes in the enamel. The mildest discoloration were chalky and paper white. Called “Colorado Brown Stain” or mottled enamel in the early 1900’s until the villainous offender, drinking water laced with calcium fluoride, renamed the condition dental fluorosis.

Those ugly teeth usually had less cavities. So researchers assumed that, since fluoride discolored teeth, and those discolored teeth resisted decay, then fluoride reduces decay, also. Unsophisticated researchers overlooked, or didn’t know that the waters were also calcium and magnesium rich, which we now know is essential for strong bones and teeth.

So the human experiments began. Sodium fluoride was added to a water supply for the first time to decrease dental decay on January 25, 1945, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Nearby Muskegon acted as the non-fluoridated control. This study was planned to last 15 years. But, after six years, Muskegon demanded the same fluoride *benefits* as Grand Rapids.

Meanwhile, Dr. David Ast, New York State’ Dental Director started a ten-year fluoridation experiment of his own. On May 2, 1945, he fluoridated upstate Newburgh’s water supply to 1 part per million leaving Kingston non-fluoridated so he could compare results.

Ast wanted no part of universal fluoridation, yet. Grand Rapids and Newburgh were to be large-scale experimental laboratories. Ast preferred other cities wait for their experimental results.

Despite their caution, by 1947, officials in several other cities started water fluoridation on a study basis - among them Brantford, Ontario; Sheboygan, Wisconsin; Marshal, Texas; Evanston, Illionois: Midland, Michigan; and Lewiston, Idaho.

Impatient Wisconsin dentists wanted to get on the fluoridation bandwagon. By 1949, 85% of Wisconsin’s urban population was fluoridated.

The tempo of the struggle quickened as the “Wisconsin Idea” of immediate fluoridation ran head on against the conservative “go slow” policy of the American Dental Association (ADA) and other scientific organizations. Because of political pressure, in 1950, the United States Public Health Service finally endorsed fluoridation. The ADA soon followed while the Grand Rapids/Muskegon and Newburgh/Kingston fluoridation trials were still in progress.

Only five years into the experiment, fluoridation was declared a success in Newburgh and before permanent teeth of children born into the experiment had erupted yet. Researchers found that children had no ill effects from drinking fluoridated water. However, any child who was sick two weeks before the physical check-up was excluded from the examination thereby excluding the very children who many have been having side effects to fluoride. Adults who drank the experimental potion were never even studied.

In 1955, the State University of New York reported that children in fluoridated Newburgh had more cortical bone defects and hemoglob anemia than the control city of Kingston.

And recent research shows children in fluoridated Newburgh have more tooth decay and more dental fluorosis than never fluoridated Kingston.

With 65% of the US fluoridated and nearly 300 million worldwide living in fluoridated communities, the dentists made a huge mistake.

New research shows fluoride’s beneficial effects are merely topical so there’s no good reason to swallow fluoride. Unfortunately, dental fluorosis is caused by drinking fluoride. So dentists have actually created the problem they sought to remedy in the American population.

So it's no surprise that the U.S. Surgeon General declared tooth decay at epidemic proportions in the US population while dental fluorosis is reportedly becoming a new public health problem.

Tooth decay has risen in US children along with their fluoride overdose symptoms. Ironically, 10% fluoridated United Kingdom has a tooth decay rate that has been steadily declining.

END

Fluoride - Never FDA Approved for Ingestion

2005-12-03T16:11:00.000-05:00

Children’s sodium fluoride anti-cavity supplements were never found safe or effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were never even tested. And the reason will astound you.

Sodium fluoride supplements are routinely fed to little children to prevent tooth decay. They are drugs requiring a dentist's or physician's prescription.

The below e-mail correspondence between this writer and the FDA shows that fluoride supplements were "grandfathered in" before the 1938 law was enacted requiring drug testing.

So, products on the market before 1938 were presumed safe by the FDA who allowed grandfathered drugs to be sold without any testing. Once a drug is on the market for any reason, doctors can use them to treat any disease or condition.

It gets even more incredulous.

Sodium fluoride was on the market pre-1938, but not to stop cavities and not for any medical reason. Sodium fluoride sold as a rat poison.

So, in effect, the FDA says - since sodium fluoride safely and effectively killed rats before 1938, the FDA considers it is safe to give to little children to prevent tooth decay.

Over 91% of U.S. fluoridating communities now use cheaper silicofluorides - another chemical never FDA approved, or safety tested in animals or humans but recently found to increase children's blood lead levels.

From a 1951 American Dental Association brochure:
"There is no proof that commercial preparations such as tablets, dentifrices, mouthwashes or chewing gum containing fluorides are effective in preventing dental decay. Unfortunately such preparations are being offered to the public without adequate scientific evidence of their value."

The following is my correspondence with the FDA:

-----Original Message-----
From: Suite1oh1@aol.com [mailto:Suite1oh1@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:10 PM
To: druginfo@cder.fda.gov
Subject: DrugInfo Comment Form FDA/CDER Site

Name: Sally

E-Mail: Suite1oh1@aol.com

Comments: I don't see fluoride supplements, which require a prescription,
listed on your approved drugs list. They are prescribed to children to
prevent tooth decay. Why aren't they approved? They aren't nutritional
supplements, so they can't be excluded.
Is it safe to give children drugs that haven't been FDA approved?

---

Subject: RE: DrugInfo Comment Form FDA/CDER Site
Date: 3/9/2004 3:56:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: DRUGINFO@cder.fda.gov
To: Suite1oh1@aol.com

Sodium fluoride has been marketed in the United States since before 1938,when the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) was enacted. The Act is the
basic food and drug law of the United States and is intended to assure the consumer that foods are pure and wholesome, safe to eat, and produced under sanitary conditions; that drugs and devices are safe and effective for their intended uses; that cosmetics are safe and made from appropriate
ingredients; and that all labeling and packaging is truthful, informative, and not deceptive.

With the passage of the Act, an approved New Drug
Application (NDA) was required for marketing any new drug product (drug products introduced after 1938), as the regulatory mechanism for ensuring
that all new drugs were cleared for safety prior to distribution. An amendment to the Act in 1962 required that, before marketing a drug, a
manufacturer also had to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness for the product's intended uses.

Drugs on the market prior to enactment of the 1938 law were exempted, or "grandfathered", and manufacturers were not required to file an NDA. The premise was that all pre-1938 drugs were considered safe, and if the manufacturer did not change the product formulation or indication, then an NDA was not required. However, once a manufacturer made any change to a pre-1938 drug, that drug was considered by the FDA to be a "new drug" and the manufacturer was required to prove that the drug was safe for its intended use.

The FDA is aware of sodium fluoride-containing products in various dosage forms that are currently marketed. At the present time, the FDA is deferring any regulatory action on sodium fluoride products that were marketed prior
to 1962 as long as the currently marketed product is identical to the pre-1962 product.

Any prescription sodium fluoride-containing product coming into the marketplace after 1962 that is not identical to the pre-1962 labeling and
that has drug claims, is subject to the FDA drug review process prior to marketing. Drug sponsors, generally manufacturers, develop new drugs, from
the earliest laboratory discoveries through various phases of animal and human safety testing as well as clinical testing for effectiveness and
appropriate dosing.

The FDA reviews data collected during drug testing at two key points: first, at the time the sponsor believes that the drug is ready for human testing and submits an Investigational New Drug Application (IND); and second, at the time the sponsor submits an NDA for approval to market the drug product. Before the FDA will permit testing of a drug in humans (clinical trials), the sponsor must provide us information in an IND
demonstrating that the drug is reasonably safe to administer to humans. The sponsor must also provide manufacturing and control data, a detailed plan for clinical trials, and the names and qualifications of the investigators who will be performing the clinical trials.

Not all oral vitamins are prescription drugs. If the preparation contains 1mg or more of folic acid, then it is prescription. They are indicated for a variety of reasons but mainly to maintain normal blood levels and,therefore, prevent a variety of clinical conditions associated with vitamin deficiencies. If a patient is already deficient, then they will need more than the RDA to replete body stores of the deficient vitamin(s). Certain inborn errors of metabolism require treatment with specific vitamins.

Thank you
Bd100
CDER Drug Information

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Suite1oh1@aol.com [mailto:Suite1oh1@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:29 AM
To: DRUGINFO@cder.fda.gov
Subject: Re: DrugInfo Comment Form FDA/CDER Site

Thank you for your very detailed answer.

Sodium fluoride supplements weren't tested as a decay preventative until the 1950's or 1960's. The sodium fluoride on the market before 1938 was sold as a rat poison. Were there any other medicinal reasons for using sodium fluoride before 1938?

Thank you.

Sally

----

Subject: RE: DrugInfo Comment Form FDA/CDER Site
Date: 3/18/2004 1:17:15 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: DRUGINFO@cder.fda.gov
Reply To:
To: Suite1oh1@aol.com

We don't have information on the medical uses of fluoride before 1938.

Thank you
bd100
CDER Drug Information

Fluoridation Does Not Save Money or Teeth

2005-11-30T10:47:00.000-05:00

Fluoridation does not save money or teeth

Here's Why:

Eighty percent of all tooth decay occurs in about 20% of the population, usually low-income people who can't afford to pay a dentist. If they are poor enough, they qualify for government reimbursement programs, like Medicaid. Unfortunately, most over 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients.

When a small cavity isn't filled, it can grow, fester and absess and then qualifies for emergency room treatment, usually paid for by the government

Severe tooth decay is responsible for 2/3 of hospital visits by children under six in New York State (1), where almost 73% of the population drinks fluoridated water. Even in 100% fluoridated New York City, more children required cavity-related hospitalizations, proportionately, than two of New York State's largest non-fluoridated counties, Suffolk and Nassau, whether payment was made by Medicaid or privately.

One New York City hospital charged from $929 to $12,199 to treat 96 children with severely decayed teeth, excluding the dentist and anesthesiologist fees. Children needed extensive work including stainless steel crowns, extractions, root canal therapy, fillings, other restorations, periodontal procedures, surgeries and/or more.

National Medicaid costs for hospital treatment of early childhood cavities are between $100 to $200 million annually.

Even after hospital treatment, these children return with new lesions, say Kumar and colleagues.

Additionally, in New York State, 18% lost 6 or more teeth due to decay or gum disease(2) while only 16% of non-fluoridated Long Islanders did.(3). While 21%% of Brooklyn(4) and 20% of Queens(5) residents lost six or more teeth. (Brooklyn and Queens are part of New York City and fluoridated.)

In fact, poor New York City children have more tooth decay than the national average, despite fluoridation(6). And many get no dental care.

This is how Jonathan Kozol explains it in his book Savage Inequalities about life in the South Bronx (NYC): “Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are routine matters for children..... Children live for months with pain that grown-ups would find unendurable. …I have seen children with teeth that look like brownish, broken sticks. I have seen teenagers who were missing half their teeth....”

Also, NYC African American adults studied have more cavities than all adults nationally," reports "Dental Clinics of North America," January 2003.

In 1984, New York City spent 2.4 million dollars on fluoridation chemicals, equipment and manpower, according to a DEP letter answering a New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation freedom of information request (7). Now fluoride chemicals, alone, cost the city $6 million annually, "The New York Sun" reports (8). The cost today of fluoridation in New York City is somewhere between $6 - $14 million.

The city is wasting it's money.

Second-graders who live in non-fluoridated Long Island, New York, are more likely to be cavity-free than second graders nationally(9)

After over 50 years of water fluoridation, many children in Newburgh, New York have more cavities and more fluoride-caused discolored teeth (dental fluorosis) than children in never-fluoridated Kingston, New York, according to a New York State Department of Health study(10).

The Centers for Disease Control asserts that fluoridated water saves from $7 to $42 in dental care for every fluoridation dollar spent(11).

However, after decades of water fluoridation, virtually all Americans consume a fluoridated food and/or water supply. Yet, "dental spending outpaces economic growth, continuing a trend," reports the American Dental Association(12)

An October 2004 article in a New York State newspaper confirms fluoridation's uselessness:

Despite a tremendous effort to improve oral health in fluoridated Rochester and Monroe County, New York, lack of dental care has created a tooth decay crises. Fluoridation solves no problems and gives the illusion that organized dentistry actually is solving the problems outlined in the US Surgeon General's report that a tooth decay "silent" epidemic is taking place is America. (
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041002/NEWS01/410020317/1002/NEWS

Children need dentists not fluoride.

References:

(1) "Early Childhood Caries-related Visits to Hospitals for Ambulatory Surgery in New York State," Wadhawan, Kumar, Badner, Green, Journal of Public Health Dentistry Vol 63 No.1, Winter 2003

(2) http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/display.asp?cat=OH&yr=2002&qkey=6605&state=NY

3) http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss-smart/MMSARiskChart.asp?yr=2002&MMSA=83&cat=OH&qkey=6605&grp=0

4) http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss-smart/MMSACtyRiskChart.asp?MMSA=61&yr2=2002&qkey=6605&CtyCode=91&cat=OH#OH

5) http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss-smart/MMSACtyRiskChart.asp?MMSA=61&yr2=2002&qkey=6605&CtyCode=92&cat=OH#OH
6) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=
PubMed&list_uids=12064497&dopt=Abstract

7) 10/10/85 and 10/25/85 letters from Mekenian, NYC DEP, to Paul S. Beeber, NYSCOF

8) http://www.nysun.com/sunarticle.asp?artID=503

9) Page four of ERIE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT - FAMILY HEALTH http://wings.buffalo.edu/wny/health/den.pdf

10) Figure 1, Page 41, "Recommendations for Fluoride Use in children" NYS Dental Journal, February 1998 (NYS Department of Health, 518-474-1961).

11) http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/pe_factsheets/pe_oh.htm

(12) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/current.asp

Gov't Lies About Tooth Loss and Fluoride Benefit

2005-11-29T08:03:00.000-05:00

About one-third of children and adolescents had enamel fluorosis of their teeth, admits the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in their 8/25/05 press release (1) which claimed a reduction in tooth decay. Fluorosis is the only outward sign of fluoride overdose or toxicity.

The press release puts a spin on the non-peer reviewed "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" (MMWR) which actually shows an increase in tooth decay in younger populations. Since tooth decay in primary teeth is the only proven indicator of tooth decay in permanent teeth, the future looks bleak for America's oral health, despite indications of fluoride abundance.

This is what the report shows when the "questionable" category of fluorosis is included:

40% of 6-11-year-olds have fluorosis

49% of 12-15 year-olds have fluorosis

42% of 16-19-year-olds have fluorosis

America is experiencing a tooth decay epidemic, according to the U.S. Surgeon General at the same time the gov't tells us American children are fluoride overdosed. How is that possible?

The CDC's press release entitled, “New Report Finds Improvements in Oral Health of Americans,” obviously was not fact-checked by most reporters, because U.S. oral health is decaying, according to CDC’s own statistics.

Toothlessness went up from 2002 to 2004 (2,3,) and cavities experience got worse in two - four-year-olds (4).

The CDC’s MMWR report also tells us that dental fluorosis occurs more often in black children who also have higher rates of tooth decay.

If the people ingesting the most fluoride have the most cavities, what is that saying? This either means fluoride isn’t reducing tooth decay or maybe fluoride actually is causing tooth decay. In any event, it’s clearly not working in the black population.

Tooth decay rates went down since its inception in 1945 because diets improved and foods were fortified. Now that diets are decaying; so are teeth.

Tooth decay crises are occurring in most, if not all, fluoridated U.S. Cities. (5)

In fact, tooth decay is the new “racism,” according to best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell (Blink, The Tipping Point) who writes in the New Yorker that rotted teeth are the single most common complaint of America’s uninsured which keeps them in bad health, bad jobs, eating bad diets and generally keeps them down. (6) 108 million Americans lack dental insurance.

Meanwhile, dentists make much more money than physicians while working fewer days and, fewer hours (7) and refusing to treat low-income people whom they claim to care about when they endorse, instigate and promote water fluoridation.

I join the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Employees Unions asking for a moratorium on water fluoridation.

If you agree, please sign the petition supporting 11 EPA Unions, representing 7,000 EPA employees including scientists, toxicologists and other health professionals, in asking Congress to stop fluoridation until further study shows fluoridation’s benefits are worth the expense and risks.

http://petition.powalliance.org/index.html

References:

1) U.S. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office of Communication, “New Report Finds Improvements in Oral Health of Americans,” 8/25/05
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r050825.htm

2) 2002 CDC tooth loss statistics
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/list.asp?cat=OH&yr=2002&qkey=6605&state=All

3) 2004 CDC tooth loss statistics
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/list.asp?cat=OH&yr=2004&qkey=6606&state=All

4) Oral Health Progress Review 3/17/04

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ppt/hpdata2010/focusareas/fa21.ppt
(slide 5)

5) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof2/_pgg6.php3

6) The New Yorker, ”The Moral Hazard Myth - The bad idea behind our failed health-care system.” by Malcolm Gladwell

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050829fa_fact

7) http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/05apr/care_dentist.htm

Fluoridation Fails New York State

2005-11-24T09:30:00.000-05:00

Almost three fourths of New Yorkers have consumed tap water injected with fluoride for decades. Yet, New York State’s fluoridated counties and cities suffer worse dental health than those without fluoride-laced water supplies.

America’s oral health crisis is not due to lack of fluoride but because poor people can’t get dentists to fix their teeth. In fact, the American Dental Association says, “Low income is the single best predictor of high caries experience in children,” not lack of fluoridation. Low-income populations have the highest levels of dental disease but are least likely to be cared for, according to the General Accounting Office (1).

"In surveys conducted in Wyoming, Washington, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho (WWAMI project), higher levels of dental disease correlated with counties having the least access to dental care,” according to Oral Care Report paid for by Colgate and edited by Harvard professor Chester W. Douglass DMD, PhD(1a). Other studies show cavities decline when fluoridation ends.(1b)

Starting fluoridation now is like locking the gate after the dogs have escaped. Every unfilled cavity will cost the taxpayers ten times as much or more in hospital emergency room visits. Fluoridated communities are still pouring money into oral health measures trying to fix a very broken public health dentistry problem (4).

Money spent on fluoridation is money wasted! With states cutting dental Medicaid benefits to balance their budgets, the situation will just get worse.

Most people get cavities. Imagine your smile never touched by a dentist. America’s poor and minorities, also the unhealthiest, suffer the most tooth decay. Most dentists reject low-paying government subsidized insurance or don’t live in low-income or rural neighborhoods. So the underprivileged often have no choice but to wait until their teeth rot so badly and hurt so much it justifies a hospital emergency room visit. Fluoridation is supposed to prevent this; but doesn’t.

Despite fluoridation, severe tooth decay is responsible for two thirds of hospital visits by children under six in New York State (2). In New York City, fluoridated since 1965, more children required cavity-related hospitalizations, proportionately, than two of New York State's largest non-fluoridated counties, Suffolk and Nassau (Long island) whether payment was made by Medicaid or privately.(2)

This is how Jonathan Kozol explains life in the South Bronx (a NYC borough) in his book, Savage Inequalities, “Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are routine matters for children..... Children live for months with pain that grown-ups would find unendurable. …I have seen children with teeth that look like brownish, broken sticks. I have seen teenagers who were missing half their teeth....”

Far from “putting themselves out of business,” as they once predicted by insisting water supplies be spiked with fluoride, today’s dentists work fewer hours a day, less days a week but make more money than physicians (3). At the same time, most dentists refuse to treat poor patients with the most dental needs except maybe once a year with much fanfare and publicity. Emergency room dental costs are staggeringly higher than a dental visit. And taxpayers foot the bill.

One New York City hospital charged from $900 to $12,000 to treat 96 children with severely decayed teeth, excluding the dentist and anesthesiologist fees. Children needed extensive work including stainless steel crowns, extractions, root canal therapy, fillings, other restorations, periodontal procedures, surgeries and/or more. (2)

NYS hospital costs were between $2.5 and $33 million for the 2,726 childhood cavities-related surgical visits required by children under six, in 1999. (2) Even after hospital treatment, these children return with new lesions.

Cavities are, largely, another disease of poverty and/or poor nutrition that only dentists or dental therapists can fix-–but not with fluoridation.

Further evidence shows fluoridation neither saves NYS money nor reduces cavities:

• According to New York University’s School of Dentistry, "The need for dental care is especially acute among impoverished (NYC) children, who have 60 percent more untreated cavities than their peers at higher socioeconomic levels." (4)

• Lack of oral health care for adults in Harlem is a hidden crisis, write researchers in the American Journal of Public Health. (5)

• "Adolescents in northern Manhattan (another NYC borough) have higher caries prevalence than their national counterparts,” The Journal of Public Health Dentistry, reports." (6)

• Latinos and African American seniors suffer high rates of tooth decay and tooth loss in Northern Manhattan (7), according to the Journal of Community Health.

• A higher prevalence of dental decay is found in New York City African Americans, aged 18 - 64, than found nationally, reports Dental Clinics of North America. (8)

• Dental caries, among disadvantaged 3 to 4-year-old children in northern Manhattan, are higher than the national average (9), according to Pediatric Dentistry.

• After over fifty years of water fluoridation, many children in Newburgh, New York have more cavities and more fluoride--caused discolored teeth (dental fluorosis) than children in never-fluoridated Kingston, New York, according to a New York State Department of Health study published in the New York State Dental Journal (10).

• Second-graders from non-fluoridated Long Island, New York, are more cavity-free than second graders nationally (11) where two thirds of Americans drink fluoridated public water supplies.

• Despite a tremendous effort to improve oral health in fluoridated Rochester and Monroe County, lack of dental care has created a tooth decay crisis.(12)

• In fluoridated Syracuse and Massena, many children are raised in homes where they feel it's their destiny to have tooth decay and tooth pain.(13)

• "Poor oral health was identified as the number one complaint in a population-based survey of Central Harlem conducted in 1992-1994." (14)

• In Harlem, N.Y., forty-six percent of African-American seniors were missing teeth, compared with twenty-two percent of Latinos. (15)

• "The state also has increased dental payment rates by 250 percent over the past few years, with little success in improving access to dental care." in fluoridated Syracuse, New York.(16)

• Cavities are rising in fluoridated Rochester’s 10-year-old population. (17)

• Eighteen percent of older New Yorkers lost six or more teeth due to dental disease, (18) while only sixteen percent of non-fluoridated Long islanders did. (19)

• Similarly twenty-one percent of Brooklyn’s and twenty percent of Queens’ residents have less teeth (20), than non-fluoridated Suffolk and Nassau Counties.

• Cavity crises occur in many fluoridated cities and states. (21)

By neglecting the poor, organized dentistry helped create an oral health epidemic (22). Promoting fluoridation may deflect government regulators from forcing dentists to actually treat poor children (23).

Besides, after six decades of water fluoridation, cavity rates have increased recently in America’s 2 to 4 year-old population who should be the most “fluoride-protected.” (23a)

And, according to the American Dental Association News, average net income of a full time independent non-solo pediatric dentist was $336,860 in 2001, up more than twenty-five percent since 1998. Since eight percent of all decay occurs mostly in the dentist-abandoned poor, some public health dentists ask, what kinds of necessary dental services are provided to higher socio-economic kids to generate a net income of $336,860 annually?

In 1984, NYC spent $2.4 million for fluoridation chemicals, equipment and manpower, according to the NYC Department of Environmental Protection. In 2003, fluoride chemicals, alone, cost NYC $6 million, according to the New York Sun.

Fluoridation money, literally flushed down the toilet, should be earmarked to treat poor NYC children’s dental pain immediately.

Even more worrying is that higher blood lead levels are found in New York State (and other) children whose water supplies contain the fluoride chemicals, silicofluorides, when compared to non-fluoridated or sodium fluoridated communities, reports Masters and Coplan and substantiated by CDC scientists.(24) Ironically, higher blood lead levels are linked to more cavities. (25)

The cost of fluoridation isn’t the only price we pay when silicofluorides are put into drinking water. “Silicofluorides have very costly side-effects,” says Roger Masters, PhD, co-author of the silicofluoride/lead studies. “Lead lowers IQ and influences behavior in many ways. Epidemiology shows that where silicofluorides are used, there are higher rates of learning disabilities, substance abuse, and violent crime. Our studies do not find similar effects for sodium fluoride,” says Masters.

“The result is that silicofluoride usage has the effect of increasing public expenses and taxes,” says Masters. For example costs of jailing criminals, adversely affected by silicofluorides and special education classes for children with lower IQ due to high-blood-lead levels could be diminished if the offending silicofluorides were removed from public water supplies, Masters explains.

"The oral health crisis facing America today shows fluoridation and public health dentistry is failing America’s neediest children. Why is organized dentistry less supportive of a public health approach to improving access to care? Perhaps that’s because Americans spent roughly $64 billion on dental procedures last year with more than half of those procedures being cosmetic—fillings, crowns, implants, and high-end restorative procedures, according to government data," reported in Access, an American Dental Hygienists' Association publication.(26)

Organized dentistry often hinders programs designed to reach out to America's underserved, protecting their monopoly rather than America's neediiest. The ADA publicly invalidates dental hygienists solo practices along with their "Give-Kids-A-Smile" public relations materials. The hygienists lash back with their own news release (27) The ADA also frowns on dental therapists, specially trained hygienists who can fill the cavities dentists refuse to.(28)

References:

(1) September 2000 “Oral Health Factors Contributing to Low Use of Dental
Services by Low-Income Populations,” General Accounting Office
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00149.pdf

(1a) Colgate Oral Care Report Volume 14 No. 4, November 4, 2004 http://www.colgateprofessional.com/app/cop/repository/article-201/frameset.jsp

(1b) (1b) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg6.php3

(2) "Early Childhood Caries-related Visits to Hospitals for Ambulatory Surgery in New York State," Wadhawan, Kumar, Badner, Green, Journal of Public Health Dentistry Vol 63 No.1, Winter 2003

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12597585

(3) “Dentists' pay tops doctors' Even with fewer cavities to fill, dentists' earnings are skyrocketing.” By Mark Maremont, The Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2005
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/business/10614433.htm

(4) New York University, School of Dentistry, “Speaker Miller and City Council Expand Dental Services for Needy Children” http://www.nyu.edu/dental/news/needychildren.html

(5) “Lack of Oral Health Care for Adults in Harlem: A Hidden Crisis,” Zabos, et al, American Journal of Public Health, January 2002, Vol 92, No.l
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11772760

(6) Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Summer; 63(3): 189-94
"Dental caries experience in northern Manhattan adolescents.".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12962473

(7) Journal of Community Health, August 2003, " Oral disease burden and dental services utilization by Latino and African-American seniors in Northern Manhattan."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12856796

(8) Dental Clinics of North America, January 2003 "Dental caries prevalence among a sample of African American adults in New York City,"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12519005&dopt=Abstract

(9) Pediatric Dentistry, May-June 2002, "Dental caries among disadvantaged 3- to 4-year-old children in northern Manhattan"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12064497

(10) NYS Dental Journal,"Recommendations for Fluoride Use in children," February 1998 by dentists Kumar and Green. Figure 1, Page 41, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9542393

(11) Page four of ERIE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT - FAMILY HEALTH
http://wings.buffalo.edu/wny/health/den.pdf

(12) Democrat and Chronicle, "Dental care is luxury for many locals," October 2004
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041002/NEWS01/410020317/1002/NEWS

(13) Small Smiles gives kids a reason to grin
Updated: 12/1/2004 by Al Nall, News 10 Now Web Staff
http://news10now.com/content/all_news/?ArID=32340&SecID=83

(14)
Abstract presented at meeting of American Public Health Association
“Community DentCare Network: Community-academic partnerships as a model in identifying, addressing, and reducing oral health disparities”

http://apha.confex.com/apha/132am/techprogram/paper_85424.htm

(15) U.S. News and World Reports 11/9/04
Open wide
A report looks at the dental health of African-American males,
By Elizabeth Querna

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/briefs/oral/hb041109b.htm?track=rss

(16) Cost Concerns Grow Despite New Health Plan Competition in Syracuse
Community Report No. 7
Summer 2003
http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/572/

(17) University of Rochester News Release
Dental cavities on the rise again; back to 'drill and fill'
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-04/UoR-Dcot-0704100.php

(18) U.S. Centers for Disease Control statistics: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/display.asp?cat=OH&amp;yr=2002&qkey=6605&state=NY

(19) http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss-smart/MMSARiskChart.asp?yr=2002&MMSA=83&amp;cat=OH&qkey=6605&grp=0

(20) http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss-smart/MMSACtyRiskChart.asp?MMSA=61&yr2=2002&amp;qkey=6605&CtyCode=91&cat=OH#OH

(21) Cavity Crises in Fluoridated Cities and States compiled by New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof2/_pgg6.php3

(22) “FIRST-EVER SURGEON GENERAL'S REPORT ON ORAL HEALTH FINDS PROFOUND DISPARITIES IN NATION'S POPULATION,” News Release, May 2000, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/pressreleases/pr_oral_52000.htm

(23) Oregon Dental Association newsletter, April 2004, Volume 9, Number 11 (Page 6)
http://www.oregondental.org/oda/section.cfm?wSectionID=1277

(23a)
Data Presentation by Dr. Edward Sondik
Director, National Center for Health Statistics
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/hpdata2010/focusareas/fa21-oral.htm

(24) More Lead in Children Who Drink Fluoridated Water, by Sally Stride, June 2004
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/fluoridation/109036

(25) Moss, M.E. 1999. Association of dental caries and blood lead levels. Journal of the American Medical Association 281(June 23/30):2294.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10386553&dopt=Abstract

(26) "Why Millions Suffer with preventable oral disease," by Bryan L. Scott, June 2002 . Access, an American Dental Hygienist Association’s publication
By Bryant L. Scott
http://www.adha.org/downloads/0506lead.pdf

27) ADHA’s Response to ADA Study: The Economic Impact of Unsupervised Dental Hygiene Practice and its Impact on Access to Care in the State of Colorado , February 4, 2005
http://www.adha.org/news/012805-study.htm

(28) "First Alaskan dental therapists to qualify," RDH
http://de.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=219527&p=56