TOXIC FLOURIDE

[Guest guest]

THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK

http://www.fluoridealert.org

 

FAN CAMPAIGN Bulletin # 34: Another Canadian scientist and doctor

speak out.

 

May 2, 2004

 

Dear All,

 

Will Canada save North America from the US Public Health Services' 50

years of brainwashing on fluoridation?

 

Over the years there have been some very encouraging signs that this

might happen. Montreal has never succumbed. Most of British Columbia

remains unfluoridated. In 1977 Dyson Rose and John R. Marier wrote an

excellent review of fluoride for the National Research Council of

Canada before that body was disbanded (Environmental Fluoride 1977,

NRCC No. 16081). In 1987, Dr. Allan Gray, former director of the

Division of Dental Health Services for the British Columbia Ministry

of Health wrote an excellent article challenging the overenthusistic

promotion of the practice in an article which appeared in the Journal

of the Canadian Dental Association (Fluoridation: time for a new base

line?). Dr. Richard Foulkes, MD, a former medical advisor to the

government of British Columbia, publicly announced that he had been

duped by government bureacrats after he did his own research on the

issue. More recently, Dr. Hardy Limeback, former president of the

Canadian Association for Dental Research, and a former promoter of

fluoridation, changed his position publicly and even apologized to

his students at the University of Toronto, where he heads the

Department of Preventive Dentistry. In 1999, Dr. David Locker, also

at the University of Toronto, concluded in a review commissioned by

the Ontario government (but not published until 2001) that, " The

magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms,

is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical

significance " .

 

In a few weeks the Discovery Health Channel (out of Toronto) will be

broadcasting a three way discussion/debate I had on this issue with

Dr. David Locker and a representative of the Canadian Dental

Association. Participation by the American Dental Association in such

a discussion or debate on an American TV station would be

unthinkable. It is my fervent hope that the Canadian scientists are

less beholden to Industrial and political interests in this matter

and will find it easier to back off this indefensible practice. Such

a position received reinforcement in yesterday's Calgary Herald

(reprinted below) where another Canadian scientist and a Canadian

pediatrician expressed their reasons for rejecting fluoridation.

Hopefully, more and more independent scientists and medical

professionals in Canada will help to break through the veil of

ignorance and complacency which has blinded the American medical and

scientific community on this issue for over 50 years.

 

Paul Connett

 

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?

id=35de92a2-1fbe-48cd-a75f-6b6329c0bf1f

THE CALGARY HERALD

Latest News

 

Fluoride: the debate goes on

Two Calgary experts challenge conventional wisdoms of fluoridated

water

 

James Beck and Robert Dickson

For the Calgary Herald

 

 

Saturday, May 01, 2004

 

 

Consider this. If we as physicians were to prescribe to patients we

know nothing about, a medically active, unproven drug at uncontrolled

dosage and tell them to take as much as they want for the rest of

their lives while not monitoring the side effects, how long would we

be practising medicine before our licences were revoked? The answer,

of course, is not for very long.

 

Unfortunately, many Calgarians are unaware that this is exactly what

the Calgary Health Region is doing when it sanctions spending almost

$1 million per year of taxpayers' money to add the volatile toxin

hydrofluosilicic acid -- commonly known as fluoride -- to our

otherwise decent drinking water. Again unfortunate is the deferring

to, and reiterating of, the official party line on fluoride -- the

blindly and oft repeated mantra of fluoride helps kids, especially

poor kids.

 

Many professionals still repeat the mistaken conclusion that caries

(tooth decay) have been reduced by up to 75 per cent since fluoride

was introduced. ( " Pros and cons of fluoride, " by Peter Nieman, the

Herald, April 8). Can you spot the disconnect here? Yes, caries have

decreased by up to 75 per cent in the past 50 or so years since the

first flawed studies promoting fluoride were published. But, the

incidence of caries in Europe, which is 99 per cent non-fluoridated,

and in British Columbia, which is fluorosilicic acid-free in more

than 95 per cent of its communities, has also decreased by the same

or even more. Is it possible that the impressive reduction in caries

is not at all connected to fluoride in our drinking water but to a

much healthier diet for children, more regular brushing of teeth and

much superior and more accessible dental care for most, particularly

kids?

 

Is fluoridation side-effect free? Absolutely not. Many good

scientific studies show increased incidence of hip fractures because

of fluoride ingestion as well as strong associations with thyroid

problems (look at the vast number of patients in our western world on

thyroid supplementation), adverse effects on the pineal gland,

neurological sequelae such as deleterious effects on learning and

intelligence, and association with several cancers as well. Indeed,

higher doses of fluoride were used in Europe a few decades ago to

treat overactive thyroid glands.

 

However, the most obvious and noticeable deleterious effect of

fluoride is fluorosis. More than 40 per cent of children in

fluoridated areas are showing signs of fluorosis and the old mantra

of this side effect being " only cosmetic " is being rapidly abandoned,

even by the most ardent promoters of fluoride. Those who have touted

the monetary savings of fluoride by reducing the need for cavity

repair are now admitting that the cost of repairing teeth damaged by

fluorosis has far outstripped any possible savings and the gap is

rapidly widening. Thus, say goodbye to the economic argument for

fluoride. Also, promoters of this drug agree that what we see in the

enamel we also see in our skeletal bones. Therefore, mottling,

pitting and infrastructure destruction visible in our enamel is also

occurring in all the bones in our body.

 

Most people are not aware that hydrofluorosilicic acid is a substance

that is scrubbed out of smokestacks of the fertilizer industry. This

chemical, not approved in North America for administration to humans,

is contaminated with traces of lead, cadmium and arsenic. Less than a

teaspoon of this toxin will kill an adult. How would the fertilizer

industry deal with such a dangerous chemical and how many millions of

dollars would safe disposal cost if they were not able to dispose of

it for considerable profit in our drinking water? A better case can

be made for the sodium fluoride we find in our toothpaste and in

dentists' offices. Indeed, the topical administration of fluoride is

the only safe, possibly effective and ethical way to utilize this

drug.

 

Our natural fluoride comes from our mountain rivers in the form of

calcium fluoride. In Calgary, we have either 0.2 or 0.3 ppm (parts

per million) in our river systems, depending on which side of the

city you live. An interesting development occurred last year when the

Canadian Pediatric Society issued its guidelines and forcefully

stated that the maximum amount of fluoride that a child should

consume in drinking water was 0.3 ppm. That would, of course, make

the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid to our Calgary system not

only redundant but also dangerous for our children, particularly

because we already consume fluoride in many of our foods and

beverages. However, the strong arms of the powers-that-be quickly

pressured the society to alter their recommendations and guidelines

and toe the line. Unethical? Most certainly. It reminds one of

similar stories in our recent past, in particular those of

thalidomide, hexavalent chromium (rent the movie Erin Brockavich),

lead in our gasoline and paints (recommended level of lead has

recently been downgraded to 0 ppm), and the latest controversy

surrounding hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women.

 

Many dentists won't let fluoride through their front door. What are

we doing blindly allowing its volatile distant cousin,

hydrofluorosilicic acid, to be dumped in our pristine mountain water?

 

James Beck is a retired biophysicist formerly at the University of

Calgary. Robert Dickson is a community family physician in Calgary.

 

- - -

 

Fluoridation Facts

 

Calgary Plebiscites

 

- 1957, 1961, 1966, 1971: Fluoridation of water is voted down.

 

- 1989: Fluoridation approved (115,900 to 102,762).

 

- 1998: Continued fluoridation approved (136,697/113,258)

 

Other Communities

 

- 1945: Brantford, Ontario is the first community in Canada to

fluoridate its water.

 

- 1959: Red Deer is the first Alberta community to add fluoride to

its drinking water.

 

- 1966: After legislation is changed to allow for a simple majority

rather than a two-thirds majority, Edmonton votes for fluoridation.

 

Fluoride content of water

 

In Calgary, fluoride content is maintained at 0.7 mg/l.

 

The natural fluoride level in Calgary's water varies between 0.15 and

0.3 parts per million.

 

Calgary Costs

 

Cost to build fluoridation facilities in Calgary was $1.4 million in

1989.

 

Sources: City of Calgary; Calgary Health Region; Calgary Herald

Archives

 

© The Calgary Herald 2004