The Absurdities Of Water Flouridation

[Guest guest]

> [sSRI-Research] THE ABSURDITIES OF WATER

> FLUORIDATION

>

> November 28, 2002

>

> THE ABSURDITIES OF WATER FLUORIDATION

>

> This Practice Is Unethical, Unnecessary,

> Ineffective, Unsafe, And Inequitable.

> Any So-Called Expert On Fluoridation Who Thinks

> Otherwise Is Invited To An Open Public Debate On

> This Issue

>

> by Paul Connett, PhD

>

>

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/connett/2002_nov28.html

>

> Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American

> phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined

> our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled

> our transformers and DDT was deemed so " safe and

> effective " that officials felt no qualms spraying

> kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic

> tables. One by one all these chemicals have been

> banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.

>

> For over 50 years US government officials have

> confidently and enthusiastically claimed that

> fluoridation is " safe and effective " . However, they

> are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open

> public debate. Actually, there are so many arguments

> against fluoridation that it can get overwhelming.

> To simplify things it helps to separate the ethical

> from the scientific arguments.

>

> For those for which ethical concerns are paramount,

> the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve.

> It is simply not ethical; we simply shouldn't be

> forcing medication on people without their " informed

> consent " . The bad news, is that ethical arguments

> are not very influential in Washington, DC unless

> politicians are very conscious of millions of people

> watching them. The good news is that the ethical

> arguments are buttressed by solid common sense

> arguments and scientific studies which convincingly

> show that fluoridation is neither " safe and

> effective " nor necessary. I have summarized the

> arguments in several categories:

>

> Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

>

> 1) It violates the individual's right to informed

> consent to medication.

> 2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the

> patient.

> 3) The municipality cannot track each individual's

> response.

> 4) It ignores the fact that some people are more

> vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others.

> Some people will suffer while others may benefit.

> 5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human

> experimentation.

>

> As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize

> for Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:

>

> " I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in

> a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to

> medical history...Water fluoridation goes against

> leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is

> progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the

> type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more

> individualized therapy as regards both dosage and

> selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the

> drinking water means exactly the opposite of an

> individualized therapy. "

>

> As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from

> the UK and advisory board member of the recent

> government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al

> 2000):

>

> " No physician in his right senses would prescribe

> for a person he has never met, whose medical history

> he does not know, a substance which is intended to

> create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much

> as you like, but you will take it for the rest of

> your life because some children suffer from tooth

> decay. ' It is a preposterous notion. "

>

> Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

>

> 1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without

> being exposed to fluoride.

> 2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the

> benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated

> toothpaste, which is universally available, is a

> more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the

> target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to

> the rest of the body.

> 3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected

> water fluoridation, but has been equally successful

> as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.

> 4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one

> would expect to find it in breast milk, but the

> level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS

> than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).

> 5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are

> already getting the so-called " optimal " doses from

> other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many

> are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

>

> Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

>

> 1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's

> benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981;

> Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker

> 1999; Featherstone 2000).

> 2) Major dental researchers also concede that

> fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and

> fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay

> experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White

> 1993; Pinkham 1999).

> 3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is

> coming down just as fast, if not faster, in

> non-fluoridated industrialized countries as

> fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994;

> World Health Organization, Online).

> 4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed

> only a minute difference in tooth decay between

> children who had lived all their lives in

> fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities.

> The difference was not clinically significant nor

> shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle &

> Carlos, 1990).

> 5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs

> in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the

> vast majority of which have been fluoridated for

> decades.

> 6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities

> in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada,

> tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down

> (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997,

> 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

>

> Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

>

> 1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more

> brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of

> evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and

> epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming.

> Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to

> higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly. (See

> studies)

> 2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly

> lowering the production of melatonin a very

> important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).

> 3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a

> high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of

> children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth

> in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al,

> 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).

> 4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns

> about a connection between fluoridation and

> osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as

> fluoridation and the current epidemics of both

> arthritis and hypothyroidism.

> 5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking

> water increases the uptake of aluminum into the

> brain (Varner et al, 1998).

> 6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their

> water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).

> 7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most

> commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake

> of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan,

> 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase

> in violent behavior.

> 8) The margin of safety between the so-called

> therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and

> many of these end points is either nonexistent or

> precariously low.

>

> Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

>

> 1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot

> afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they

> will not be able to purchase bottled water or

> expensive removal equipment.

> 2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition

> which is known to make children more vulnerable to

> fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952;

> Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).

>

> 3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay

> the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get

> dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive

> treatment.

>

> Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE

> because:

>

> 1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated

> actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up

> being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet

> or to water our lawns and gardens.

> 2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use

> pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance

> which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for

> the public water supply. Water fluoridation is

> artificially cheap because, unknown to most people,

> the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous

> waste product from the phosphate fertilizer

> industry.

> 3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride

> (even though its major benefits are topical not

> systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach

> would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in

> supermarkets free of charge. This approach would

> allow both the quality and the dose to be

> controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on

> people who don't want it.

>

> Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For

> example:

>

> 1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service

> enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one

> single trial had been completed.

> 2) Even though we are getting many more sources of

> fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called

> " optimal concentration " of 1 ppm has remained

> unchanged.

> 3) The US Public health Service has never felt

> obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones

> even though they have known for years that 50% of

> the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.

> 4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check

> to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in

> the communities before they fluoridate, even though

> they know that this level indicates whether children

> are being overdosed or not.

> 5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding

> that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland,

> even though her finding was published in 1994

> (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper

> presented at conference of the International Society

> for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in

> Caries Research).

> 6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating

> fluoridation were both six years out of date in the

> research they cited on health concerns.

>

> Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

>

> The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to

> defend this practice in open debate because they

> know that they would lose that debate. A vast

> majority of the health officials around the US and

> in other countries who promote water fluoridation do

> so based upon someone else's advice and not based

> upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific

> literature. This second hand information produces

> second rate confidence when they are challenged to

> defend their position. Their position has more to do

> with faith than it does with reason.

>

> Those who pull the strings of these public health

> 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically

> playing for time and hoping that they can continue

> to fool people with the recitation of a long list of

> " authorities " which support fluoridation instead of

> engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear

> in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy. The

> Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991),

> the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the

> exercise of political power not on rational

> analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is:

> " Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to

> exercise its power in this way? "

>

> Motivations - especially those which have operated

> over several generations of decision makers - are

> always difficult to ascertain. However, whether

> intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract

> us from several key issues. It has distracted us

> from:

>

> a) The failure of one of the richest countries in

> the world to provide decent dental care for poor

> people.

> b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat

> children on Medicaid.

> c) The failure of the public health community to

> fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by

> our nation's children, even to the point of turning

> a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft

> drink machines into our schools. Their attitude

> seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why

> bother controlling sugar intake.

> d) The failure to adequately address the health and

> ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large

> industry. Despite the damage which fluoride

> pollution has caused, and is still causing, few

> environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as

> a 'pollutant.'

> e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum

> Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which

> can be scientifically defended.

> f) The fact that more and more organofluorine

> compounds are being introduced into commerce in the

> form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides.

> Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose

> just as much a threat to our health and environment

> as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts

> (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and

> many accumulate in the food chains and our body

> fat), those organizations and agencies which have

> acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these

> other halogenated products, seem to have a blind

> spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine

> compounds.

>

> So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe,

> it continues to provide a convenient cover for many

> of the interests which stand to profit from the

> public being misinformed about fluoride.

>

> Unfortunately, because government officials have put

> so much of their credibility on the line defending

> fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to

> speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with

> the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for

> institutions such as the American Dental Association

> to concede health risks because of the liabilities

> waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

>

> However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless

> essential - in order to protect millions of people

> from unnecessary harm - that the US Government begin

> to move away from its anachronistic, and

> increasingly absurd, status quo on this issue. There

> are precedents. They were able to do this with

> hormone replacement therapy.

>

> But getting any honest action out of the US

> Government on this is going to be difficult.

> Effecting change is like driving a nail through wood

> - science can sharpen the nail but we need the

> weight of public opinion to drive it home. Thus, it

> is going to require a sustained effort to educate

> the American people and then recruiting their help

> to put sustained pressure on our political

> representatives. At the very least we need a

> moratorium on fluoridation (which simply means

> turning off the tap for a few months) until there

> has been a full Congressional hearing on the key

> issues with testimony offered by scientists on both

> sides. With the issue of education we are in better

> shape than ever before. Most of the key studies are

> available on the internet

> (http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html) and there

> are videotaped interviews with many of the

> scientists and protagonists whose work has been so

> important to a modern re-evaluation of this issue

> (see Videos at http://www.fluoridealert.org).

>

> With this new information, more and more communities

> are rejecting new fluoridation proposals at the

> local level. On the national level, there have been

> some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA

> Headquarters Union coming out against fluoridation

> and the Sierra Club seeking to have the issue

> re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for

> other national groups to get involved in order to

> make this the national issue it desperately needs to

> be.

>

> I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree

> with me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If

> they can't than I hope they will get off the fence

> and help end one of the silliest policies ever

> inflicted on the citizens of the US. It is time to

> end this folly of water fluoridation without further

> delay. It is not going to be easy. Fluoridation

> represents a very powerful " belief system " backed up

> by special interests and by entrenched governmental

> power and influence.

>

> Paul Connett.

>

> All references cited can be found at

> http://www.fluoridealert.org/reference.htm

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]