23 August 2011
04 April 2011
Merilyn Haines, the director of the newly formed group FAN-Australia (Fluoride Action Network Australia), has found some startling statistics buried deep in official research material by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School) that could scuttle the water fluoridation program once and for all.
Haines has found in the ARCPOH statistics that the permanent teeth of children in largely unfluoridated (<5% before 2009) Queensland were erupting on average two years earlier than the children in the rest of Australia, which is largely fluoridated (see the figure below). A two-year delay would negate all the small reductions in tooth decay claimed by dental researchers since 1990. In other words fluoridation doesn't work. Any difference in tooth decay claimed to be due to fluoride is simply an artefact of the delayed eruption caused by fluoride.
Source Published and unpublished data from 2003- 2004 Australian Child Dental Health Surveys
( unpublished data obtained by Freedom of Information application)
According to Professor Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, who is currently on a fluoride-tour of New Zealand, Critics of fluoridation, like Dr. Hardy Limeback in Toronto, have long pointed out that any reduced tooth decay touted by promoters could easily be accounted for by the delayed eruption of the teeth. Even when this argument received strong experimental support from Komarek et al. in 2005, this has still has been ignored by those promoting fluoridation. But they cannot ignore it any longer: the figures of the dental department research team most associated with the promotion of fluoridation in Australia (and beyond) demonstrate that this delay is real.
Less teeth erupted for any given age would mean less surfaces available for tooth decay to have taken place. A delayed eruption of one two years would account for the small reductions claimed in ALL the US and Australian studies published since 1990 (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Slade et al., 1996; Spencer et al., 1996; Armfield et al., 2009; Armfield, 2010). These studies have found reductions ranging from 0.12 of one permanent tooth surfaces saved in Western Australia (Spencer et al., 1996) to 0.6 permanent tooth surface saved in the largest survey ever conducted in the US (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This is not very much when you consider that there are five surfaces to the chewing teeth and four to the cutting teeth, and by the time all the childs teeth have erupted there are a total of 128 tooth surfaces. One tooth surface saved amounts to less than 1% of all the surfaces in a childs mouth. Now even this small benefit has evaporated.
More on the history.
In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australias peak Medical Research body, stated that, evidence exists that tooth eruption is delayed in fluoridated areas. It has been suggested that a proper comparison of caries rates should involve children one year older in fluoridated areas than in non- fluoridated areas.
In 2000, the York Review pointed out that none of the studies that they had reviewed had controlled for "the number of erupted teeth per child (McDonagh et al., 2000, p.24).
In 2005, Komarek et al. did control for eruption of teeth and reported no difference in decay between children living in Belgium receiving fluoride supplements (and those who werent) that was relatable to fluoride exposure (as measured by the severity of dental fluorosis).
In 2009, Peiris et al. reported that children in largely fluoridated Australia had a delay in "dental age" of 0.82 years compared to children in largely unfluoridated UK. However, the authors did not discuss the possible reasons for this delay and the number of children involved in the study (about 80 in each country) was not very large.
2011. Now the bombshell the delay has been found and it is in the official statistics. ARCPOH has failed to respond to several inquiries on this matter. According to Haines, Surely, this must end water fluoridation. If it doesn't work what's the point of putting this toxic substance into the drinking water and what reason can they possibly have for forcing it on people who dont want it?
However, this isn't just about teeth. The finding could be even more significant than that. If fluoride causes a delayed eruption of the teeth then the most likely mechanism for doing so is fluoride's ability to lower thyroid function (see chapter 8 in the 2006 National Research Council review, Fluoride in Drinking Water. According to Connett, Lowered thyroid function in infants would mean slower growth of their tissues and could explain the 24 studies that have found an association between lowered IQ in children and exposure to moderate levels of fluoride in China, India, Iran and Mexico.
It also raises the possibility that millions of people in fluoridated countries suffering from hypothyroidism have had this condition caused, or exacerbated, by exposure to fluoridated water. Haines asks If ingesting fluoride delays tooth eruption for 1 to 2 years what other effects is it having on our bodies?
Meanwhile, if swallowing fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, why would any reasonable person, decision maker or regulatory official continue to sanction adding fluoride to the public water supply?
Australian media contacts mobiles - 0418 777 112 and 0403029077
Media Release sent by Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc
24 February 2011
"Swallow Fluoride at Your Own Peril - Study Shows Risks without Benefits"
NEW YORK, Feb. 24, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Low-income children who consumed recommended fluoride doses have more fluoride-damaged teeth and high cavity rates, according to research published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, January 2011.
Fluoride (hydrofluosilicic acid) is added to U.S. water supplies in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay. However, in Mexico fluoride is added to salt because water fluoride levels are low.
Mexican preschoolers and school-aged children in a low-income area were measured for cavities, fluorosis (fluoride-discolored teeth) and urine fluoride levels.
Despite urinary excretion within an optimal fluoride intake range, 78% of 4- to 5-year-olds and 73% of 11- to 12-year-olds have cavities while 60% of the older children have dental fluorosis.
In this study, dental fluorosis was significantly associated with the amount of toothpaste used, age and frequency of brushing. Three-fourths of the parents used fluoridated salt for cooking.
Fluoride was measured in bottled water, juices, nectars and carbonated drinks (range 0.08 ppm to 1.70 ppm)
The researchers report that "the results of previous studies show that the consumption of fluoridated water in addition to fluoride-containing products may promote an increased development of dental fluorosis lesions, even in people living in regions considered to be non-endemic areas."
"Legislators cavalierly order fluoride into the bodies of American children without considering their individual total fluoride intake, clearly causing potential harm," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. "Legislators who vote for fluoridation often base their decision on hearsay and fail to look at the science behind fluoridation."
The researchers stress individual variables be considered before fluoride is administered such as nutritional status, total fluoride ingestion and excretion. Also, environment and geographical factors should be evaluated, including location, weather and altitude.
The CDC admits that fluoride's predominant mode of action is topical and that "(t)he 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."
This study adds to a growing body of evidence indicating that fluoride ingestion is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, therefore making water fluoridation an outdated drug delivery system. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html
Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 email@example.com
SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
from the academic medical article : Fluoride Consumption and Its Impact on Oral Health (in Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 148-160) by María Dolores Jiménez-Farfán 1, Juan Carlos Hernández-Guerrero 1,*, Lilia Adriana Juárez-López 2, Luis Fernando Jacinto-Alemán 1 and Javier de la Fuente-Hernández 3.
18 January 2011
- CONTACT: EWG Public Affairs, 202-667-6982 firstname.lastname@example.org; Beyond Pesticides: Jay Feldman, 202-543-5450; Fluoride Action Network: Ellen Connett, 315-379-9200
- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 10, 2011
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today proposed to grant three environmental groups’ petition to end the use of sulfuryl fluoride, an insecticide and food fumigant manufactured by Dow AgroSciences.
The Dow product, approved by EPA as an alternative to methyl bromide, is used on hundreds of food commodities.
Citing concerns about children’s health and noting their current overexposure to fluoride through tap water, EPA’s decision is the second major federal action in three days to address the safety of fluoride for children. On January 7, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed to reduce its recommended maximum level of fluoride in tap water from 1.2 to 0.7 parts per million (ppm), a 42 percent decrease. [from my last post]
08 January 2011
Fluoride in drinking water — credited with dramatically cutting cavities and tooth decay — may now be too much of a good thing. Getting too much of it causes spots on some kids' teeth.
A reported increase in the spotting problem is one reason the federal government will announce Friday it plans to lower the recommended levels for fluoride in water supplies — the first such change in nearly 50 years.
About 2 out of 5 adolescents have tooth streaking or spottiness because of too much fluoride, a surprising government study found recently. In some extreme cases, teeth can even be pitted by the mineral — though many cases are so mild only dentists notice it. The problem is generally considered cosmetic.
Health officials note that most communities have fluoride in their water supplies, and toothpaste has it too. Some kids are even given fluoride supplements.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is announcing a proposal to change the recommended fluoride level to 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. And the Environmental Protection Agency will review whether the maximum cutoff of 4 milligrams per liter is too high.
The standard since 1962 has been a range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the splotchy tooth condition, fluorosis, is unexpectedly common in kids ages 12 through 15. And it appears to have grown much more common since the 1980s.
"One of the things that we're most concerned about is exactly that," said an administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly before the release of the report. The official described the government's plans in an interview with The Associated Press.
But there are other concerns, too. A scientific report five years ago said that people who consume a lifetime of too much fluoride — an amount over EPA's limit of 4 milligrams — can lead to crippling bone abnormalities and brittleness.
That and other research issued Friday by the EPA about health effects of fluoride are sure to re-energize groups that still oppose adding it to water supplies.
The American Dental Association released a statement applauding the government announcement to change fluoride guidance.
Fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in water and soil. About 70 years ago, scientists discovered that people whose supplies naturally had more fluoride also had fewer cavities. Some locales have naturally occurring fluoridation levels above 1.2. Today, most public drinking water is fluoridated, especially in larger cities. An estimated 64 percent of Americans drink fluoridated water.
Portland, Ore., is one of the largest cities that doesn't fluoridate its water.
Bill Zepp of the Oregon Dental Association said the city's anti-fluoridation activists will embrace the recommended fluoride changes "as some type of win."
Maryland is the most fluoridated state, with nearly every resident on a fluoridated system. In contrast, only about 11 percent of Hawaii residents are on fluoridated water, according to government statistics.
Fluoridation has been fought for decades by people who worried about its effects, including conspiracy theorists who feared it was a plot to make people submissive to government power.
Those battles continue.
"It's amazing that people have been so convinced that this is an OK thing to do," said Deborah Catrow said Friday. She successfully fought a ballot proposal in 2005 that would have added fluoride to drinking water in Springfield, Ohio.
Reducing fluoride would be a good start, but she hopes it will be eliminated altogether from municipal water supplies.
Catrow said it was hard standing up to City Hall, the American Dental Association and the state health department. "Anybody who was anti-fluoride was considered crazy at the time," she said.
In New York, the village of Cobleskill in Schoharie County — west of Albany — stopped adding fluoride to its drinking water in 2007 after the longtime water superintendent became convinced the additive was contributing to his knee problems. Two years later, the village reversed the move after dentists and doctors complained.
In March, 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a report recommending that the EPA lower its maximum standard for fluoride in drinking water to below 4 milligrams. The report warned severe fluorosis could occur at 2 milligrams. Also, a majority of the report's authors said a lifetime of drinking water with fluoride at 4 milligrams or higher could raise the risk of broken bones.
Late last year, lawyers for the Fluoride Action Network, Beyond Pesticides, and Environmental Working Group threatened legal action if the EPA did not lower its ceiling on fluoride.
In Europe, fluoride is rarely added to water supplies. In Britain, only about 10 percent of the population has fluoridated water. It's been a controversial issue there, with critics arguing people shouldn't be forced to have "medical treatment" forced on them. In recent years, the UK has tried to add fluoride to communities with the worst dental health but there's still considerable opposition.
In the early years of fluoridation in the United States, the range of levels was created because people in warmer climates drank more water, therefore getting more fluoride than cooler regions. Over time, that difference leveled out with air conditioning, the senior administration official said.
Fluorosis has generally been seen as the primary down side of fluoride.
According to the CDC, nearly 23 percent of children ages 12-15 had fluorosis in a study done in 1986 and 1987. That rose to 41 percent in the more recent study, which covered the years 1999 through 2004.
"We're not necessarily surprised to see this slow rise in mild fluorosis," Dr. William Kohn, director of the CDC's division of oral health, said in a recent interview.
Health officials have hesitated to call it a problem, however. In most kids, it's barely noticeable; even dentists have trouble seeing it, and sometimes don't bother to tell their unknowing patients.
Meanwhile, the U.S. prevalence of tooth decay in at least one tooth among teens has declined from about 90 percent to 60 percent. Health officials call water fluoridation one of the 10 greatest public health accomplishments of the last century.
"One of water fluoridation's biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a community — at home, work, school, or play. And fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing tooth decay is not limited to children, but extends throughout life, resulting in improved oral health," said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Howard Koh, in a statement.
Indeed, many health leaders continue to be worried about cavities, particularly among poor families with kids who eat a lot of sweets but don't get much dental care.
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius could make a final decision on details of the changes within a few months, the administration official said.