It was the whole "suffer the children" argument that was used against my anti-fluoride presentation to the Durango City Water Council in the late 00's, by a rep from the CO Dept of Public Health, and a local dentist. They had absolutely nothing but anecdotes to compete with, against the concerning conclusions from a swath of scientific journal articles I presented, and went for the sweet tooth of all the folks working on that board, by giving skewed non-academic bivariate statistics on the prevalence of cavities in low-income local Native American children - purporting that worsening conditions would affect them (and the rest of the local population) if we stopped fluoridating the water supply. And now what?
Fluoridation Useless for Low-Income Children, Federal Data Shows
NEW YORK, Aug. 30, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- CDC 2011/2012 statistics reveal low-income children's tooth decay rates are increasing substantially - despite record numbers of children served fluoride from water, foods, dental products andmedicines causing an overall alarming surge in fluoride-overdose symptoms – dental fluorosis (discolored teeth), reports theNew York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)
Previous cavity rates (NHANES III 1988-1994) for similar children's primary teeth were much lower - 30% of 2-5 year-olds; 42% of 6-12 year-olds and 34% of 15-18 year-olds' permanent teeth.
"Claims that poor children need fluoride are without merit or evidence," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "It's the dental care delivery system that needs fixing. Low-income Americans need dental care not fluoride."
"By focusing on fluoridation instead of diet and dentist-access, organized dentistry allowed a national dental health crisis to occur on its watch and created a new one – dental fluorosis," says dentist David Kennedy, past-president of IAOMT (International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology). "It's reckless to allow organized dentistry to vouch for fluoride safety. Adverse health effects, outside of the oral cavity from ingested fluoride, are not within the purview of dentistry, according to the California Board of Dental Examiners."
Claims that stopping fluoridation would raise tooth decay rates are disproved by several studies.
a
American University, Department of Chemistry, 4400 Massachusetts Ave.,
N.W., Washington, DC,. USA
b
4 Glenwood Terrace, Averill Park, NY, USA
Abstract
Water fluoridation
programs in the United States and other countries which have them use either
sodium fluoride (NaF), hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) or the sodium salt of that
acid (NaSF), all technical grade chemicals to adjust the fluoride level in
drinking water to about 0.7–1 mg/L. In this paper we estimate the comparative
overall cost for U.S. society between using cheaper industrial grade HFSA as the
principal fluoridating agent versus using more costly pharmaceutical grade (U.S.
Pharmacopeia – USP) NaF. USP NaF is used in toothpaste.HFSA, a liquid, contains significant amounts
of arsenic (As). HFSA and NaSF have been shown to leach lead (Pb) from
water delivery plumbing, while NaF has been shown not to do so. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) health-based drinking water standards
for As and Pb are zero.Our focus was on
comparing the social costs associated with the difference in numbers of cancer
cases arising from As during use of HFSA as fluoridating agent versus
substitution of USP grade NaF. We calculated the amount of As delivered
to fluoridated water systems using each agent, and used EPA Unit Risk values for
As to estimate the number of lung and bladder cancer cases associated with each.
We used cost of cancer cases published by EPA to estimate cost of treating lung
and bladder cancer cases. Commercial prices of HFSA and USP NaF were used to
compare costs of using each to fluoridate. We then compared the total cost to
our society for the use of HFSA versus USP NaF as fluoridating agent. The U.S. could save $1 billion to more than $5
billion/year by using USP NaF in place of HFSA while simultaneously mitigating
the pain and suffering of citizens that result from use of the technical grade
fluoridating agents.Other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand,
Canada and Australia that use technical grade fluoridating agents may realize
similar benefits by making this change. Policy makers would have to confront the
uneven distribution of costs and benefits across societies if this change were
made.
Fluorosis and Dental Caries in
Mexican Schoolchildren Residing in Areas with Different Water Fluoride
Concentrations and Receiving Fluoridated Salt by García-Pérez A. · Irigoyen-Camacho M.E.
· Borges-Yáñez A.
Abstract
Objective: To
explore the association between fluoride in drinking water and the prevalence
and severity of fluorosis and dental caries in children living in communities
receiving fluoridated salt.
Material and
Methods: Participants were schoolchildren (n = 457) living in two rural
areas of the State of Morelos, Mexico, where the water fluoride concentration
was 0.70 or 1.50 ppm. Dental caries status was assessed using Pitts’ criteria.
Lesions that were classified as D3 (decayed) were identified to
determine the decayed, missing, and filled teeth index (D3MFT).
Fluorosis was assessed using the Thylstrup-Fejerskov Index (TFI). Information
regarding drinking water source and oral hygiene practices (tooth brushing
frequency, dentifrice use, and oral hygiene index) was obtained.
Results: The
prevalence of fluorosis (TFI ≥1) in communities with 0.70 and 1.50 ppm water
fluoride was 39.4 and 60.5% (p = 0.014), respectively, while the prevalence of
more severe forms (TFI ≥4) was 7.9 and 25.5% (p < 0.001), respectively. The
mean D3MFT was 0.49 (±1.01) in the 0.70 ppm community and 0.61
(±1.47) in the 1.50 ppm community (p = 0.349). A logistic regression model for
caries (D3 >1) showed that higher fluorosis categories (TFI 5–6 OR
= 6.81, p = 0.001) were associated with higher caries experience, adjusted by
age, number of teeth present, tooth brushing frequency, bottled water use, and
natural water fluoride concentration.
Conclusions:
The prevalence of fluorosis was associated with the water fluoride
concentration. Fluorosis at moderate and severe levels was associated with a
higher prevalence of dental caries, compared with lesser degrees of fluorosis.
The impact of dental fluorosis should be considered in dental public health
programs.
Yikes. We know that fluoride bonds with all sorts of otherwise ... erm... non-toxic... minerals (and chemicals?) in the water supply after it is added. What about toxic waste?
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 child’s 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 child’s mouth. Now even this small benefit has evaporated.
More on the history.
In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia’s 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 weren’t) 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 don’t 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
"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."
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.
"Abstract: Objective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate caries and dental fluorosis among Mexican preschoolers and school-aged children in a non-endemic zone for fluorosis and to measure its biological indicators. Methods. DMFT, DMFS, dmft, dmfs, and CDI indexes were applied. Fluoride urinary excretion and fluoride concentrations in home water, table salt, bottled water, bottled drinks, and toothpaste were determined. Results. Schoolchildren presented fluorosis (CDI = 0.96) and dental caries (DMFT = 2.64 and DMFS = 3.97). Preschoolers presented dmft = 4.85 and dmfs = 8.80. DMFT and DMFS were lower in children with mild to moderate dental fluorosis (DF). Variable fluoride concentrations were found in the analyzed products (home water = 0.18–0.44 ppm F, table salt = 0–485 ppm F, bottled water = 0.18–0.47 ppm F, juices = 0.08–1.42 ppm F, nectars = 0.07–1.30 ppm F, bottled drinks = 0.10–1.70 ppm F, toothpaste = 0–2,053 ppm F). Mean daily fluoride excretion was 422 ± 176 μg/24 h for schoolchildren and 367 ± 150 μg/24 h for preschoolers. Conclusions. Data from our study show that, despite values of excretion within an optimal fluoride intake range, the prevalence of caries was significant in both groups, and 60% of the 11- to 12-year-old children presented with dental fluorosis. In addition, variable fluoride concentrations in products frequently consumed by children were found."
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]
Associated Press writers Maria Cheng in London, John Seewer in Toledo, David B. Caruso in New York and Dina Cappiello in Washington, D.C., and Nigel Duara in Portland, Ore., contributed to this report
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.
In a study that the authors describe as lending credence to the idiom, "by the skin of your teeth," scientists are reporting that the protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. It raises questions about how this renowned cavity-fighter really works and could lead to better ways of protecting teeth from decay, the scientists suggest. Their study appears in ACS' journal Langmuir.
Frank Müller and colleagues point out that tooth decay is a major public health problem worldwide. In the United States alone, consumers spend more than $50 billion each year on the treatment of cavities. The fluoride in some toothpaste, mouthwash and municipal drinking water is one of the most effective ways to prevent decay. Scientists long have known that fluoride makes enamel — the hard white substance covering the surface of teeth — more resistant to decay. Some thought that fluoride simply changed the main mineral in enamel, hydroxyapatite, into a more-decay resistant material called fluorapatite.
The new research found that the fluorapatite layer formed in this way is only 6 nanometers thick. It would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. That's at least 10 times thinner than previous studies indicated. The scientists question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay, or whether fluoride has some other unrecognized effect on tooth enamel. They are launching a new study in search of an answer.
###
The authors acknowledge support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Saarland Ministry of Finances.
ARTICLE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE "Elemental Depth Profiling of Fluoridated Hydroxyapatite: Saving Your Dentition by the Skin of Your Teeth?"
Make your vote by actions! Take part in this nationwide government-level forum to remove toxic materials from our PWSs (Public Water Supplies) everywhere!
(from the EPA, per the linked forum site:)
Today, we are detecting new contaminants in drinking water at a much faster rate than we are addressing them. We have begun efforts to define approaches to address groups of contaminants that will be more efficient and keep pace with the increasing knowledge we have about chemicals in our products, our environment, and our bodies. We are looking for ideas to develop a framework that can be used to address the contaminants as groups. For example, a framework to define groups of contaminants could be based on similar health effects, co-occurrence in the environment or public water systems, comparable analytical methods, and/or related drinking water treatment. Frameworks based on one or more of these examples may be appropriate for different groups of contaminants.
What are some potential approaches for addressing contaminants as groups?
If you or your organization has experience addressing groups of contaminants, what factors have you considered that worked and which factors have not worked?
Have you identified potential group(s) of contaminants and what challenges or questions have you encountered in identifying potential group(s)?
What are some of the key scientific and implementation aspects that EPA should consider as we move forward?
Can you provide examples of contaminant groups that may present a meaningful opportunity to protect public health and reduce risk?
America is just about to one-up this intelligent decision, of course...
"Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods. That is the decision of the European Court of Justice, in a landmark case dealing with the classification and regulation of 'functional drinks' in member states of the European Community. "
‘‘In our study of people’s health in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, we found that the bones of those who consumed water and beverages containing high fluorine density over a long time could develop a propensity to break,’’ Shimmura said. ‘‘They are not in any immediate risk. However, it is desirable that a standard be set and displayed for tea drinks.’’
California Victory: Fluoride makes it into the TOP 9 of chemicals to be reviewed under Proposition 65
So pat yourself on the back if you sent in comments to the OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). This was a mighty victory and could well spell the end of fluoridation if the Carcinogen Identification Committee eventually rules that fluoride is a probable carcinogen.
(abstract from: Medical Hypotheses, Volume 72, Issue 5, Pages 501-503; K. Zachariassen, T. Flaten.)
"East African immigrants to Scandinavia are admitted to mental hospitals far more frequently than native Scandinavians. Most of these patients are admitted for psychosis, commonly ascribed to problems adapting to the new culture. However, psychosis is also known to be associated with hyperthyroidism, and the high frequency of psychosis among East Africans in Scandinavia may at least in part be due to hyperthyroidism rather than cultural problems. Large areas in East Africa are notorious for high natural concentrations of fluoride in water and plants. Fluoride inhibits the production of thyroid hormones. To maintain normal thyroxin levels the body increases the capacity for thyroxin production. Goitre is caused by such a compensatory mechanism, and endemic goitre is widespread in many high-fluoride areas, even where dietary access to iodine is adequate. When people from such areas arrive in a low-fluoride area, their elevated capacity to produce thyroid hormones may lead to hyperthyroidism and subsequently to psychosis."
~~~~~~~
I can say from personal experience, as one who was exposed to heavy amounts of sodium fluoride (the standard) throughout his life until 46 months ago, that leaving a F- rich environment, and attempting to remove it completely from the diet by eating 'naturally,' is a surefire way to undergo some interesting mental and physical changes over the course of a couple years. At least. Although far healthier than I've ever been before, I am now incredibly sensitive to the 'fluoride response' when I consume it via the city water, or via inorganic foods which have usually been sprayed by fluoride pesticides (which are the most common). I usually take kelp (for the iodine), calcium (to bond the F-), and iron pills with me whenever I travel. Some fluoride stil enters my diet through groundwater uptake into vegetables, grains, and fruits; and, by way of reconstitution into muscle mass from grazing foods by the animals and animal products I consume. Without those minimal sources, I'd probably have flipped my wig by now, too! I seriously despise the idea of being so biochemically attached to something just because it was a cofactor in my developmental stages -- it is thenceforth my body's expectations to consume it somewhat regularly -- and, that I must wait a total of 7 years to replace bodily cells for a true and complete acclimation to a regimen without it. Akin to quitting smoking (of which I've just hit my 8 year mark). I've been running 4, so far; 3 more to go, but I still haven't removed it completely from my diet. How can I?
And you know, I am not the only one who's had to undergo this genetic engineering experiment:
Hey "pro" fluoridationists! Save face and read this!
(from Fluoride Journal, by The International Society for Fluoride Research: Fluoride [Fluoride]. Vol. 41, no. 3, p. 253. Jul-Sep 2008.)
"The US National Research Council (2006) concluded that fluoride is an endocrine disrupter: normal endocrine function or response in humans is altered by exposure to fluoride. The major effects examined to date include alterations of thyroid function, calcium metabolism, pineal function, and glucose metabolism. Both direct and indirect mechanisms of action appear likely, including direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes necessary for activation of a normal hormone. People with reduced thyroid function are at higher risk of clinical hypothyroidism and cardiac disease, among other things. In particular, reduced thyroid function in a pregnant woman, even if asymptomatic, can result in lowered IQ of her offspring. Fluoride exposure results in an increased requirement for calcium and a higher risk for calcium deficiency and consequent problems. Altered pineal function could impact a number of bodily processes or systems, including calcium metabolism, bone growth, and central nervous system function. Fluoride exposure appears to result in increased blood glucose levels or impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals. Also, diabetic individuals often have higher than normal intake of drinking water and consequent higher fluoride exposures. Many endocrine effects are associated with fluoride intakes in the range typically observed in the U.S. In general, adverse effects are more likely in the presence of dietary deficiencies (e.g., iodine or calcium). The increasing "epidemics" of thyroid disease, diabetes, and other health problems in the U.S. warrant examination of the possible role of nearly universal exposure of the population to fluoride.Reference: National Research Council (2006). Fluoride in Drinking water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press."
Hmmmmmm. Not looking good! What happens when people start consulting their health insurance companies and lawyers and OSHA and more? I'd say to change your mind quick.
Oh, and then, straight from the JADA (Journal of the American Dental Association) and the CDC:
"In the earliest days of fluoride research, investigators hypothesized that fluoride affects enamel and inhibits dental caries only when incorporated into developing dental enamel (i.e., preeruptively, before the tooth erupts into the mouth) (30,31). Evidence supports this hypothesis (32--34), but distinguishing a true preeruptive effect after teeth erupt into a mouth where topical fluoride exposure occurs regularly is difficult. However, a high fluoride concentration in sound enamel cannot alone explain the marked reduction in dental caries that fluoride produces (35,36). The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel (37), and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries (38).
The laboratory and epidemiologic research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates thatfluoride's predominant effect is posteruptive andtopicaland that the effect depends on fluoride being in the right amount in the right place at the right time. Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva (37). Thus, adults also benefit from fluoride, rather than only children, as was previously assumed."
Might it help much to understand that silico-fluorides are bactericidal?Like regular old saltwater gargle is, in fact?
Mmmmmm... yeah. About that. BEING THAT FLUORIDE IS TOPICAL, one could surmount a gigantic and firestorm argument against proponents of said mass medication (being that, indeed, it is medicinally applied for human consumption), SUGGESTIVE THAT WE ALL SIMPLY BRUSH OUR TEETH REGULARLY.
Wall Street Journal covered this whole problem back in 1998... what the heck is going on???
It seems that this has become a battle with the Department of Health here in CO, because if your city opts out of the fluoridation program, it opts out of all CDOH programs. Gosh. Whatever would they need to be so stringent for? That's not terribly malignant/sketchy at all. Quote (from CDPHE):
"Community Water Fluoridation within the state of Colorado is not regulated or non-enforceable. However, all US Environmental Protection Agency rules and regulations apply to the Community Water Fluoridation Program just as they normally would if not adjusting, or managing the natural fluoride levels found in all water sources. Communities can volunteer into the program by Mayoral delegation, Council or Board Decision, or even by public vote. Once a community volunteers to provide the great public health benefit that comes from having optimal levels of fluoride in their public water, the community agrees to participate fully in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment program."
I actually sent the below message, via email, to the Durango City Water Board before the newspaper article even came out... which is republished through the last post ("the prior" I spoke of above).
6 January 2009
To All Water Commission Board Members,
I am writing this letter to you as a review, for important consideration, regarding the pro-fluoride presentation given on January 5th this year by the CO Department of Health.I will simply address a few topics identified at that meeting, and then ask questions and/or assert data about proclamations made and crucial information which was left out of this presentation.
* If, as explained, and made known by the WHO, community DTMF levels are decreasing everywhere, no matter the level of fluoride, then precisely what quantitative purpose does fluoride serve?
* If, as explained, the NAS report covered “mainly naturally occurring fluoride” in their report, and if, as known by the ACS, sodium fluoride ion is quite different from calcium fluoride ion (with 80x the human danger), would this mean that artificial fluoridation is much more able to affect physiological systems?
* If, as admitted, the levels of fluoride obtained in food (mainly from fluoride pesticides) are well above and beyond the levels ‘optimal’ for treatment of dental caries, and, as admitted, fluoride is systemic and bio-accumulative – always excreting in the saliva and stored in bones as a replacement of vital calcium -- why fluoridate at all??And, moreover, what does this say for the percentage charts regarding periods of non-fluoridation in certain areas; if fluoride is supposed to help us systemically, then why, when it is still in people’s bodies as an accumulative contaminant, would the absence of merely topical treatment affect the decline of caries so much??Does this prove that it truly is topical, as the JADA report states?
* Even if osteosarcoma is not studied well enough as relative to fluoride, which it may or may not be, the documented affects of fluoride on human thyroid systems is well known as far back as 1869 – and, in fact, simple sodium fluoride at levels no greater than 2mg per day (2 liters of water) were used through the 1970s in America as a hyperthyroid treatment.The FDA has never since regulated fluoride chemicals as pharmaceutical grade medicine, making them simple industrial waste byproducts instead, and, the EPA continues to consider fluoride a “contaminant.”In as such, should everybody be treated the same and be forced to take a large dose of thyroid-suppressing chemical every single day that they drink water in their home town?Even the NAS report has given this alone as a reason, amongst myriad studies, for the public to be seriously concerned with PWS fluoridation; further research, before any more continuance of fluoridation practices, was suggested in this voluminous record.
* At the start, fluoride was called “essential.”This is not true, as no country has listed fluoride as an essential nutrient, and, in fact, it is rather considered an EPA regulated toxin.Dental health can be perfect without any fluoride - even calcium fluoride - in the water (anthropological fact).
* The newest article in November by the Journal of Health Dentistry, made the scientific adjustment to literature suggesting that the term “optimal” be removed from fluoride applications entirely.
* The claim that milder forms of dental fluorosis have no clinical significance… is there proof of that?
* ”No health effects have been documented related to fluoride.”This statement is entirely contrary to the truth, in many countries of the world – including the USA.
* If fluorosis is evident, and connections can be made to reductions in hip fractures dependent upon consumption of fluoride, can fluoride, as a bone matrix mutagen, cause marrow – and therefore protoplasmic (like the AMA claim in 1943) or immune system - imbalances?
* Good for developing children??FDA and ADA have now laid claim that no child under 6 should even come near fluoride consumptives!
* Fluoride is bactericidal – could it be that this is the main mode of any sort of caries prevention; would this effect be the same as organic lifestyle tea-drinking & vegetable dietary prevalence?
* Why were hardly any health effects regarded, aside from osteosarcoma and fluorosis, at the presentation?Why are dentists allowed to decide upon a drug that we are all mass medicated by?How does the dental health benefit, if it exists at all, outweigh the nature of systemic toxic effects on human neuro-physiological systems??Opponents of fluoridation don’t majorly focus on whether or not fluoride helps caries; they focus on systemic bodily tolerances and reactions.Heavily diluted hydrogen peroxide, too, can prevent caries and mouth infections, but nobody is drinking it – each bottle of the substance is labeled with “drug facts” because of its capable negative side effects, just like toothpaste.Who has the licensure to mass medicate society without consent or against educated protest?
With Respect in Duty,
Kairologic
ps: I am a little creeped out when I think of how the biological, paleoanthropological, and forensics sciences all use (from time to time) a method of relative dating which utilizes Fluoride-Nitrogen ratio differences in bone remains. The older the bone remains are, generally, the less nitrogen (and calcium) they contain and the more fluoride (from ground sources only) it is all replaced with. As I'd mentioned above, chemical history has it that the anthropological record, up to the last hundred years or so, can use such methods for dating the deceased. Can it any longer? Now that, as Theresa Anselmo (director of the oral health unit at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) and local Durango dentist Ryan Mickelson mentioned, "sodium fluoride readily replaces calcium in bones;" might we all appear as walking dead, by these standards?
Durango, Colorado is a pretty health-wise town... except that its officials have failed to cease their addition of neuro-toxins into the drinking water. Telluride has done it already. Pagosa Springs has done it already. Colorado Springs has done it. Heck, Cortez has done it!!! Why are we at the end of the rope? This city is not run by fools. The ordeal here is just a matter of rallying the public to make water fluoridation an unmistakable issue to be resolved immediately. This blogspot is not just an information source -- it is a forum for Durango locals to unite en masse and contribute, individually and collectively, their civil licensure to fight against mass medication. Jump on! Leave comments in any of the blogs herein, with your Gmail account, or "anonymously," to connect with others who are doing the same. And write the local papers about it! Tell your friends, family, and coworkers! Spread flyers, made available from organizations linked below! Protect the people.
