by 'the skin of the teeth'

[ excerpted in entirety from Eurekalert.org ]

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?"

DOWNLOAD FULL TEXT ARTICLE HERE

CONTACT:
Frank Müller, Ph.D.
Experimental Physics
Saarland University
Saarbrücken, Germany
Phone: (0681) 302 - 704 79
Fax: (0681) 302 - 704 1999
Email: f.mueller@mx.uni-saarland.de

Sodium Fluoride MSDS

SAFETY FIRST!

Click [this] to get your free Sodium Fluoride MSDS.

EPA's new "Drinking Water Strategy Discussion Forum"

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?

You want fluoride out? Say so. Bring the facts.

JADA Study Proves Fluoridation is Money down the Drain

And again! What has the ADA got on this? Nothing but lawyers and misinformation. (they are a company, not a policy leader)

" "Children's cavity rates are similar whether water is fluoridated or not, according to data published in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association by dentist J.V. Kumar of the NY State Health Department(1), reports NYSCOF.

In 2008, New York City spent approximately $24 million on water fluoridation ($5 million on fluoride chemicals)(1a). In 2010, NYC's fluoride chemicals will cost $9 million(1b)." "

" "It's criminal to waste taxpayers' money on fluoridation, while exposing entire populations unnecessarily to fluoride's health risks, especially when local and state governments are attempting to balance budgets by cutting essential services," says Beeber." "

Light and Truth.

But hey. The ADA would like to say that "Some individuals mistakenly use the term "artificial fluoridation" to imply that the process of water fluoridation is unnatural and that it delivers a foreign substance into a water supply when, in fact, all water sources contain some fluoride," [when actually], "Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Therefore, the effect on the entire body will be different."

European Court Ruling Spells an End to Water Fluoridation.

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. "

UK Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF)

Fluoride in Tea Weakens Bones

‘‘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.’’

Japan Today

Have... some of THIS!

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.

The paper (by the): Environmental Working Group

And more here: Fluoride Action Network

Light and Truth,
Kairologic