Fluoridation: The Fraud of the Century
Fluoridation
is not about “children’s teeth,” it is about industry getting rid of
its hazardous waste at a profit, instead of having to pay a fortune to
dispose of it.
Only calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water; however, that type of fluoride has never been used for fluoridation. Instead what is used over 90 percent of the time are silicofluorides, which are 85 times more toxic than calcium fluoride.
They are non-biodegradable, hazardous waste products that come straight from the pollution scrubbers of big industries. If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2
The EPA has recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3
On July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.”4
The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to hear the results.5
Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5
The recent California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California children have less tooth decay than the national average.6
From the day the Public Health Service completed their original 10-year Newburgh and Kingston fluoridation experiment, fluoride promoters have repeatedly claimed that fluoride added to drinking water can reduce tooth decay by as much as 60 to 70 percent.
Adding fluoride to the water has never prevented tooth decay, it merely delays it, by provoking a genetic malfunction that causes teeth to erupt later than normal. This delay makes it possible to read the statistics incorrectly without lying. Proponents count teeth that have not yet erupted as “no decay.” Therefore, they claimed that the fluoridated Newburgh children age 6 had 100 percent less tooth decay; by age 7, 100 percent less; by age 8, 67 percent less; age 9, 50 percent less; and by age 10, 40 percent less.
Obviously, the only reduction that really counted was the 40 percent by age 10, but the Public Health Service totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70 percent.”
Had the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30, 20, 0, and eventually the children drinking fluoridated water had more cavities–not less. The rate of decay is identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. In other words, this “65 percent less dental decay” is just a statistical illusion. It never happened!7
EPA scientists recently concluded, after studying all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylatically useless. . . substance.” They felt there should be “an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.” Unfortunately, the management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue.8
There is less tooth decay in the nation as a whole today than there used to be, but decay rates have also dropped in the non-fluoridated areas of the United States and in Europe where fluoridation of water is rare. The Pasteur Institute and the Nobel Institute have already caused fluoride to be banned in their countries (France and Sweden). In fact, most developed countries have banned, stopped or rejected fluoridation.9
Several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher rather than lower rates of caries. There has been no study that shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by a Rand corporation study and found to be “simply not warranted by available evidence.”10In fact, dentists make 17 percent more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.11 There are no savings.
Meanwhile, the incidence of dental fluorosis has skyrocketed. It is not just a “cosmetic effect.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary says: “Fluorosis is poisoning by fluorides.” Today, in North America, there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15 percent to 65 percent in fluoridated areas and 5 percent to 40 percent in non-fluoridated areas.12 African-American children experience twice the rate of dental fluorosis as white children and it tends to be more severe.13 The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities) is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population.
A 1995 American Dental Association (ADA) chart shows that a certain fluoride drug should not be given to children under six months of age. It also shows that if fluoride is put into water, all children under six years of age will be getting an overdose.14
The FDA states that fluoride is a prescription drug, not a mineral nutrient. Who has the right to put a prescription drug in the water supply where there can be no control of dosage? People who drink a lot of water, like diabetics and athletes, will be overdosed, and studies have proven that 1 percent of the people are allergic to fluoridated water. Today, an unusual number of children in non-fluoridated areas are developing dental fluorosis!
Even if fluoride were good for teeth, shouldn’t the water be as safe as possible for everyone? Why should those who are against it be forced to drink it? What has happened to “Freedom of Choice?” We all know that fluoride is not “just one of forty chemicals used to treat water,” it is the only chemical added to treat the people! It is compulsory medication, which is unconstitutional. There are other alternatives that do not infringe on the rights of all consumers to choose their own form of medication.16
When the people have been given a chance to vote on this issue, more often than not, they have voted “no.” In the majority of cases, nationwide, it is the local city council that has forced it on the people. Fluoride promoters find it much easier to convince a few city council members than the general public. Here in America, we shouldn’t have to fight to keep a hazardous waste out of our water supply!
Bottom line: There are no benefits to fluoridation. We actually pay the phosphate fertilizer industries for their crude hazardous waste. Fluoridation contributes to many health problems and hither dental bills, and causes more (not less) suffering. Only big business wins with fluoridation–not our children (or us).
On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. Impossible? No, it’s not–look at how many years millions of Americans were fooled by the tobacco industries!
References
Only calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water; however, that type of fluoride has never been used for fluoridation. Instead what is used over 90 percent of the time are silicofluorides, which are 85 times more toxic than calcium fluoride.
They are non-biodegradable, hazardous waste products that come straight from the pollution scrubbers of big industries. If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2
The EPA has recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3
On July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.”4
The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to hear the results.5
Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5
The recent California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California children have less tooth decay than the national average.6
From the day the Public Health Service completed their original 10-year Newburgh and Kingston fluoridation experiment, fluoride promoters have repeatedly claimed that fluoride added to drinking water can reduce tooth decay by as much as 60 to 70 percent.
Adding fluoride to the water has never prevented tooth decay, it merely delays it, by provoking a genetic malfunction that causes teeth to erupt later than normal. This delay makes it possible to read the statistics incorrectly without lying. Proponents count teeth that have not yet erupted as “no decay.” Therefore, they claimed that the fluoridated Newburgh children age 6 had 100 percent less tooth decay; by age 7, 100 percent less; by age 8, 67 percent less; age 9, 50 percent less; and by age 10, 40 percent less.
Obviously, the only reduction that really counted was the 40 percent by age 10, but the Public Health Service totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70 percent.”
Had the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30, 20, 0, and eventually the children drinking fluoridated water had more cavities–not less. The rate of decay is identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. In other words, this “65 percent less dental decay” is just a statistical illusion. It never happened!7
EPA scientists recently concluded, after studying all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylatically useless. . . substance.” They felt there should be “an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.” Unfortunately, the management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue.8
There is less tooth decay in the nation as a whole today than there used to be, but decay rates have also dropped in the non-fluoridated areas of the United States and in Europe where fluoridation of water is rare. The Pasteur Institute and the Nobel Institute have already caused fluoride to be banned in their countries (France and Sweden). In fact, most developed countries have banned, stopped or rejected fluoridation.9
Several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher rather than lower rates of caries. There has been no study that shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by a Rand corporation study and found to be “simply not warranted by available evidence.”10In fact, dentists make 17 percent more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.11 There are no savings.
Meanwhile, the incidence of dental fluorosis has skyrocketed. It is not just a “cosmetic effect.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary says: “Fluorosis is poisoning by fluorides.” Today, in North America, there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15 percent to 65 percent in fluoridated areas and 5 percent to 40 percent in non-fluoridated areas.12 African-American children experience twice the rate of dental fluorosis as white children and it tends to be more severe.13 The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities) is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population.
A 1995 American Dental Association (ADA) chart shows that a certain fluoride drug should not be given to children under six months of age. It also shows that if fluoride is put into water, all children under six years of age will be getting an overdose.14
The FDA states that fluoride is a prescription drug, not a mineral nutrient. Who has the right to put a prescription drug in the water supply where there can be no control of dosage? People who drink a lot of water, like diabetics and athletes, will be overdosed, and studies have proven that 1 percent of the people are allergic to fluoridated water. Today, an unusual number of children in non-fluoridated areas are developing dental fluorosis!
Even if fluoride were good for teeth, shouldn’t the water be as safe as possible for everyone? Why should those who are against it be forced to drink it? What has happened to “Freedom of Choice?” We all know that fluoride is not “just one of forty chemicals used to treat water,” it is the only chemical added to treat the people! It is compulsory medication, which is unconstitutional. There are other alternatives that do not infringe on the rights of all consumers to choose their own form of medication.16
When the people have been given a chance to vote on this issue, more often than not, they have voted “no.” In the majority of cases, nationwide, it is the local city council that has forced it on the people. Fluoride promoters find it much easier to convince a few city council members than the general public. Here in America, we shouldn’t have to fight to keep a hazardous waste out of our water supply!
Bottom line: There are no benefits to fluoridation. We actually pay the phosphate fertilizer industries for their crude hazardous waste. Fluoridation contributes to many health problems and hither dental bills, and causes more (not less) suffering. Only big business wins with fluoridation–not our children (or us).
On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. Impossible? No, it’s not–look at how many years millions of Americans were fooled by the tobacco industries!
References
- George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22, 1991.
- R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) EPA/NSF Standard 60.
- San Diego Union Tribune, May 25, 2000, “EPA proposes stricter rules for arsenic levels in water supplies,” and Associated Press, Jan. 17, 2001, “EPA Orders Sharp Reduction in Arsenic Levels in Drinking Water,” by H. Josef Hebert.
- Letter of July 2, 1997, from J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. to Jeff Green. The union (now NTEU, Chapter 280) consists of and represents all of the toxicologists, chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters, Washington, D.C.
- “New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits,” by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989. “Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children,” Jayanth V. Kumar, D.D.S., M.P.H.; Elmer L. Green, D.D.S., M.P.H., Pediatric Dentistry, Feb. 1998.
- San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
- Konstatin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, “Fluoridation Benefits–Statistical Illusion,” testimony before the New York City Board of Estimate, Mar. 6, 1957.
- J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” May 1, 1999.
- Mark Diesendorf, “The mystery of declining tooth decay,” Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29.
- “The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation,” John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995.
- The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.
- K.E. Heller, et al, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997.
- National Research Council, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” 1993, p. 44.
- Pediatrics, May 1998, Vol. 95, Number 5.
- Food and Drug Administration letter dated Aug. 15, 1963.
- Abbot Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, IL, June 18, 1963.
Anita Shattuck
Anita
Shattuck is working to oppose the fluoridation of water supplies in
Escondido, California. She can be reached at (760) 752-1621. Other
fluoridation battles are currently taking place in Santa Monica, CA and
in the state of Ohio. For further information contact Citizens for Safe
Drinking Water (800)-728-3833, GreenJeff (at) home.com. For "50 Reasons
to Oppose Fluoridation," by Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University, NY 13617, see http://www.fluoridealert.org.
© 2015 The Weston A. Price Foundation for Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts.
In regard to this collection of misinformation by Ms. Shattuck:
ReplyDelete1. Calcium fluoride does not occur "naturally", or otherwise in water. As groundwater flows over rocks, it picks up fluoride ions leached from calcium fluoride and fluorosilicates in those rocks. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being "naturally occurring" fluoride. The substance most frequently utilized to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). When HFA is added to drinking water, due to the pH of that water, the HFA immediately and completely hydrolyzes (dissociates) into fluoride ions, identical to those "naturally occurring" fluoride ions, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts which fall far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels. After this point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is of no concern, whatsoever. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. Elementary chemistry.
----Reexamination of Hexafluorosilicate Hydrolysis By F NMR and pH Measurement
William F. Finney, Erin Wilson, Andrew Callender, Michael D. Morris, and Larry W. Beck
Environmental Science and Technology/ Vol 40, No. 8, 2006
2. The fluoride destined for water treatment is an inconsequential portion of the mined fluoride. The mining companies incur no special cost in the normal disposal and avoid no costs whatsoever from water additive sales. Because the process requires energy and reagent inputs it saves no money. Recently almost all of the sodium fluoride comes from overseas sources because the phosphate rock based manufacture is too expensie to be price competitive.
HFSA is accumulated at the phosphate rock processing plant in 20,000 gallon containers. When the container is full it is analyzed for contaminants. If it passes the grade the entire container is used for both pharmaceutical and water additive grades without further processing.
Source: Kip Duchon, National Fluoridation Water Engineer, 2013 National Oral
Health Conference presentation.
3. Silicofluorides do not exist in fluoridated water at the tap. They are not ingested. The relative toxicity of substances which are not ingested....is irrelevant. That said, there is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water. The difference between safety and toxicity of any substance is concentration level. Optimal level fluoride is not toxic....obviously. In the entire 70 year history of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects.
to be continued.....
Steven D. Slott, DDS
continued..........
Delete4. The EPA MCLG is the non-enforceable, maximum contaminant level goal as set by the EPA. As a matter of policy, the MCLG is zero for any substance which is carcinogenic, regardless the level at which carcinogenicity will occur. The EPA MCL is that concentration which the EPA deems to be safe, and attainable with current technology. Given the prevalence of arsenic in the environment, and the strong evidence that arsenic is an essential nutrient, a zero level of lead is not desirable, and, in all likelihood, not even attainable.
The amount of arsenic and lead in fluoridated water at the tap is in such barely detectable levels, so far short of EPA mandated levels of safety that it is not even a certainty that those detected are not those which exist in water naturally.
In stringent, EPA mandated, NSF testing of fluoridated water at the tap, lead has been detected in less than 1% of the samples. The maximum amount of lead detected in this less than 1% of samples is 0.037 parts per billion. The EPA MCL for lead is 15 parts per billion. The amount of lead detected in fluoridated water at the tap is, obviously, negligible, and of no concern.
In stringent, EPA mandated, NSF testing of fluoridated water at the tap, arsenic has been detected in less than 50% of samples. In this less than 50% of samples, the maximum detected level of arsenic is 0.6 parts per billion. The EPA MCL for arsenic is 10 parts per billion. The amount of arsenic detected in fluoridated water at the tap is, obviously, negligible, and of no concern.
---http://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet_on_Fluoridation.pdf
---Nutritional requirements for boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic: current knowledge and speculation.
Nielsen FH.
FASEB J. 1991 Sep;5(12):2661-7.
5. William Hirzy is a long time antifluoridationist who is the current paid lobbyist for the New York antifluoridationist faction, "Fluoride Action Network". He is neither objective, nor credible in regard to fluoridation.
In 2013, Hirzy filed a petition with the US EPA requesting that the EPA recommend cessation of use of HFA to fluoridate water systems. As the basis for this petition, Hirzy used data from a 2013 study of his as a foundation for his claims of purported "cancer" from HFA. When the EPA reviewers evaluated Hirzy's petition, they quickly discerned that he had made a 70-fold miscalculation in his data. When the reviewers corrected for this error, they found Hirzy's data to demonstrate the opposite of what Hirzy had claimed. Needless to say, Hirzy's petition was rejected. When notified of his error and rejection, Hirzy stated that he was "embarrassed", as well he should have been.
-----http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0443-0004
to be continued......
Steven D. Slott, DDS
continued....".
Delete6. "The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non-fluoridated children, ages 5-17, surveyed in 84 cities."
No, this study "proved" no such thing. First, it is a mystery as to exactly what are "fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non-fluoridated children", given that water systems are fluoridated, not children. Second, the "proved" to which is referred was a skewed interpretation of this data by antifluoridationists, which is proof of nothing other than the dishonesty of antifluoridationists who continue to attempt this argument.
From the abstract of this study in its complete context:
"Abstract
The decline in dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren, first observed nationwide in 1979-1980, was confirmed further by a second national epidemiological survey completed in 1987. Mean DMFS scores in persons aged 5-17 years had decreased about 36% during the interval, and, in 1987, approximately 50% of children were caries-free in the permanent dentition. Children who had always been exposed to community water fluoridation had mean DMFS scores about 18% lower than those who had never lived in fluoridated communities. When some of the "background" effect of topical fluoride was controlled, this difference increased to 25%. The results suggest that water fluoridation has played a dominant role in the decline in caries and must continue to be a major prevention methodology."
-----Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation.
Brunelle JA1, Carlos JP.
J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:723-7; discussion 820-3.
In regard to the skewing of data by antifluoridationists, this study is routinely read superficially by folks eager to discount fluoridation. The paper can be quoted as averages to minimize the effect because the 0.6 surface is the effect averaged over both age and geography. 5 year olds have only 1 or two permanent teeth and there is essentially no difference between cavity rates at that early age yet they are counted in calculating the "average"
By age 17 the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated is about 1.6 surfaces and the benefit curve is sharply accelerating with a benefit just under 3 times higher than the 0.6 so commonly quoted.
Also, in areas where fluoridation is common the Halo effect minimizes the differences between the two types of water systems. Thus the average results actually hide both the Halo Effect and the remarkable differences between communities where fluoridation is uncommon.
-----Int J Occup Environ Health. 2005 Jul-Sep;11(3):322-6. Scientific evidence continues to support fluoridation of public water supplies. Pollick HF.
to be continued......
Steven D. Slott, DDS
continued.........
Delete7. In regard to the out-of-context plucking of data from the study by the New York State Department of Health, this was a study of different variables involved in dental decay, and to determine the indicators of oral health, not one of comparing decay incidence between Kingston and Newburgh. The cause and preventive factors involved in dental decay are myriad and diverse. The attempt to pluck a snapshot of data from this study and construe it to be "support" for the antifluoridationist position is ludicrous.
From the New York study:
"The survey of 3rd grade children is designed for fulfilling many of the requirements of the National Oral Health Surveillance System (NOHSS). The objectives of this survey were to determine the following indicators of oral health:
• Proportion of children with caries experience (history of tooth decay).
• Proportion of children with untreated tooth decay.
• Proportion of children with dental sealants.
• Proportion of children with a dental visit in the last year.
• Proportion of children who have ever received fluoride tablets on a regular basis.
• Proportion of children with dental insurance."
---Oral Health Status of Third Grade Children: New York State Oral Health Surveillance System
Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH Director, Oral Health Surveillance and Research,
Donna L. Altshul, RDH, BS Program Coordinator, Timothy L. Cooke, BDS, MPH Program Coordinator, Elmer L. Green, DDS, MPH Director, Bureau of Dental Health
8. The "delayed eruption" theory propagated by antifluoridationists has no merit.
The following demonstrate the invalidity of this theory:
A). "Conclusion: Exposure to fluoride in drinking water did not delay the eruption of permanent teeth. The observed difference in dental caries experience among children exposed to different fluoride levels could not be explained by the timing of eruption of permanent teeth."
-------J Public Health Dent. 2014 Aug;74(3):241-7. doi: 10.1111/jphd.12053. Epub 2014 Mar 17.
Does fluoride in drinking water delay tooth eruption?
Jolaoso IA1, Kumar J, Moss ME.
© 2014 American Association of Public Health Dentistry.
B). "The present study indicates that the impact of any of the four fluoride exposure parameters on permanent tooth emergence was relatively minimal. Caries experience in the primary molars had a more pronounced impact on the timing of emergence of the successors than exposure to any of the four fluoride parameters."
------Leroy R, et al. (2003). The effect of fluorides and caries in primary teeth on permanent tooth emergence. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 31(6):463-70.
C). "Nearly 57000 children (aged from 4 years, 4 months to 15 years, 9 months) of Karl-Marx-Stadt (1.0 ppm F) and Plauen (0.2 ppm F) were examined to compare the mean eruption times of permanent teeth before and after 12 years of water fluoridation. Whereas a direct influence of internally administered fluorides is to be excluded, an indirect action on the premolars may be assumed with certainty. The delayed eruption of all premolars in children of the area with optimally fluoridated water was the only systematic effect which could be detected. This normalization is explained by a prolonged stay of the deciduous teeth in the dental arch which is due to a lesser caries prevalence."
------Kunzel VW. (1976). [Cross-sectional comparison of the median eruption time for permanent teeth in children from fluoride poor and optimally fluoridated areas] Stomatol DDR. 5:310-21. (See abstract)
to be continued.......
Steven D. Slott, DDS
continued.......
DeleteD). "However, while there is well established evidence of differences in dental development at similar ages across cultural and ethnicity groups, there is not evidence that water fluoridation is a cause of differential tooth eruption. Information recently published by the Fluoride Action Network based on Australian data, suggesting a substantial difference in tooth eruption between fluoridated and non fluoridated areas of Australia, have been confirmed as being based on erroneous data."
"The Australian research centre (ARCPOH) responsible for these data have confirmed the data error and reported that when the error is corrected there is little variation in the number of permanent teeth present at each age between children in Queensland and all of Australia."
-----National Fluoridation Information Service (2011): Does Delayed Tooth Eruption Negate The Effect of Water Fluoridation? National Fluoridation Information Service Advisory June 2011, Wellington, New Zealand.
9. In regard to the well-worn misrepresentation of the "EPA scientists", EPA has no authority under law to oppose or endorse fluoridation. But they can, and have, stated that "Fluoride in drinking water at levels of about 1 ppm reduces the number of dental cavities" (51 Fed Reg 1140, 1986). They have also stated that "There exists no directly applicable scientific documentation of adverse medical effects at levels of fluoride below 8 mg/l," (62 Fed Reg 64297, 1997). In effect, U.S. EPA has gone on record that there are no adverse medical effects from fluoridation even at eight times the optimum concentration for reduction of tooth decay.
The basis for an allegation that EPA scientists oppose fluoridation occurred on July 2, 1997, when 20 EPA employees who opposed fluoridation attended a meeting of Chapter 280 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). At that time, EPA had approximately 18,000 employees, and Chapter 280 of NFFE represented 1000-1600 of them. Because those 20 EPA employees constituted a majority of the union members attending the meeting, they were able to adopt a resolution opposing California's mandatory fluoridation law. At a subsequent press conference they claimed that NFFE adopted the resolution. Within a few days, Chapter officers issued an official statement declaring that the press conference was held without their knowledge or consent. Subsequent to that, two employees implied that EPA opposed fluoridation. Neither NFFE nor its successor, the National Treasury Employees' Union, has published an official position on fluoridation. The lack of all pertinent details, has mislead some of the public into thinking that EPA is opposed to water fluoridation.
----Questions and Answers About Fluoridation
Indiana State Department of Health
http://www.in.gov/isdh/24525.htm#Does_the_US_EPA_oppose_water_fluoridation
10. Over 150 of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world support water fluoridation. A list of these organizations will be posted upon request. There are no respected organizations in the world which oppose fluoridation.
11. There are no valid, peer-reviewed scientific studies which demonstrate higher rates of caries associated with fluoridation, rather than lower rates.
to be continued....
Steven D. Slott, DDS
continued....
Delete12. There are numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies which clearly demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation:
a. "Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation,”
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accessed on March 14, 2011 at
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm.
b. “Water Fluoridation Costs in Texas: Texas Health Steps (EPSDT-Medicaid),
Department of Oral Health Website (2000),
www.dshs.state.tx.us/dental/pdf/fluoridation.pdf,
c. Kumar J.V., Adekugbe O., Melnik T.A., “Geographic Variation in Medicaid Claims for Dental Procedures in New York State: Role of Fluoridation Under Contemporary
Conditions,”
Public Health Reports, (September-October 2010) Vol. 125, No. 5, 647-54.
d. O’Connell J.M. et al., “Costs and savings associated with community water fluoridation programs in Colorado,”
Preventing Chronic Disease (November 2005), accessed on
March 12, 2011 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1459459/.
e. “Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay – Louisiana,
1995-1996,”
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, (U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention), September 3, 1999, accessed on March 11, 2011 at
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4834a2.htm.
f. Washington State Hospital Association, Emergency Room Use (October 2010) 8-12,
http://www.wsha.org/files/127/ERreport.pdf, accessed February 8, 2011.
g. Michael W. Easley, DDS, MP, “Perspectives on the Science Supporting Florida’s Public
Health Policy for Community Water Fluoridation,”
Florida Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 191, Dec. 2005, accessed on March 16, 2011 at
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/family/dental/perspectives.pdf.
13. The only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which cause no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered mild dental fluorosis to not be an adverse effect.
----The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren
Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long
----Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards
Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council
ISBN: 0-309-65796-2, 530 pages, 6 x 9, (2006)
14. There is no ADA chart which shows that optimally fluoridated water "should not be given to children under 6 months of age." There is no respected organization knowledgeable on fluoridation, including the ADA and the CDC, which states that optimally fluoridated water "should not be given to children under 6 months of age."
The only "risk" of any sort, for infants and children exceeding the daily upper limit of fluoride intake due to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild dental fluorosis. Nothing else. See #11 above in regard to mild dental fluorosis.
15. Optimal level fluoride is not a "drug". It is simply an ion, identical to that same ion which has existed in water forever. The US EPA, not the US FDA, has full oversight and regulatory authority over optimal level fluoride in drinking water.
The "forced medication" argument has been repeatedly attempted in US courts, through the decades by antifluoridationists. It has been rejected each and every time by those same courts.
16. There is no valid, peer-reviewed "proof" of any allergy to optimal level fluoride.
17. No one is forced to do anything in regard to water fluoridation. There is nothing "unconstitutional" about water fluoridation.
to be continued.......
Steven D. Slott, DDS
continued..........
Delete18. When citizens allow themselves to be bamboozled by the same type of misinformation as I have exposed in this article, there have been some referenda which have voted not to initiate water fluoridation. When citizens and responsible civic leaders are properly educated on this issue from legitimate sources, they inevitably vote in favor of fluoridation.....as evidenced by the fact that fluoridation in the US is increasing, not decreasing. According to the latest CDC report, the US was 74.6% fluoridated in 2012, increased from 73.4% in 2011.
19. "Bottom line":
The benefits of water fluoridation are well documented by countless peer-reviewed scientific studies.
At less than $1 per person, per year for fluoridation, there is no other dental decay preventive measure which even comes near the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation.
In the 70 year history of water fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects
20. Long time antifluoridationist Robert Carton is certainly welcome to his personal opinion in fluoridation. However, his opinion is in direct contravention to that that of the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of science and healthcare.
Steven D. Slott, DDS