|
SPECIAL FLUORIDE ALERT
from
www.pamkilleen.com
FLUORIDE
INDUSTRY BUSTED!
Industry and
Government Collusion Turn Consumers
Into Toxic Waste Dumps
Investigative reporter Pam
Killeen interviews Paul Connett, PhD., a specialist in
Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, and Professor of
Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New
York.
Dr. Paul
Connett is relentless in his mission to stop the use of
fluoride. He is concerned that consumers are simply not
doing enough to stop cities from adding fluoride to
municipal water supplies. Those who question the safety
and efficacy of fluoride have done things such as
filtered their water or switched to un-fluoridated
toothpaste. But, is this truly enough? Those who are
informed about the dangers of fluoride may be protected,
but what about the uninformed?
Many
elite scientists, such as Dr. Connett, have voiced their
legitimate concerns about fluoride. It seems, however,
that their voices go unheard by groups like the Center
for Disease Control (CDC) or the American Dental
Association (ADA). With so many scientists questioning
the safety of fluoride, what has happened to the
Precautionary Principle, “if in doubt, leave it out?”
According to Dr. Connett, even the CDC won’t debate him
on this issue and yet they are supposed to be protecting
us. The collusion between science, government and
industry is most apparent when examining the fluoride
industry. As you read Dr. Connett’s comments and study
his website www.fluoridealert.org, you will be amazed to
learn about the empty science that has been used to
justify the use of fluoride in society. The fluoride
industry is just another example of how industry has
turned consumers into human waste disposals. Be sure to
read this gripping interview to find out what you can do
to help stop the fluoridation of city water.
Pam: There are several environmental issues on the
table right now. Why did you become interested in
fluoride?
Dr. Connett:
I began studying the subject
of fluoridated water about 9 years ago. When I learned
how toxic the substance was, I realized that people
needed to be educated about the risks of fluoridation.
One of the facts I found most striking was how low
the level of fluoride was in mother’s milk – it averages
about 0.008 ppm. When you add fluoride to drinking water
at 1ppm you are giving bottle fed babies over100 times
the levels nature intended. This is a risky business
and you are asking for trouble. In 1950, when they began
fluoridating water, not one single trial had been
completed which proved the safety or effectiveness of
fluoride. It was not scientific in 1950 and it’s not
scientific today. They tell people that it’s safe and
effective when they can’t even back up their claims.
They cannot even defend it in a rational debate even
when they are challenged to do so by the US EPA. They’re
putting a known toxin into our drinking water. It’s
absolutely pathetic that the CDC (Center for Disease
Control) is promoting and propagandizing fluoridation.
The CDC pushed
out a report in 1999 claiming
that fluoridation was one of the top 10 public health
achievements of the 20th century. All of the
countries that support fluoridation also tout this claim
(Canada, US, NZ, England, Ireland, Australia). They all
quote this bloody CDC report! When you really look at
it, it’s based upon junk science (see http://fluorideACTION.net/CDC.htm).
Absolute junk! As far as the health issues are
concerned, they were years out of date. The report that
came out in 1999 only cited one reference that showed
fluoride was safe and this was a study that came out in
1993. Six years out of date. I can’t believe it.
Taxpayers’ money went into this fraud! One would think
that the CDC should be on top of good science. After
all, they’re supposed to be working in our best
interests…right?!
Pam: As a Professor of Environmental Chemistry and
Toxicology, can you tell us about the dangers of
fluoride?
Dr. Connett:
This toxic substance has a
very small, if any, margin of safety. In a public water
system, you can’t control the dose because you can’t
control how much water people drink or the fluoride they
get from other sources. Also, the fluoride that they put
in the water is not pharmaceutical grade fluoride, which
is what is used for testing purposes. What they put
in the water supply is an industrial waste product.
It comes from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate
fertilizer industry. In other words, they’re capturing
air pollution (hydrogen fluoride and silicon
tetrachloride) which, for about a hundred years,
decimated local vegetation and farm animals. By
international law, this captured liquid (hexafluorosilicic
acid) cannot be dumped into the sea but they are allowed
to put it into tanker trucks, send it all over the
country, and dump it into our drinking water! It’s sheer
madness. But the phosphate fertilizer industry saves at
least $100 million a year doing it. Money talks, but I
believe the biggest obstacle to halting this archaic
practice right now is the huge loss of credibility that
the US Public Health Service will sustain when the
public realizes that they’ve been lying through their
teeth for several years.
Pam: In order to find the root of the problem, it’s
important to “follow the money”. Have you examined who
else is behind this fluoride issue?
Dr. Connett:
Chris Bryson, a former BBC
correspondent, who wrote the book, The Fluoride
Deception, which took him 10 years to write,
contains over 100 pages of documentation. The book
explains that fluoridation was an industrial ploy to
detoxify the image of fluoride. They were facing massive
lawsuits from local farmers and workers. Farmers were
worried about fluoride pollution damaging their land and
industry was worried about potential lawsuits from
workers exposed to fluoride in the workplace. Instead of
saying that fluoride was toxic, they created a campaign
saying that fluoride was good for you. This pulled the
rug from under any potential lawsuit. How can you say
that fluoride is damaging peoples’ health when the US
government is putting it into the drinking water? That’s
one well-supported thesis. Incredibly, Bryson was able
to show active collusion between people from the US
Public Health Service and the Fluorine Lawyers
Association, which were there to protect industry from
fluoride lawsuits. Why? It’s ridiculous.
Pam: What other groups are supporting fluoridation?
Dr. Connett:
A great deal of money goes
into dental research based upon fluoridation. As long as
we have fluoridation, millions of dollars are being put
into dental research (fluorosis, tooth decay, etc....).
As long as dental researchers support the notion that
fluoride is good for teeth, the money will keep rolling
in. If they change their minds, their money supply will
run out.
Pam: Is fluoride truly effective in the reduction
of tooth decay?
Dr. Connett:
As far as effectiveness is
concerned, the CDC produced a pathetic graph in their
1999 report, that if an undergraduate had done for me, I
would have failed them. This graph has a line showing
tooth decay declining for 12 year olds in the US from
the 60’s to the 90’s. On the same graph, they have the
percentage of the population in the US drinking
fluoridated water -- that line is shown going up. The
notion was that tooth decay has been decreasing while
the percentage of people drinking fluoridated water has
been increasing. If they had spent 10 minutes
researching the WHO (World Health Organization) website,
they would have discovered that tooth decay for 12 year
olds has been declining in practically every
industrialized country around the world. We have
presented this graphically at http://www.fluoride
ACTION.net/who-dmft.htm. In these graphs 14 of these
countries are not fluoridated; four of them are. The
data shows that tooth decay is on the decline in every
industrialized country and it has nothing to do with
fluoridation. There are 2 conclusions you can derive
from this CDC report: either it’s total incompetence or
they totally misled the public, hoping that people
wouldn’t spend the time to check their material.
Pam: Statistical manipulation seems to be quite
prevalent amongst the industry-sponsored data today.
Dr. Connett: You know, Pam, it’s common sense – you
don’t have to lie about anything that is good. It’s very
discouraging to see the propaganda that is being used by
companies like Monsanto who have manipulated the data
around PCB’s, dioxins, aspartame and now genetic
engineering. Corporations shouldn’t have to behave that
way. Universities and corporations don’t have to fire
scientists because they don’t find the results that they
are looking for to push certain products. Universities,
government agencies and corporations shouldn’t have to
avoid debates. If what they are promoting to the public
is good, they should be completely open and honest about
it.
Pam: Can you tell us your thoughts about the
conflicts of interest which occur at the university
level? Is there too much corporate money going into the
universities? Should this be stopped?
Dr. Connett:
One of the worst offenders on
that is Harvard. With the Harvard name on the top of
your paper you can literally get away with murder. Not
all, but a number of prestigious scientists at Harvard
have whitewashed toxics for industry. There is a lot of
evidence that shows that when industry funds studies,
the results go in one way and when it’s not industry
funded the results go in a different way. There is a
very clear relationship between who’s funding the study
and the outcome you get. A recent Harvard study was
released showing that if young boys (between the ages of
6-8) are exposed to fluoride in their drinking water,
they have a significant increased chance of developing
osteosarcoma, a frequently fatal bone cancer. Elise
Bassin received her PhD for doing this very important
study. Her advisor, Harvard Professor Chester Douglass
has attempted to cover-up her work. Just one year after
he had signed her thesis he told an audience in England
that there was no such relationship. It is a complete
coincidence of course that he happens to be the editor
for Colgate’s “Oral Health Report”! Even though the
research was done in 2001, the public has only just
learned about it. For those who believe that fluoride is
beneficial, I would like to ask them this: “How many
teeth would you have to save to justify even one child
dying from bone cancer, or lowering their IQ, or causing
hip fractures in the elderly?”
Pam: Based upon Dr. Bassin’s research, I understand
that there’s been some progress to stop fluoridation.
Eleven EPA employee unions representing over 7000
environmental and public health professionals of the
Civil Service have called for a moratorium on drinking
water fluoridation programs across the country, and have
asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a
serious risk of causing cancer in people.
Dr. Connett:
Yes, this has received major
newspaper coverage around the country and we are asking
people to sign an Online petition in support of their
dramatic initiative. We desperately need the promoters
of this practice to testify and be cross-examined by
Congress under oath. Every signature on this petition
takes us a little closer to achieving that important
goal.
If your
readers want to help, they can go and sign on and write
a little comment of their own at <http://www.powalliance.org/petition/index.html>.
Pam: What
should the public do to help bring integrity back to the
scientific community?
Dr. Connett:
The most important thing we
can instill in our students is to tell the truth. This
is far more important than simply learning the periodic
table! If you’re a scientist, and you don’t tell the
truth, you’re no longer a scientist. If a scientist
deliberately lies, by manipulating the data, he should
be required to give up his degree. If a student gets a
PhD, he should know that the degree is only valid as
long as he tells the truth. There’s no science without
truth. It’s something else (public relations,
propaganda, politics etc…). These lies are very
dangerous for public health policy. If public health
policy is not supported by honest science, then we’re in
deep, deep trouble. Not only because we’re not getting
the right public policy, but because there will be a
complete lack of trust when people find out the truth.
We need to trust these agencies (CDC, NIH etc...). If
the CDC tells us we need to worry about something, we
may completely ignore them because we’ve become so
immune to their lies. If they lie about fluoridation,
then they’re probably lying about other things. We need
to cut the cancer of dishonest science out of public
health policy.
Pam: The issue of fluoridation has become so
controversial. It seems there’s no room for debate.
Dr. Connett:
Even in academic circles
scientists don’t seem to like controversy. They are not
used to challenging authority. This is sad. If we can’t
handle controversy in the US, then there’s no democracy.
Democracy is about handling controversy. They shouldn’t
accept the brainwashing of one side, because it’s the
status quo. They need to examine both sides with an open
mind. That’s what education is supposed to be all about.
We’re not doing this. It is almost as if we have gone
back to a time before Galileo and the US Surgeon General
has become a new Pope!
Pam: Where else do you find this type of corruption
and collusion?
Dr. Connett:
Consumers need to also be
aware that the EPA is allowing Dow to use sulfuryl
fluoride as a fumigant on foodstuffs.
That’s going to jack up
fluoride levels in our food. The proposed limit of
fluoride on powdered eggs is 900 ppm. This is sheer
lunacy. On a tube of toothpaste (1000 ppm) you re told
if a kid swallows more than a pea size amount that they
should be taken to a poison center. How many pea-sized
portions of powdered egg go into an omelette or a cake?
Dr. Connett:
Another example is the sugar
industry. The year before the US endorsed fluoridation
(1950), the sugar industry said that they needed to find
a way to reduce tooth decay without reducing sugar
consumption. Fluoride was a magic bullet for the sugar
industry. The biggest health effect of fluoridation is
that it gives the “green light” to parents for their
kids to eat as much sugar as they want. They use
fluoride to mask the problems surrounding sugar. Now, of
course, we also see an epidemic with obesity. This
obesity may well be a consequence of fluoride’s ability
to lower the activity of the thyroid gland.
Pam: We are being bombarded with distractions so
that the truth is hidden. Dr. Weston A. Price traveled
around the world in the 1920’s in order to discover the
ideal diet. As a dentist, he began to see the
deterioration in teeth after North Americans began
consuming more sugar or processed foods. In primitive
cultures where people didn’t have access to sugar or
processed foods, they had beautiful teeth and dental
structure and enjoyed excellent health. He discovered
that crooked teeth, overbites, underbites, cavities
really only become a problem in cultures that consumed
sugar or processed foods.
Dr. Connett:
Dr. Price discovered the
nutritional truth surrounding the real cause of tooth
decay and disease. Fluoride has distracted people from
the truth – that they should rely on dietary changes to
improve their teeth.
Pam: You’ve made it your mission to stop
fluoridation internationally. I commend you for your
hard work.
Dr. Connett:
I’d stake my whole scientific
reputation on being right on the fluoride issue – that
it’s neither effective nor safe. It’s a silly, dangerous
policy. It’s frustrating not being able to have a
healthy, rational discourse, exchange arguments in
public so that people can hear both sides. Denying this
debate is ridiculous. I have forgotten who said, “A
beautiful theory can be destroyed by an ugly fact” but
in the case of fluoridation, there are too many ugly
facts. Accepting the doctrine of fluoridation is like
religious fanaticism.
Pam: This same type of fanaticism has not only
brought us fluoride, but mercury, GMO’s etc…It seems
that some scientists are desperate to hold on to their
findings. It reminds me of the saying “publish or
perish”. We all need to ask more questions about the
credibility and the motives of a lot of the research
being released.
Dr. Connett:
There is a big difference
between being clever and being wise. We reward
cleverness -and that’s what fluoride is - it’s clever
but it’s not wise. The same can be said for genetic
engineering - it’s clever but it’s not wise.
Pam: So it’s really up to grassroots movements to
help bring this information forward. It’s going to take
a concerted effort from enthusiastic and concerned
scientists and activists to help turn this situation
around.
Dr. Connett:
We’ve got to simplify these
issues so that the public better understands them. We
also must stress the importance about being honest.
People can no longer be blasé about dishonesty and lying
in science or government. There are so many awful things
happening now I think that things are losing their shock
value. It seems as though people are getting used to the
lies. Civil servants are supposed to be giving the most
accurate, honest information to the decision-makers. We
expect the civil servants to be working in the public’s
best interest, but they’re not. They’re spinning as much
as the politicians. That’s very clear in the case of
fluoridation and the CDC.
Pam: I hope that one day you’ll be able to have a
healthy debate with the CDC on this subject. Thank you
for all of your hard work. Any last comments?
Dr. Connett:
We simply can’t avoid the
problem by thinking we can filter out fluoride. Some
filtration systems, such as reverse osmosis, will help
remove fluoride, but people who live in poverty cannot
afford bottled water or filters. People who live in
poverty are at risk and need protection. Before I die, I
want to see fluoride removed from our water so that we
can all be protected from its damaging effects.
Meanwhile, my dearest hope is that we can force the
proponents to testify under oath and be cross-examined
at a Congressional hearing but that’s going to take a
lot of pressure on Congress and a lot of names on the
Online petition.
Please be sure to support Dr.
Connett, by signing this very important Online petition:
http://www.powalliance.org/petition/index.html
Pam
Killeen is an Investigative Reporter and a Health
Watchdog, covering stories such as health, nutrition and
agriculture.
Copyright © 2006 Pam Killeen
All rights reserved
www.pamkilleen.com
50 Reasons
to Oppose Fluoridation
Paul Connett, PhD
(To
check references go to Paul Connett’s website: http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm)
1)
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease has
ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can
have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.
2)
Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European
countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the
same decline in dental decay as the US.
3)
Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in
serious doubt…In a review commissioned by the Ontario
government, Dr. David Locker concluded:
"The
magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in
absolute terms, is often not statistically significant
and may not be of clinical significance".
4)
Where
fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from
Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland,
dental decay has not increased but has actually
decreased.
5)
There have
been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US
cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which
have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears
to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth
decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.
6)
Modern
research shows that decay rates were coming down before
fluoridation was introduced and have continued to
decline even after its benefits would have been
maximized. Many other factors influence tooth decay.
Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually
increases as the fluoride concentration in the water
increases
7)
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has now
acknowledged the findings of many leading dental
researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride's benefits
are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC. Thus, you don't have to
swallow fluoride to protect teeth. As the benefits of
fluoride (if any exist) are topical, and the risks are
systemic, it makes more sense, for those who want to
take the risks, to deliver the fluoride directly to the
tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing
fluoride is unnecessary, there is no reason to force
people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their
water supply. This position was recently shared by Dr.
Douglas Carnall, the associate editor of the British
Medical Journal.
8)
Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years,
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never
approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as
safe or effective.
9)
The US fluoridation program has massively failed to
achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental
decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled
and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused
by fluoride….
10)
Dental fluorosis means that a child has been overdosed
on fluoride. While the mechanism by which the enamel is
damaged is not definitively known, it appears fluorosis
may be a result of either inhibited enzymes in the
growing teeth, or through fluoride's interference with
G-protein signaling mechanisms. In a study in Mexico,
Alarcon-Herrera (2001) has shown a linear correlation
between the severity of dental fluorosis and the
frequency of bone fractures in children.
11)
The level of fluoride put into water (1 ppm) is up to
200 times higher than normally found in mothers' milk
(0.005 – 0.01 ppm). There are no benefits, only risks,
for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride
at such an early age (this is an age where
susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly
high).
12)
Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of
the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the
kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal
gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged,
fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the
likelihood of harm.
13)
Fluoride is very biologically active even at low
concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding and
inhibits numerous enzymes.
14)
When complexed
with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins. Such
interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the
potential to interfere with many hormonal and some
neurochemical signals.
15)
Fluoride has been shown to be mutagenic, cause
chromosome damage and interfere with the enzymes
involved with DNA repair in a variety of cell and tissue
studies. Recent studies have also found a correlation
between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in
humans.
16)
Fluoride forms complexes with a large number of metal
ions, which include metals which are needed in the body
(like calcium and magnesium) and metals (like lead and
aluminum) which are toxic to the body. This can cause a
variety of problems. For example, fluoride interferes
with enzymes where magnesium is an important co-factor,
and it can help facilitate the uptake of aluminum and
lead into tissues where these metals wouldn't otherwise
go.
17)
Rats fed for
one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water, using
either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had
morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an
increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the
formation of beta amyloid deposits which are
characteristic of Alzheimers disease.
18)
Aluminum
fluoride was recently nominated by the Environmental
Protection Agency and National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences for testing by the
National Toxicology Program. According to EPA and NIEHS,
aluminum fluoride currently has a "high health research
priority" due to its "known neurotoxicity". If fluoride
is added to water which contains aluminum, than aluminum
fluoride complexes will form.
19)
Animal
experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain
and exposure alters mental behavior in a manner
consistent with a neurotoxic agent. Rats dosed
prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those
dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under
activity or "couch potato" syndrome). More recent animal
experiments have reported that fluoride can damage the
brain and impact learning and behavior.
20)
Five studies
from China show a lowering of IQ in children associated
with fluoride exposure. One of these studies indicates
that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure
(e.g. 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the
neurological defects of iodine deficiency.
21)
Studies by Jennifer Luke showed that fluoride
accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high
levels. In her Ph.D. thesis Luke has also shown in
animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin
production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty.
22)
In the first half of the 20th century, fluoride was
prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the
activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from
hyperthyroidism (over active thyroid). With water
fluoridation, we are forcing people to drink a
thyroid-depressing medication which could, in turn,
serve to promote higher levels of hypothyroidism (underactive
thyroid) in the population, and all the subsequent
problems related to this disorder. Such problems include
depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint
pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.
It
bears noting that according to the Department of Health
and Human Services (1991) fluoride exposure in
fluoridated communities is estimated to range from 1.6
to 6.6 mg/day, which is a range that actually overlaps
the dose (2.3 - 4.5 mg/day) shown to decrease the
functioning of the human thyroid. This is a remarkable
fact, particularly considering the rampant and
increasing problem of hypothyroidism in the United
States. …In Russia, Bachinskii found a lowering of
thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3
ppm fluoride in water.
23)
Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, a
fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts
millions of people in India, China, and Africa , mimic
the symptoms of arthritis. According to a review on
fluoridation by Chemical & Engineering News, "Because
some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first
two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be
easily misdiagnosed". Few if any studies have been done
to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and
whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1
in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis…
24)
In some studies, when high doses of fluoride (average 26
mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with
osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and
reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a HIGHER
number of fractures, particularly hip fractures. The
cumulative doses used in these trials are exceeded by
the lifetime cumulative doses being experienced by many
people living in fluoridated communities.
25)
Nineteen
studies (three unpublished, including one abstract)
since 1990 have examined the possible relationship of
fluoride in water and hip fracture among the elderly.
Eleven of these studies found an association, eight did
not. One study found a dose-related increase in hip
fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1
ppm to 8 ppm. Hip fracture is a very serious issue for
the elderly, as a quarter of those who have a hip
fracture die within a year of the operation, while 50
percent never regain an independent existence….
26)
The only
government-sanctioned animal study to investigate if
fluoride causes cancer, found a dose-dependent increase
in cancer in the target organ (bone) of the
fluoride-treated (male) rats. The initial review of this
study also reported an increase in liver and oral
cancers, however, all non-bone cancers were later
downgraded – with a questionable rationale - by a
government-review panel. In light of the importance of
this study, EPA Professional Headquarters Union has
requested that Congress establish an independent review
to examine the study's results.
27)
A review of national cancer data in the US by
the National Cancer Institute (NCI) revealed a
significantly higher rate of bone cancer in young men in
fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. While the NCI
concluded that fluoridation was not the cause, no
explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in
the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey
found bone cancer rates to be up to 6 times higher in
young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated
areas. Other epidemiological studies have failed to find
this relationship.
28)
Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks
havoc on the male reproductive system - it damages sperm
and increases the rate of infertility in a number of
different species. While studies conducted at the FDA
have failed to find reproductive effects in rats, an
epidemiological study from the US has found increased
rates of infertility among couples living in areas with
3 or more ppm fluoride in the water, and 2 studies have
found a reduced level of circulating testosterone in
males living in high fluoride areas.
29)
The fluoridation program has been very poorly monitored.
There has never been a comprehensive analysis of the
fluoride levels in the bones, blood, or urine of the
American people or the citizens of other fluoridated
countries. Based on the sparse data that has become
available, however, it is increasingly evident that some
people in the population – particularly people with
kidney disease - are accumulating fluoride levels that
have been associated with harm to both animals and
humans, particularly harm to bone.
30)
Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to
control the dose each individual receives. This is
because 1) some people (e.g. manual laborers, athletes,
diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink more
water than others, and 2) we receive fluoride from
sources other than the water supply. Other sources of
fluoride include food and beverages processed with
fluoridated water, fluoridated dental products,
mechanically deboned meat, teas, and pesticide residues
on food.
31)
Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are not
being asked for their informed consent prior to
medication….
32)
While
referenda are preferential to imposed policies from
central government, it still leaves the problem of
individual rights versus majority rule. Put another way
-- does a voter have the right to require that their
neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it's
against that neighbor's will)?
33)
Some individuals appear to be highly sensitive to
fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind
studies. In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman
and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given
1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions.
Can we as a society force these people to ingest
fluoride?
34)
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR 1993), and other researchers, certain
subsets of the population may be particularly vulnerable
to fluoride's toxic effects; these include: the elderly,
diabetics and people with poor kidney function. Again,
can we in good conscience force these people to ingest
fluoride on a daily basis for their entire lives?
35)
Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition
(e.g. calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and
iodide deficiencies and protein poor diets). Those most
likely to suffer from poor nutrition are the poor, who
are precisely the people being targeted by new
fluoridation programs. While being at heightened risk,
poor families are less able to afford avoidance measures
(e.g. bottled water or removal equipment).
36)
Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor
communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to
increase the access to dental care for poor families.
The real "Oral Health Crisis" that exists today in the
United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and
lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has
estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat
children on Medicaid.
37)
Fluoridation has been found to be ineffective at
preventing one of the most serious oral health problems
facing poor children, namely, baby bottle tooth decay,
otherwise known as early childhood caries.
38)
The early
studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped
to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for
their poor methodology and poor choice of control
communities. According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a
statistician from the University of California at Davis,
the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in
fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical
methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain
muddleheadedness and hebetude." In 2000, the British
Government’s “York Review” could give no fluoridation
trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of
research.
39)
The US Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation
in 1950, before one single trial had been completed!
40)
Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little
to prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, a fact that even
the dental community has acknowledged. This is
significant because pit and fissure tooth decay
represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by
children today.
41)
Despite the fact that we are exposed to far more
fluoride today than
we were in 1945 (when fluoridation began), the "optimal"
fluoridation level is still 1 part per million, the same
level deemed optimal in 1945!
42)
The chemicals
used to fluoridate water in the US are not
pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they come from the wet
scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer
industry. These chemicals (90% of which are sodium
fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified
hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities.
Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation
suggest that the levels of arsenic in these chemicals
are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into
public water) and of potential concern.
43)
These hazardous wastes have not been tested
comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal
studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not
industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. The assumption
being made is that by the time this waste product has
been diluted, all the fluorosilicic acid will have been
converted into free fluoride ion, and the other toxics
and radioactive isotopes will be so dilute that they
will not cause any harm, even with lifetime exposure.
These assumptions have not been examined carefully by
scientists, independent of the fluoridation program.
44)
Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) show an
association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and
its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased
uptake of lead into children's blood. Because of lead’s
acknowledged ability to damage the child’s developing
brain, this is a very serious finding yet it is being
largely ignored by fluoridating countries.
45)
Sodium
fluoride is an extremely toxic substance -- just 200 mg
of fluoride ion is enough to kill a young child, and
just 3-5 grams (e.g. a teaspoon) is enough to kill an
adult. Both children (swallowing tablets/gels) and
adults (accidents involving fluoridation equipment and
filters on dialysis machines) have died from excess
exposure.
46)
Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were
biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are
among numerous scientists who have expressed their
reservations about the practice of fluoridation.
47)
The recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology,
Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2000), was one of the leading
opponents of fluoridation in Sweden, and part of the
panel that recommended that the Swedish government
reject the practice, which they did in 1971. According
to Carlsson:
"I am
quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a
not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical
history...Water fluoridation goes against leading
principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from
a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times
a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards
both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of
drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite
of an individualized therapy".
48)
While
pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote
fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they cannot
defend the practice in open public debate – even when
challenged to do so by organizations such as the
Association for Science in the Public Interest, the
American College of Toxicology, or the US Environmental
Protection Agency. According to Dr. Michael Easley, a
prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, "Debates
give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists
when no credible people support the fluorophobics'
view". In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this
issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers
Union, observed that "the political profluoridation
stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian,
essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages
open debate of scientific issues".
49)
Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken
out publicly on this issue have been subjected to
censorship and intimidation. Most recently, Dr. Phyllis
Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of
Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her
findings on fluoride and the brain; and Dr. William
Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the
government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer
study. Tactics like this would not be necessary if those
promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.
50)
The Union representing the scientists at US EPA
headquarters in Washington DC is now on record as
opposing water fluoridation. According to the Union’s
Senior Vice President, Dr. William Hirzy:
"In
summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable
risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and
the purported benefits associated with it are so small -
if there are any at all - that requiring every man,
woman and child in America to ingest it borders on
criminal behavior on the part of governments."
Conclusion
When it
comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals,
invested interests traditionally do their very best to
discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological
findings. In the past, political pressures have led
government agencies to drag their feet on regulating
asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco
and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a fifty year
delay. Unfortunately, because government officials have
put so much of their credibility on the line defending
fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities
waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has
caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone
cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be
very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly
about the issue. But they must, not only to protect
millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect
the notion that, at its core, public health policy must
be based on sound science not political expediency. They
have a tool with which to do this: it's called the
Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if
in doubt leave it out. This is what most
European countries have done and their children's teeth
have not suffered, while their public's trust has been
strengthened.
It is
like a question from a Kafka play. Just how much doubt
is needed on just one of the health concerns identified
above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in
the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to
less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child's
mouth?
For
those who would call for further studies, I say fine.
Take the fluoride out of the water first and then
conduct all the studies you want. This folly must end
without further delay.
Postscript
Further
arguments against fluoridation, can be viewed at
http://www.fluoridealert.org.
Arguments for fluoridation can be found at
http://www.ada.org
and a more systematic presentation of fluoride’s toxic
effects can be found at
http://www.Slweb.org/bibliography.html
Acknowledgements
I would
like to acknowledge the help given to me in the research
for this statement to my son Michael Connett and to
Naomi Flack for the proofreading of the text. Any
remaining mistakes are my own.
|
