Nexus - 1106 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

3) The vast majority of Western Europe has rejected water fluo- ridation, but has been equally as successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay. 4) If fluoride were necessary for strong teeth, one would expect to find it in breast milk—but the level there is 0.01 ppm, which is 100 times /ess than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997). 5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al., 1997). In fact, many are already being overexposed to fluoride. 7) In human studies, the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behaviour. 8) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic bene- fit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low. Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE because: 1) Fluoridated water goes to all households and the poor cannot afford to avoid it if they want to, because they're unable to pur- chase bottled water or expensive fluoride removal equipment. 2) The poor are more likely to suffer from poor nutrition, which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler and Schour, 1952; Marier and Rose, 1977; ATSDR, 1993; Teotia et al., 1998). 3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment. Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because: afford to avoid it if they want to, because they're ‘unable to pur- 1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are chase bottled water or expensive fluoride removal equipment. topical, not systemic (Fejerskov, 1981; Carlos, 1983; CDC, 1999, 2) The poor are more likely to suffer from poor nutrition, which 2001; Limeback, 1999; Locker, 1999; Featherstone, 2000). is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic 2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is inef- effects (Massler and Schour, 1952; Marier and Rose, 1977; fective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of | ATSDR, 1993; Teotia et al., 1998). the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA, 1984; Gray, 3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of 1987; White, 1993; Pinkham, 1999). those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe 3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down enough to require expensive treatment. just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialised coun- tries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE World Health Organization, Online). because: 4) The largest survey conducted in the 1) Only a small fraction of the US showed only a minute difference in fluoridated water actually reaches the tooth decay between children who had target. Most of it ends up being used to lived all their lives in fluoridated com- wash the dishes, flush the toilet or water The difference Mae nat elinielly cen Fluoride accumulates in oy Ie would be totally cost-prohibitive cant nor shown to be. statistically our bones and makes them to use pharmaceutical-grade sodium significant (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). A fluoride (the substance which has been 5) The worst tooth decay in the United more brittle and prone tested) as a fluoridating agent for the States occurs in the poor neighbour- to fracture. public water supply. Water fluoridation hoods of the largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades. 6) When fluoridation was halted in communities in Finland, the former East is artificially cheap because—unknown to most people—the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry. 3) If it were deemed appropriate to Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but contin- swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical, not ued to go down (Maupome et al., 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to 2000; Kunzel et al., 2000; Seppa et al., 2000). provide fluoridated bottled water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be Fluoridation is UNSAFE because: controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't 1) Fluoride accumulates in our bones and makes them more want it. Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because: to fracture. Fluoridation is UNSAFE because: 1) Fluoride accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly. (See Studies.) 2) Fluoride accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin—a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001). 3) Fluoride damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30% and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al., 1997; McDonagh et al., 2000). 4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as between fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism. 5) In animal studies, fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminium into the brain (Varner et al., 1998). 6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994). Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED 1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed. 2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so-called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged. 3) The US Public Health Service has never felt obliged to moni- tor the fluoride levels in our bones, even though it has known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there. 4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not. 5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluo- ride accumulates in the pineal gland, even though her findings were published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (PhD thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research). 26 = NEXUS Fluoride accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone www.nexusmagazine.com OCTOBER —- NOVEMBER 2004