Poisoning Our Minds: A call to action in the global fight against water fluoridation
Published on 26 Apr 2017
Members of the UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance met in April 2017 in Bedford, the heart of the UK's battleground against water fluoridation. Fluoridated since 1970, Bedford has campaigned successfully to keep fluoride out of its water for the last seven years, but the chemical could be put back in at any time - unless the contract is terminated.
Members of UK FFFA travelled from north and south of the UK as well as the US to exchange ideas and devise a plan to educate the public of the dangers of fluoridated water, in particular the impact on the brain: the neurotoxicity of minute levels of fluoride, and help build a movement to halt damaging pro-fluoridation government policies.
For more info see:
Open Letter to Sir Professor Peter Gluckman Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand
Dear Professor Gluckman,
We read your Opinion Piece in the Herald on Saturday 22nd May. We were heartened to see that you believe, “Marching may be seen as one way of engaging, but it cannot replace the harder work of making ourselves available, making our work relevant and making science difficult to ignore”.
We would like to take you up on your commendable offer to “make yourself available” at this crucial time to discuss fluoridation of the public drinking water supply across New Zealand before the second reading of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.
We therefore cordially invite you to join Professor Paul Connett, Fluoride Action Network Founder and St Lawrence University Chemistry and Toxicology Professor Emeritus, in a moderated public discussion or open debate. As you probably know, Prof Connett participated in a quality open debate on television with Malaghan Institute’s Professor Mike Berridge last year, moderated by Cameron Bennett.
TV producers at Q&A and The Nation told us last week that they are keen to host a debate between Auckland University Professor Michelle Dickinson (Science Media Blogger ‘Nanogirl’) and Prof Connett. However, Dr Dickinson has now told Q&A that she does not want to go through with the debate.
Health Select Committee Members have referred to the 2014 Fluoride Report authored by Professor David Skegg and yourself many times, and cited it as an important fluoridation resource.
We estimate that half of the population of New Zealand does not agree with fluoridation, and many people are extremely concerned about it. We are now calling on you to make yourself available, and to engage in a meaningful and balanced public dialogue about fluoridation with a scientist of equal standing. Together you can make the necessary information accessible to lay people.
Please advise when you are available and we can arrange media and travel details.
Members of the public were invited to ask questions about the science and ethics of water fluoridation to a panel of scientists, politicians and health professionals, in a free event for Hull Science Festival.
The ‘Water Fluoridation Conversation’ was the first of a new format for our public events, designed to enable two-way conversations between scientists and the public on everyday issues with a link to chemistry.
Hull is one of the worst areas in the UK for dental health, and Hull City Council is currently exploring a scheme to fluoridate the city’s water supply. Fluoridating public water supplies has been shown to have a hugely positive impact on dental health in other areas of the country, but the process is not without opposition, and many local residents have concerns about the plans.
Professor Mark Lorch, associate dean for engagement at the University of Hull’s science faculty, and director of the Hull Science Festival, suggested the topic for our first conversation. He wanted to provide a space for people to find out more about the chemistry behind such an emotive local issue, and give people an opportunity to raise their concerns with those qualified to talk about the issue from the perspectives of health, ethics, politics and science.
The panel, chosen for their experience and expertise rather than their position on the issue, featured Alan Johnson, Labour MP for West Hull and Hessle and former health secretary; Barry Cockroft CBE, former chief dental officer for England; Dr John Beal MBE, senior lecturer in dental public health at the University of Leeds; Simon Hearnshaw, a Hull general dental practitioner; and Dr Joanna Buckley, our education coordinator for North East England.
Dr Susan Vickers, our public engagement lead, chaired the event, giving each panel member two minutes to sum up their experience and opinions, before opening the floor to questions from the audience.
“Everyone must be allowed to have an opinion on the future, and this means giving the public the confidence to discuss matters relating to chemistry,” explains Susan. “There are ethical issues and personal preferences to consider with issues like water fluoridation, even if the weight of scientific evidence currently available shows that it is safe. Events like this embrace chemistry as a topic for conversation and allow chemical scientists and the public to listen and respond to each other.”
The resulting 90 minute discussion covered questions on health concerns, how to tell sound scientific research from poorly conducted studies, whether water fluoridation could be seen as ‘mass medication’, and whether artificially fluoridated water is chemically different to that containing naturally occurring fluoride.
Alan Johnson MP also gave an overview of how the plans for water fluoridation would proceed; assuring audience members there would be full public consultations before any decisions were made.
While emotions occasionally ran high, the debate between audience members and panellists remained civil and respectful. A particularly poignant moment came as a father expressed fears that his young son might be allergic to fluoride, and had suffered some hospitalising side effects caused by, his parents believe, fluoridated toothpaste. Local dentist Simon Hearnshaw explained it was unlikely to be fluoride, but could be one of the many other substances found in toothpaste, and offered his support to find out what was causing the problem.
Audience member Anusha, a Masters student in dental public health at the University of Sheffield, had studied the science behind water fluoridation, but hadn’t previously understood public concerns about the ethics. “Before I came to the event I was sure that we should be fluoridating water for health benefits,” she said, “But people raised questions about things I hadn’t thought about – for example why should people be forced to drink fluoridated water? It made me think more about the wider issues.”
Systems analyst Joseph, also in the audience, said: “It was really interesting; there was a lot of good science and it was good to hear people pushing back against some of the less scientific viewpoints. I liked that someone said ‘you can have an opinion on the ethics but you can’t have an opinion on the science’. I think [the format] is good as it does mean people can voice their opinions.”
Not very well attended and very one sided by the look of the panel. "The panel, chosen for their experience and expertise rather than their position on the issue" Who is kidding who?
Albuquerque, N.M. — Jane McGinley's first exposure to working in dentistry came during her high school years in rural Illinois, where she worked as an assistant in a local dental office two evenings a week and Saturdays for $1 an hour.
The humble first job led to a career in dental hygiene and for the past 20 years as staff at the American Dental Association, where she is the go-to resource for ADA members and staff alike when it comes to facts and information about community water fluoridation.
The American Association for Public Health Dentistry on April 23 honored Ms. McGinley during the National Oral Health Conference in Albuquerque for being a "tireless advocate promoting the science, facing the challenges and creating strategies surrounding fluoridation." The group's immediate past president, Dr. David Cappelli, presented the award.
In her current role at the ADA, manager of fluoridation and preventive health activities, Ms. McGinley monitors community water fluoridation at the national, state and local levels. She regularly works directly with ADA member dentists who request assistance and resources to help educate their communities about the benefits of water fluoridation. She also provides technical assistance to coalitions and others involved in fluoridation efforts.
She also coordinates the meetings and affairs of the ADA National Fluoridation Advisory Committee. She has assisted that committee in the development and publication with the last three editions of Fluoridation Facts, which is widely used in fluoridation campaigns.
She also coordinates the meetings and affairs of the ADA National Fluoridation Advisory Committee.
"Almost anyone who's had to deal with community water fluoridation issues knows Jane," said Dr. Valerie Peckosh, chair of the advisory committee. "Her incredible wealth of knowledge and her dedication are unmatched."..................... Shame no one has persuaded her she might be ill informed.
It’s official: the Fluoride Action
Network--along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups--has
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to
their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation. This may be the lawsuit we have
all been waiting decades for.
According to FAN’s attorney, Michael
Connett, “this case will present the first time a court will consider the
neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an
unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). And, in
contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the
right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’—meaning
federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence
without deference to the EPA's judgment.”
Industry, legal, and environmental
observers following the EPA's implementation of the new TSCA law have pointed
out that a
lawsuit challenging the EPA's denial of our petition would provide a test
case for the agency's interpretation that petitioners must provide a
comprehensive analysis of all uses of a chemical in order to seek a restriction
on a particular use. Legal experts have suggested that the EPA’s interpretation
essentially makes the requirements for gaining Agency action using section 21
petitions impossible to meet. Background InformationOn
Nov 22, 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic
Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International
Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and several
individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate
addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The full TSCA petition can
be accessed here, a shorter 8-page summary here, and our press release here.
presented the Agency with a large body of human and animal evidence
demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S.
children and vulnerable populations. We also presented the Agency with evidence
showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed, and, accordingly, any
risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary. We
believe that an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that
fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk.
On February 27th, the EPA
published their response. In
their decision the EPA claimed, “Thepetition has not set forth a
scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered
neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the
purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise
from fluoride exposure in the U.S."
As many independent scientists now
recognize, fluoride is a neurotoxin. The
question, therefore, is not if fluoride damages the brain, but at what
While EPA quibbles with the methodology of some of these studies,
to dismiss and ignore these studies in their entirety for methodological
imperfections is exceptionally cavalier, particularly given the consistency of
the findings and the razor-thin margin between the doses causing harm in these
studies and the doses that millions of Americans now receive.
Guidelines on Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlight the importance of having a
robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and
the doses that humans receive. We presented the EPA with over 180 studies
showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g. reduced IQ), and pointed out
that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or
precariously close to, the levels millions of U.S. children now receive.
Typically, this would be a cause for major concern. But, unfortunately, the EPA
has consistently shied away from applying the normal rules of risk assessment to
fluoride -- and it has unfortunately continued that tradition with its dismissal
of the Petition.
Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides that citizens can
challenge an EPA denial in federal court. For too long, EPA has let politics
trump science on the fluoride issue (see examples). We
welcome therefore having these issues considered by a federal
Winning this lawsuit will require a full team
effort, and we want you to feel a part of that team and a part of this moment in
history. Please consider playing a larger role in this potentially
fluoridation-ending lawsuit by making a tax-deductible contribution. See below
for details about making donations and about our “thank you” gift for
supporters. Contribute to FAN’s Legal
us ensure that regulators are held accountable legally for choosing to ignore
our petition. This lawsuit could be the nail in the coffin for fluoridation
worldwide. To make a tax-deductible
donation to the Fluoride Action Network, a project of the American Environmental
Health Studies Project, you can either:
Donate online using
server. If you should experience difficulty in donating
at our secure server, please call Network For Good at 1-888-284-7978 and
press option 3 to make your donation over the phone.
Or by check – please make checks payable
to Fluoride Action Network and send to: FAN, c/o Connett, 104 Walnut Street,
Binghamton NY 13905
*Please note that some corporations
match tax deductible donations made by their employees to some non-profits. We
qualify for this. This is the information to provide your corporation finance
people, the parent body for FAN is the American Environmental Health Studies
Project, Inc, registered in Vermont.
Thank You Gift
Michael is featured in a new video available on DVD
and flash drive, "Fluoride and the Brain." In
this he explains that fluoride's ability to lower IQ in children is just the tip
of an iceberg of over 300 animal and human studies that indicate that fluoride
FAN has also made a comprehensive
collection of campaign and educational videos available on a single flash drive.
This is a must-have for every fluoride-free campaigner's toolkit. Here's what
you'll find on the drive:
A successful project which has led to more children brushing their teeth in Sheffield is set to be rolled out to more nurseries and schools in the city.
Tooth brushing clubs will be set up in 40 more schools and nurseries across the city to encourage more children to brush their teeth after figures from Public Health England show that in Sheffield the average five-year-old child has one decayed, missing or filled tooth - slightly above the national average.
A child from Meynell Nursey, in Southey Green, brushes his teeth
The tooth brushing scheme has been running in 26 primary schools and nurseries since 2014.
Children are provided with the free toothbrushes and toothpaste as well training, information and the skills they need to ensure that children learn about the importance of regularly brushing their teeth from an early age. Now, tooth brushing clubs are to be set up at 40 additional schools and nurseries, as a partnership between Sheffield Council and Sheffield Teaching Hospital Trust’s oral health promotion team.. Annie Farrell, nursery manager at Meynell Nursey in Southey Green, has been running a tooth brushing club since 2014.
She said: “We encourage all the children at nursery to clean their teeth every day before they eat. We talk to the children about the importance of tooth brushing and parents have told us that children have been eager to clean their teeth at home. “Last year we worked with a family whose little boy refused to clean his teeth at home. After working on this in stages at toothbrush club, he started to do this at home too.”
Each year the nursery also runs a session for parents, to explain what is done in tooth brushing club and to support parents in their understanding of good practice.
Annie added: “The children really enjoy this activity. Some of their recent comments include ‘it's fun and makes me happy’ and 'it makes my teeth shine.”
Greg Fell, director of public health at Sheffield Council, said: “There is no doubt that getting all children into a good tooth brushing routine can prevent decay and ultimately save teeth.
“I’m so pleased that brushing clubs are being extended to 40 more schools and nurseries across the city – it’s great that more children will be helped to get into the habit of brushing their teeth.
“This project is partnership working at its best; the council, health services and schools working together to encourage children and families to brush! brush! brush!”
Jim Rutherford, a dentist at Pitsmoor Dental Health Centre said: “I often see the worst problems with children who constantly consume food and drinks with a high sugar content."
“Tooth brushing clubs help to reinforce the importance of good brushing and a low sugar diet to children and their parents.
"We always advise brushing two times a day for two minutes with a fluoride toothpaste and to avoid sugary snacks and drinks. As well as this it is essential for children to regularly visit their own dentist for routine checkups."
Hospitals in Glasgow, and indeed around the UK, are seeing thousands of very young children each year needing baby teeth removed. The Faculty of Dental Surgery at the Royal College of Surgeons, which compiled the data, blames tooth decay linked to sugary diets. Figures show there were 9,206 extractions carried out on children aged four and younger between April 2015 and March 2016.
That is a rise of about 24% in the space of a decade – more than you would expect from population growth alone, says the faculty.
“When you see the numbers tallied up like this, it becomes abundantly clear that the sweet habits of our children are having a devastating effect on the state of their teeth” says lead researcher Professor Nigel Hunt.
“What is really distressing about these figures is that 90% of tooth decay is preventable through reducing sugar consumption, regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste and routine dental visits”
At Tiwari Watson Dental Care in Glasgow we are passionate about helping to ensure our younger patients (and of course their parents!) get into good oral healthcare habits when it comes to looking after baby teeth.
The key is to understand that tooth decay is totally preventable – largely by limiting sugary food and drink and making sure children visit the dentist regularly, as well as brush their teeth twice a day with fluoride toothpaste.
Limit sugary snacks (including fruit and dried fruit) and sugary drinks
Brush as soon as your baby gets their first tooth
Do it twice a day – morning and night – for about two minutes
Use only a smear of toothpaste if your child is younger than three. Use a pea-sized blob thereafter
Make sure the toothpaste is lower-strength, containing 1,000ppm fluoride
Monitor your children brushing their teeth until they are least years old (to ensure they are brushing properly)
As your local dental practice in Glasgow, we are here to help you to enjoy a happy, heathly smile for life. For more information about the part that healthy diet plays in maintaining a healthy smile, please visit the Oral Health Foundation website >>
If you are worried about any aspect of your child’s smile, and would like to discuss this with a member of our team, please book an appointment at Tiwari Watson Dental Care in Glasgow by calling us on 0141 557 3488 or request an appointment with us via our Online Appointment Request Form >>
Bit obvious that it is sugar. Still have to be thankful they haven't called for fluoridation.
Even More Researchers Acknowledge Fluoridation’s Lack of Effectiveness Data
“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016).
Sicca, et al. analyzed thirty systematic reviews on tooth decay prevention, from 2002 – 2015, and report “there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether the use [of] water fluoridation has a significant impact in the reduction of caries." Other scientists concur. For example, Swedish researchers, in "PLOS one," February 2015, reported a “systematic review concerned the caries-preventive effect of water fluoridation [MdDonagh]… was graded as low.”
In July 2012, Cagetti, et al. reported “Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs… these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable”
Fluoride's cavity-preventing foundation is based on human experimental studies which began in 1945. Errors and omissions in those studies were pointed out by dental researcher Phillip Sutton and others as early as 1959. Fluoridation uncertainty existed from the outset. Reasonable voices of scientific opposition were ignored, for example, that of respected physician, Dr. George Waldbott. See: http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/.../fluoridation...
So it's not surprising that 72 years after fluoridation began, reaching record numbers of Americans via the water, food and beverages made with that water, dental products (virtually all non invented when fluoridation began), fluoride in medicine and air pollution, dentists have been complicet in creating a new public health problem - fluoride overdose symptoms - dental fluorosis (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth) now afflicting 58% of US adolescents, according to federal data.
In 2015, the independent and trusted UK-based Cochrane group of researchers could not find any quality evidence that proves fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” or that fluoridation cessation increases decay rates.
Fluoridation is one the biggest public health blunders of modern times, a political boondoggle, not supported by science. It must stop.
Americans are fluoride-overdosed and dentist-deficient. It's odd that a dentist is advocating fluoridating the poor (without any evidence of need) instead of rallying her profession to actually treat the poor.
This is sick! Just look at what we are putting in our bodies! They are dumbing us Americans down using fluoride, by putting it in ALL of our water, bottled and tap!
Boiling Down Drinking Water "Fluoride Test"
‘Vaccine industry zealots believe in destroying the freedom to think. Their actions — and especially the actions of sociopathic medical violence pushers like Dr. David Gorski — reflect the kind of destruction of knowledge we’ve all witnessed throughout history when evil regimes burned books in order to control the official narrative. (Dr. Gorski is a high-level editor at Wikipedia and writes all the entries involving vaccines, chemotherapy and cancer surgery, blocking all dissenting facts or information he doesn’t like.)
There is no question whatsoever that vaccines cause widespread harm and death — see this revelation about the UK government paying out tens of millions in damages after hundreds of children were brain damaged by the swine flu vaccine — yet this simple, irrefutable fact is not even allowed to be debated today due to the coordinated, pharma-funded effort to absolutely destroy any person who even asks a simple question about vaccine safety or vaccine ingredients.’
The resistance against water fluoridation might be a different story if the naturally occurring element of fluoride was added to our water.
Fluoride is found in all natural waters, levels can be very high in groundwater, depending on a number of factors, such as the types of rocks and minerals of that region. Drinking water is the largest fluoridesource.
Our tap water, on the other hand, is littered with hydrofluorosilicic Acid, a toxic industrial waste by-product that governments have been adding to our drinking water for over sixty years.
Again, we’re not talking about the natural element of fluoride here, we are talking about industrial toxic waste..............
The question has to be asked - why after denigrating opponents of fluoridation and claiming that she has the science on her side, will Dr Dickinson not front up to a public debate like she agreed?
Auckland University Professor Michelle Dickinson, aka science blogger “Nanogirl” has backed down on debating Professor Paul Connett, Senior Advisor to the Fluoride Action Network. Dr Dickinson agreed in an email correspondence on Sunday with Fluoride Free New Zealand (FFNZ) that "she was happy to debate" and that "it was a debate that needs to happen". She said she would debate Prof Connett, providing it was on a mainstream television channel. The Nation and Q+A TV programmes both said they were willing to host the fluoridation debate.
However, she is now claiming she never agreed in the first place. FFNZ says they have the email trail to prove she did agree and will provide it on request. They say Michelle needs to explain herself.
Dickinson has been an outspoken critic of people opposed to fluoridation on her blog and said in an opinion piece for the NZ Herald that fluoridation opponents consistently prolong the fluoridation debate and referred to them as “purveyors of non-science woo woo.”
Media Spokesperson for FFNZ, Mary Byrne says, “It looks like Michelle has found out the hard way, that it is not the opponents of fluoridation that are purveying non-science woo-woo, but the promoters. This should give the public and decision makers, who take their cue from people such as Michelle, serious pause for thought”.
Dickinson blogged that water is toxic if we have too much of it and asked, “does this mean we need to start warning people about the dangers of drinking water too?” She added, “you would need to drink 1220 glasses of water in a day for it to be possibly toxic” and “perhaps your messages should be less concerned about the levels of fluoride in the water, and more concerned about the dangers of water itself!
Byrne says, “Michelle has now probably read a response to her blog from Prof Connett, where he explained that the activists that Michelle was criticising were actually correct. Fluoride does have harmful effects at low doses. The Ministry of Health reports that 41% of children in New Zealand have some form of dental fluorosis, the first outward sign of fluoride toxicity. This proves children are getting a toxic dose. Perhaps Michelle had never thought about it like this before, and has now realised how mistaken she has been”.
If Dickinson is not comfortable to front a debate, then Sir Peter Gluckman should make himself available. Mary Byrne says, “The New Zealand public and our MPs are relying on the science Prof Gluckman has provided. It would say an awful lot if he was not prepared to publicly stand by his scientific position in a debate.”
Fluoride Free New Zealand says it is well overdue for a proper debate to be held on this subject. “For too long we have only heard one side of the argument and we are tired of people like Michelle denigrating those of us opposed to fluoridation when they don’t have the guts to stand up in public and defend it in a fair debate.” Mary adds, “If she has realised there is more to the issue than she thought, she should have the integrity to say so.”
Parliament will debate the 2nd reading of the fluoridation bill on the 6th of June.
People in Singapore with 6 decades of fluoridated water. They are still alive and walking, so many Singaporeans argued that life long low dose of fluoride ingestion is safe. Safety has been redefined in the Lion City.
What is the explanation for so many seemingly crippled in the country?
USA - After fluoridation is discontinued in Bedford County, local dentist fights back
FOREST — Two months after the county stopped adding fluoride to a portion of its water supply, a local dentist and mother determined to bring it back is working to educate patients on the health implications.
As of Feb. 1, the Bedford Regional Water Authority ended its fluoridation process. Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply. Prior to Feb. 1, Bedford’s central water system was treated 0.70 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water. The other two systems either were not fluoridated or treated with Lynchburg’s fluoridated water.
The Bedford Regional Water Authority said fluoridation was discontinued due to opposition. BRWA assistant director Nathan Carroll said people who approached BRWA staff at public events concerning fluoride are opposed to it. .................
A top professor has agreed to spar with an anti-fluoride group, saying it is a debate that needs to happen.
Auckland University professor Michelle Dickinson will debate Professor Paul Connett, who is a senior adviser to the Fluoride Action Network.
The group is an international coalition which refuses to accept the current science on fluoride, and claims it is highly toxic.
The Ministry of Health says fluoride is a natural compound that exists in air, fresh water, soil and plants. Fluoride helps guard against tooth decay and its addition to tap water is recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Dickinson, also known as Nanogirl because of her work as a nanotechnologist, has been an outspoken critic of those opposed to the fluoridation of water and has studied the topic as part of her master’s degree and PhD.
She will invite the prime minister’s chief science adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, to join her in the debate. Connett has accused Gluckman of relying on ‘‘junk sci- ence’’ to support fluoridation.
Dickinson said there was no evidence for IQ loss in fluoride studies and the science was ‘‘quite clear’’.
Just about every dental health professional agrees that brushing your teeth at least twice a day is a good thing, but what goes into that toothpaste is a wee bit more controversial. (Don’t even get us started on the whole is-flossing-really-worth-it debate of 2016.)
The source of contention? Fluoride, the naturally occurring mineral that has been added to drinking water for decades and is an ingredient in many, many adult toothpastes.
On the one hand, mainstream dentists generally embrace it as a big-time cavity fighter. The American Dental Association not only supports fluoridation of water; it won’t put its seal of approval on any toothpaste that doesn’t contain it.
And yet over the years, a smaller group of holistic dentists have raised concerns about potential neurotoxicity of fluoride in drinking water and toothpaste. After all, top medical journal The Lancetdesignated the mineral as a neurotoxin in 2014. And shortly after that, federal health officials—for the first time in more than 50 years— advised local governments to lower the amount of fluoride in the US water supply.
So, what tube to trust? We asked two dentists with different opinions to weigh in on what you should squeeze onto your toothbrush every day.
The argument against fluoride
Around 15 years ago, Bruno Sharp, DDS—a fourth-generation dentist with a practice in Florida—began digging into the criticism of the old-school oral health ingredient, and he found a lot to be alarmed by.
“The effects of fluoride haven ’t been known to most dentists, therefore most dentists still believe that it’s beneficial,” Dr. Sharp says. But fluoride is a potential neurotoxin, he argues, and can accumulate in the body over time.
Indeed, mainstream medical groups like the Mayo Clinic warn about the dangerous side effects of overdosing on sodium fluoride, though it adds that taking it as a supplement or drinking it in tap water does not usually cause any of those issues. And yet, the Environmental Protection Agency has also said it’s likely some children are exposed to too much fluoride “at least occasionally.”
Which is why for Dr. Sharp, it’s just not worth the risk for anyone, especially because he’s not convinced by the science supporting fluoride’s efficacy in treating cavities.
A 2015 Cochrane review found, for example, that fluoridated water simply didn’t have any cavity-fighting benefits for adults specifically, and that a lot of the science supporting fluoridation was decades old. “Adults and children,” he says, “should be aware of the research and data available out there.”
Dr. Sharp does believe that patients with oral cancer requiring radiation do benefit from fluoride. But beyond that, he’s convinced there’s no compelling reason for it to be in toothpaste—and he’s got his own fluoride-free line that he sells through big mainstream brands, like Target and Whole Foods.
On the other hand: Here’s what it does for your teeth
New Jersey-based dentist Alexander Rubinov, DDS, is totally Team Fluoride when it comes to topical applications like toothpaste. It’s absorbed into the tooth’s enamel, he explains, and helps repair it by replenishing lost minerals. In other words, it can really help keep teeth strong.
That said, Dr. Rubinov fully acknowledges that fluoride can be dangerous in really high amounts. “I don’t want to discredit all the research that’s been done that has indicated fluoride is, indeed, toxic in a certain dose,” he notes. But you won’t get that dose from your toothpaste, which, reminder: You definitely should not be swallowing anyway.
All that said, if you generally have really good dental hygiene—you drink a lot of water, avoid sugary drinks, and you brush and floss every day—it probably doesn’t matter if you want to skip fluoride, he says.
As he explains, “It’s really most important for people who aren’t compliant with good oral health care.” In other words: Keep up a spot-on dental routine and you might not even have to worry about fluoride.
I read the entire series of reports about the Fluoride debates written by Stephanie Johnson, your award-winning reporter, and as a health buff for more than 40 years I just had to do this: I learned all about the Fluoride hoax. I live in Gravenhurst and we had a similar debate with mixed results. Huntsville and Lake of Bays opted to stop fluoridation. My town as well as Bracebridge opted to keep it in. How sad for the tea and coffee drinkers.
It is hard work trying to accomplish what you did in Parry Sound — congratulations! There were no losers in your final decision to remove Fluoride. What did it was your patience, open-mindedness and sincere concern and respect for all viewpoints, allowing each to have the time and opportunity to fully present his or her case.
I have done the research on Fluoride and can tell that you do not consider it the harmless thing we've been told it is. Biochemists who analyzed the product now being used in our water have discovered it contains not only Fluoride but also traces of as many as 50 deadly chemicals. We are not told about this and so continue to believe the original story which fooled even the medical world, so some of them still cannot be blamed. However, they owe it to themselves to dig up the real story online. I had to do it to change my view. We have the means to learn right from wrong — let's use those brains.
Others often try to make fools of us. The one main concern I had was with a statement made at the end of one of the last of Johnson's articles that indicated there can be no tests for Fluoride content for 60 months following the conclusion of Fluoride addition to your water. I would want to have that checked once a week by an independent laboratory just to reassure yourselves. Think again here like you did previously.
A bill that would have mandated fluoride in Reno’s water supply died in committee on Friday. The bill was sponsored by assembly members Amber Joiner (D-Reno) and Michael Sprinkle (D-Sparks).
Board Vice Chair Vaughn Hartung called the bill a “circumvention of the voters,” saying that Nevada law requires a vote of the people. In 2002, 58 percent of Washoe County residents voted against water fluoridation.
According to TMWA:
It directly contradicts the will of Washoe County voters. In 2002, a countywide vote was taken in Washoe County where 58 percent voted against fluoridation. The Board felt that the present bill, as introduced, circumvents that vote and that any fluoride decisions should require a vote of the public.
Commenters on the Nevada Legislature website also overwhelmingly denounced the legislation. One person wrote:
This bill takes the same approach that we so abhor about national politics. “We politicians know what’s best for you!” and “Washoe County, you’re too stupid to know what’s best for you so we will save you from yourselves.” You are mandating fluoridation without the courage of putting it to a public vote. It’s unconscionable that two Northern Nevadans are pushing this to a State-wide vote, rather than Washoe deciding what Washoe wants.
Auckland University 'Nanogirl' Michelle Dickinson says the science on fluoride shows it is safe.
An anti-fluoride group has challenged an Auckland scientist to a debate around the science of fluoride.
The Fluoride Action Network has suggested the Prime Minister's chief science advisor Sir Peter Gluckman join Auckland University scientist Michelle Dickinson in a mainstream debate.
Dickinson said she was open to a debate if presented on a mainstream television channel.
If the debate were to go ahead, Dickinson would spar with Professor Paul Connett who is a senior advisor to the Fluoride Action Network
Dickinson said as of Monday, she had yet to hear that a time or place or channel had been set up for a debate. Fluoride Free NZ said those details were yet to be confirmed. The group is part of an international coalition which doesn't accept the current science on fluoride, and says it is highly toxic.
The Ministry of Health says fluoride is a natural compound that exists in air, fresh water, soil and plants. Fluoride helps guard against tooth decay and its addition to tap water is recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Dickinson, also known as Nanogirl because of her work as a nanotechnologist, has been an outspoken critic of those opposed to fluoridation of water and has studied the topic as part of her master's degree and PhD. Connett has accused Gluckman of relying on "junk science" to support the continuation of fluoridation in New Zealand.
Dickinson said has there was no evidence for IQ loss in fluoride studies and the science was "quite clear".
(Natural News) Exposure to leaded gasoline in childhood may have negatively impacted intelligence and job status across America, according to a recent study. Researchers examined blood samples from more than 500 participants who grew up in the era of leaded gasoline. Data show that participants with more than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood at age 11 had IQs that were 4.25 points lower than less-exposed individuals at age 38. The study also showed that each 5-microgram increase in blood lead levels coincide with up to 1.5 IQ point loss.
“This suggests at the very least that individuals don’t fully recover from lead-related cognitive injuries received in childhood. It also suggests that lead exerts a downward pull on an individual’s cognitive abilities over time regardless of where they start out in life,” said lead study author Aaron Reuben, as reported in Reuters.com.
The study also examined the differences in social status among participants and found that those who had more than 10 micrograms of lead in the blood obtained occupations that had lower socioeconomic status levels at age 38 compared with those who had less exposure.
“The downward social mobility we see mirrors the trend in IQ, the decline in occupational status is partially but significantly explained by the loss of IQ. If you’re above the historic level of concern (for lead exposure), you’re doing worse on both. The cognitive deficits associated with lead persisted for decades, and showed in the kinds of occupations people got,” Reuben added. (RELATED: Find more news on lead and other heavy metals at HeavyMetals.news.)
The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association................
"A recent study shows that chocolate is less harmful than many other sweets because the antibacterial agents in cocoa beans lowers its high sugar levels. One group were given a high sugar diet. The second study group were infected with Streptococcus Mutans bacteria (which contributes to cavities) and were also given a high sugary diet. After three months, the study revealed that the first group had 14 cavities on average compared to just six cavities for those who added the extract of cocoa bean husk (CBH) to their drinking water." How did they get away with that experiment? I never gave any Easter chocolate to my son and stopped any being given to him. He never went through the agony I went through as a teenager with rotten teeth. It isn't lack of fluoride it is sugar and acid drinks that causes dental decay and the manufacturers don't give a damn as long as they make a profit.