USA
By Crawford, Alan Pell
Could everything you've ever been told about fluoride be wrong?
Fluoride, the cavity-fighting compound that's gotten kudos in the past, is now in the hot seat.
Damage to tooth enamel is one of the dangers of highly fluoridated water cited in a report from the National Academy of Sciences in March 2006. The report called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to re-examine approved levels oi rluoride in water because of the risk-a hazard the EPA admits but has always regarded as of "cosmetic" concern only.
People who drink fluoridated water at or above the amount the EPA considers safe (4mg fluoride per liter of water) also have increased risk of bone fractures and skeletal Huorosis, a rare and sometimes crippling bone and joint condition, according to the report. And a 2006 Harvard University study linked males under 20 who drank tap water with that level of fluoride to osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer.
"Many Americans get too much fluoride and these studies show that," says Michael Connett, project director for the Vermont-based Fluoride Accion Network (FAN). What's more, concern over the mineral additive has been growing since the EPA reported in its January 2006 human health risk assessment that Americans are consuming significant amounts of Buoride in the form of sulfuryl rluoride, which is used as a pesticide in facilities storing grains, dried fruit and nuts.
To reduce this exposure, FAN, the Environmental Working Group and Beyond Pesticides asked the EPA to ban the use of sulfuryl fluoride on harvested foods. The EPA agreed to a "period of public comment" on the issue, which ended August 4. After that, the agency could have granted the groups' wish, though such an outcome was not likely.
"We are preparing to take the EPA to court," Connett told Win September, if the groups' (still pending) request for an evidentiary hearing be denied, the hearing would be conducted internally through the EPA and determine whether to go forward with a ban on fluoride.
People need to speak up, says Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. "There's no evidence that the EPA ever wants to seriously evaluate the health threats of these chemicals unless there is public outrage."
Could everything you've ever been told about fluoride be wrong?
Fluoride, the cavity-fighting compound that's gotten kudos in the past, is now in the hot seat.
Damage to tooth enamel is one of the dangers of highly fluoridated water cited in a report from the National Academy of Sciences in March 2006. The report called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to re-examine approved levels oi rluoride in water because of the risk-a hazard the EPA admits but has always regarded as of "cosmetic" concern only.
People who drink fluoridated water at or above the amount the EPA considers safe (4mg fluoride per liter of water) also have increased risk of bone fractures and skeletal Huorosis, a rare and sometimes crippling bone and joint condition, according to the report. And a 2006 Harvard University study linked males under 20 who drank tap water with that level of fluoride to osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer.
"Many Americans get too much fluoride and these studies show that," says Michael Connett, project director for the Vermont-based Fluoride Accion Network (FAN). What's more, concern over the mineral additive has been growing since the EPA reported in its January 2006 human health risk assessment that Americans are consuming significant amounts of Buoride in the form of sulfuryl rluoride, which is used as a pesticide in facilities storing grains, dried fruit and nuts.
To reduce this exposure, FAN, the Environmental Working Group and Beyond Pesticides asked the EPA to ban the use of sulfuryl fluoride on harvested foods. The EPA agreed to a "period of public comment" on the issue, which ended August 4. After that, the agency could have granted the groups' wish, though such an outcome was not likely.
"We are preparing to take the EPA to court," Connett told Win September, if the groups' (still pending) request for an evidentiary hearing be denied, the hearing would be conducted internally through the EPA and determine whether to go forward with a ban on fluoride.
People need to speak up, says Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. "There's no evidence that the EPA ever wants to seriously evaluate the health threats of these chemicals unless there is public outrage."
posted by Bill at
10:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home