THE Isle of Man Government is considering adding fluoride
FLOURIDE IN WATER - BEHIND THE HEADLINES
THE Isle of Man Government is considering adding fluoride to the water supply to help reduce the level of tooth decay, especially among children.
But campaigners opposed to the move claim that there are health risks involved and want the plans scrapped.
There is a report on the issue in today's Examiner (April 3) and in the process of putting together the article we received a detailed response from Dr Paul Emerson, Consultant in Public Health Medicine, who is the Manx government's expert on the issue.
Firstly, we asked him to comment on a report in The Observer often cited by anti-fluoride campaigners as evidence that it is harmful.
We also asked him to comment on the safety of fluoridation and for a response to accusations by Kevin Glynn and the Isle of Man Campaign for Non-Fluoridated Tap Water about health risks of fluoridation.
DR EMERSON'S RESPONSE:
Thank you for giving me a chance to respond to several questions re fluoridation of water.
Firstly, I will comment on the Observer story. The story originates from the Environment Working Group (EWG) which happens to have no scientifically or medically qualified staff on its Board and is not a scientific body but a pressure group which lobbies vociferously in Washington for many issues.
EWG has a long history of releasing scare stories about baby food, cosmetics, farmed fish, mothers' milk, fruit and vegetables and so their creep into fluoridation is not unexpected. All their previous scares stories were found to be baseless on investigation by scientists and there is no reason to suspect any difference on this anti-fluoride story.
It is interesting to note that the "study" in the Observer does not refer to a link for girls in this cancer theory.
The study has NOT been published in a peer reviewed journal. As research on which the newspaper article is based is not available in the public domain I cannot comment on the reliability of the research or the newspaper article, until full details have been published.
As a basis for interpreting scientific results it is poor practice to use the results from one study to develop a policy or derive conclusions – this is a single retrospective case-control study and is not a randomised control trial – the gold standard of trials – and so even if the trial was done properly it would be extremely unwise to accept the results at face value.
Far better to go to one of the 4 major systematic reviews (where results from all available good quality scientific studies are amalgamated and collated to develop a systematic result) that have been done in USA, Ireland, UK and Australia and see what they find. There is no evidence that fluoridation causes cancer of any type.
Secondly, the UK and EU water legislation permits the use 2 chemical compounds to increase the fluoride content of water.
These are: Disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) and
Hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6).
European standards for the above have been published and the BS EN Standards specify the physical properties and purity criteria required for the compounds, together with the test methods for sampling and analysis of the compounds, and labelling, transportation and storage instructions.
These compounds have been used in over 30 countries and for up to 40 years and their composition have not shown any evidence of harm or ill-health when used as instructed. (In addition every water authority – including our own IOM one – monitors water on a daily basis for over 40 chemical elements which include any that could possibly be associated with an impure batch – if an increase of any chemical is detected from these daily routine measurements steps are taken immediately to solve the problem.)
The use of chemicals in the water treatment process, including fluoridation chemicals, must be adequately controlled to safeguard the health and safety of employees and the public and there is significant legislation in place to control the safe use of these substances.
The experience of using these substances is extensive and there is no evidence - despite over 50 years of searching – that fluoridation causes harm or ill-health when used within the legislative and Regulatory guidelines.
Many chemicals are toxic when they are in concentrated form – but that is why we dilute them to 1 part per million in the case of fluoride substances! Chlorine is extremely harmful in concentrated form (and is a "sister" chemical to fluorine!) – even used to make chemical bombs – but we add it in diluted format to our local IOM water every day to prevent gut infections.
Mr Glynn`s assertion that the fluoride substance "contains" lead arsenic and mercury merely demonstrates that he does not understand chemistry because Hexafluorosilicic acid is composed of the elements I list above – no lead etc is contained in the substance because they are completely different chemical compounds.
He may be referring to some sort of theory he has that the fluoride compounds are contaminated with lead and arsenic but, as I have shown above, the purity and quality standards for the fluoride substances are strictly regulated so that does not happen in a good quality system such as that found in the IOM water Authority. (If you want more facts re this please contact the CEO of the Water Authority).
I must say that I find it rather insulting that Mr Glynn – or his friends – should even think that we would consider adding a poor quality contaminated substance to our water supplies – I do not intend to harm my family or friends or the general public or even myself!
"some sort of theory he has that the fluoride compounds are contaminated with lead and arsenic" This is no theory - from the Chief Medical Officer's statement "The specification for Na2SiF6 powder requires a minimum of 98% m/m of the pure chemical, and gives maximum limits for impurities, including heavy metals (as lead) and iron." Not exactly pure
2 more pages
THE Isle of Man Government is considering adding fluoride to the water supply to help reduce the level of tooth decay, especially among children.
But campaigners opposed to the move claim that there are health risks involved and want the plans scrapped.
There is a report on the issue in today's Examiner (April 3) and in the process of putting together the article we received a detailed response from Dr Paul Emerson, Consultant in Public Health Medicine, who is the Manx government's expert on the issue.
Firstly, we asked him to comment on a report in The Observer often cited by anti-fluoride campaigners as evidence that it is harmful.
We also asked him to comment on the safety of fluoridation and for a response to accusations by Kevin Glynn and the Isle of Man Campaign for Non-Fluoridated Tap Water about health risks of fluoridation.
DR EMERSON'S RESPONSE:
Thank you for giving me a chance to respond to several questions re fluoridation of water.
Firstly, I will comment on the Observer story. The story originates from the Environment Working Group (EWG) which happens to have no scientifically or medically qualified staff on its Board and is not a scientific body but a pressure group which lobbies vociferously in Washington for many issues.
EWG has a long history of releasing scare stories about baby food, cosmetics, farmed fish, mothers' milk, fruit and vegetables and so their creep into fluoridation is not unexpected. All their previous scares stories were found to be baseless on investigation by scientists and there is no reason to suspect any difference on this anti-fluoride story.
It is interesting to note that the "study" in the Observer does not refer to a link for girls in this cancer theory.
The study has NOT been published in a peer reviewed journal. As research on which the newspaper article is based is not available in the public domain I cannot comment on the reliability of the research or the newspaper article, until full details have been published.
As a basis for interpreting scientific results it is poor practice to use the results from one study to develop a policy or derive conclusions – this is a single retrospective case-control study and is not a randomised control trial – the gold standard of trials – and so even if the trial was done properly it would be extremely unwise to accept the results at face value.
Far better to go to one of the 4 major systematic reviews (where results from all available good quality scientific studies are amalgamated and collated to develop a systematic result) that have been done in USA, Ireland, UK and Australia and see what they find. There is no evidence that fluoridation causes cancer of any type.
Secondly, the UK and EU water legislation permits the use 2 chemical compounds to increase the fluoride content of water.
These are: Disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) and
Hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6).
European standards for the above have been published and the BS EN Standards specify the physical properties and purity criteria required for the compounds, together with the test methods for sampling and analysis of the compounds, and labelling, transportation and storage instructions.
These compounds have been used in over 30 countries and for up to 40 years and their composition have not shown any evidence of harm or ill-health when used as instructed. (In addition every water authority – including our own IOM one – monitors water on a daily basis for over 40 chemical elements which include any that could possibly be associated with an impure batch – if an increase of any chemical is detected from these daily routine measurements steps are taken immediately to solve the problem.)
The use of chemicals in the water treatment process, including fluoridation chemicals, must be adequately controlled to safeguard the health and safety of employees and the public and there is significant legislation in place to control the safe use of these substances.
The experience of using these substances is extensive and there is no evidence - despite over 50 years of searching – that fluoridation causes harm or ill-health when used within the legislative and Regulatory guidelines.
Many chemicals are toxic when they are in concentrated form – but that is why we dilute them to 1 part per million in the case of fluoride substances! Chlorine is extremely harmful in concentrated form (and is a "sister" chemical to fluorine!) – even used to make chemical bombs – but we add it in diluted format to our local IOM water every day to prevent gut infections.
Mr Glynn`s assertion that the fluoride substance "contains" lead arsenic and mercury merely demonstrates that he does not understand chemistry because Hexafluorosilicic acid is composed of the elements I list above – no lead etc is contained in the substance because they are completely different chemical compounds.
He may be referring to some sort of theory he has that the fluoride compounds are contaminated with lead and arsenic but, as I have shown above, the purity and quality standards for the fluoride substances are strictly regulated so that does not happen in a good quality system such as that found in the IOM water Authority. (If you want more facts re this please contact the CEO of the Water Authority).
I must say that I find it rather insulting that Mr Glynn – or his friends – should even think that we would consider adding a poor quality contaminated substance to our water supplies – I do not intend to harm my family or friends or the general public or even myself!
"some sort of theory he has that the fluoride compounds are contaminated with lead and arsenic" This is no theory - from the Chief Medical Officer's statement "The specification for Na2SiF6 powder requires a minimum of 98% m/m of the pure chemical, and gives maximum limits for impurities, including heavy metals (as lead) and iron." Not exactly pure
2 more pages
posted by Bill at
9:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home