Oppose mandatory fluoridation
Oppose mandatory fluoridation
Paul Connett
April 13, 2007
In his April 7 guest opinion on fluoridation, Gordon Empey provides a classic example of the dangers of allowing the issue of water fluoridation to be captured by the dental lobby. Empey addressed the same sub-committee that I did recently. I am surprised that he learned so little from the scientific evidence I presented.
Teeth are not the only tissue in the human body which warrants our protection. What person in their right mind would put the protection of their children’s teeth over protecting their brains and other delicate tissues? The level of fluoride added to water — 1 ppm — may seem small to some but it is 250 times higher than the level that occurs in mothers’ milk. This means that a bottle fed baby will be getting 250 times more fluoride than nature intended and at a time when its blood brain barrier is not fully developed. There have now been over 30 animals studies which indicate that fluoride can damage the brain (e.g. Varner et al., 1998) and over 18 studies which indicate that fluoride lowers IQ in children at levels as low as 1.8 ppm (Xiang et al. 2003 a, b).
There is no indication that Empey has read the serious literature on this topic. He seems blissfully unaware that the National Research Council has produced a 500 page report (with over 1,000 references) reviewing the many tissues that fluoride can damage and some at very low doses (NRC, 2006). The conclusion of this panel’s three and a half year study was that the EPA should lower its maximum contaminant level for fluoride in water from 4 ppm. That leaves no adequate margin of safety for fluoridation at 1 ppm, when one considers that in any population there is at least a 10-fold range in sensitivity to any drug or toxic substance and once in the water the dose cannot be controlled.
Instead of citing the primary literature on this matter, Empey cites the CDC’s infamous quote from 1999 which stated that fluoridation was one of the top 10 public health achievements of the twentieth century. However, if he had read the report on which this statement was based, he would have seen that the authors were six years out of date on safety (they cite only one review from 1993) and their evidence for its effectiveness was laughable. The decline in tooth decay in 12-year-olds, which they ascribe to the increase in the number of people drinking fluoridated water in the U.S., according to figures from the World Health Organization, is more than matched by similar declines in non-fluoridated countries.
Furthermore, if Empey had read this CDC report, he would have found that the authors conceded that fluoride works topically (i.e. from the outside of the tooth) and not from inside the body. Thus, swallowing fluoride makes as much sense as swallowing sunblock to protect against UV light!
With so little evidence of benefit (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Spencer et al. 1996; de Liefde, 1998; Locker, 1999; McDonagh et al, 2000; Armfield and Spencer, 2004 and Prizzo et al, 2007) and the evidence for serious health effects growing (NRC, 2006), including life threatening bone cancer in young boys (Bassin, 2006), it is preposterous to be proposing mandatory fluoridation in Oregon.
One can only guess what motivates the ADA and the CDC to keep promoting this foolish practice, but it is certainly not based upon a diligent attention to scientific studies on the matter.
Paul Connett is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y. He can be reached at Paul@AmericanHealthStudies.org.
Paul Connett
April 13, 2007
In his April 7 guest opinion on fluoridation, Gordon Empey provides a classic example of the dangers of allowing the issue of water fluoridation to be captured by the dental lobby. Empey addressed the same sub-committee that I did recently. I am surprised that he learned so little from the scientific evidence I presented.
Teeth are not the only tissue in the human body which warrants our protection. What person in their right mind would put the protection of their children’s teeth over protecting their brains and other delicate tissues? The level of fluoride added to water — 1 ppm — may seem small to some but it is 250 times higher than the level that occurs in mothers’ milk. This means that a bottle fed baby will be getting 250 times more fluoride than nature intended and at a time when its blood brain barrier is not fully developed. There have now been over 30 animals studies which indicate that fluoride can damage the brain (e.g. Varner et al., 1998) and over 18 studies which indicate that fluoride lowers IQ in children at levels as low as 1.8 ppm (Xiang et al. 2003 a, b).
There is no indication that Empey has read the serious literature on this topic. He seems blissfully unaware that the National Research Council has produced a 500 page report (with over 1,000 references) reviewing the many tissues that fluoride can damage and some at very low doses (NRC, 2006). The conclusion of this panel’s three and a half year study was that the EPA should lower its maximum contaminant level for fluoride in water from 4 ppm. That leaves no adequate margin of safety for fluoridation at 1 ppm, when one considers that in any population there is at least a 10-fold range in sensitivity to any drug or toxic substance and once in the water the dose cannot be controlled.
Instead of citing the primary literature on this matter, Empey cites the CDC’s infamous quote from 1999 which stated that fluoridation was one of the top 10 public health achievements of the twentieth century. However, if he had read the report on which this statement was based, he would have seen that the authors were six years out of date on safety (they cite only one review from 1993) and their evidence for its effectiveness was laughable. The decline in tooth decay in 12-year-olds, which they ascribe to the increase in the number of people drinking fluoridated water in the U.S., according to figures from the World Health Organization, is more than matched by similar declines in non-fluoridated countries.
Furthermore, if Empey had read this CDC report, he would have found that the authors conceded that fluoride works topically (i.e. from the outside of the tooth) and not from inside the body. Thus, swallowing fluoride makes as much sense as swallowing sunblock to protect against UV light!
With so little evidence of benefit (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Spencer et al. 1996; de Liefde, 1998; Locker, 1999; McDonagh et al, 2000; Armfield and Spencer, 2004 and Prizzo et al, 2007) and the evidence for serious health effects growing (NRC, 2006), including life threatening bone cancer in young boys (Bassin, 2006), it is preposterous to be proposing mandatory fluoridation in Oregon.
One can only guess what motivates the ADA and the CDC to keep promoting this foolish practice, but it is certainly not based upon a diligent attention to scientific studies on the matter.
Paul Connett is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y. He can be reached at Paul@AmericanHealthStudies.org.
posted by Bill at
9:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home