Australia - Two kilograms of reasons to question fluoride

Two kilograms of reasons to question fluoride
Peter Robinson
Tenterfield resident Peter Robinson has been studying and collecting information about fluoride over the past 18 months.
He now has 2kg of material. "Every page of which I have read," he said. Mr Robinson studied human physiology and pharmacology during his five year veterinary course in London. He has since gained a Master of Science degree from the University of Edinburgh. He says that he believes many Tenterfield Star readers may be interested in learning more about the issue before the council's public information session about fluoride at the School of Arts tomorrow night and has written the following article based on his research. Water fluoridation - what is all the fuss about?
By Peter Robinson
Consider the following facts and then make your own common-sense decision about whether you agree to having fluoride added to your drinking water.
Ethically
ANY chemical substance when used to prevent or cure disease (such as dental caries) is a medicine by any dictionary definition. Water fluoridation is forced mass medication with an uncontrolled dose, yet our Australian constitution states that no medical procedure shall be conscripted (section 51, xxiiiA). It is ethically wrong to enforce a non-essential medication, especially on an unwilling population, when there is growing doubt concerning its safety and efficacy.
In the case of fluoride there is a very small gap between the recommended dose level (1 ppm) and toxic level (4 ppm). This safety margin should be very much greater, especially when intake is not controlled as when delivered via drinking water.
One of the many adverse effects of fluoridation recorded is an increase in violent crime. Until such mental influences are better understood the supply of fluoride as a medication should be much better controlled.
Biologically
fluoride crosses the placenta and is transferred from mother to foetus, with possibly damaging results. Infants' bottle fed milk formula reconstituted with fluoridated water contains about 100 times more fluoride than mother's milk. (Do we know better than mother nature?).
About 50% of ingested fluoride is retained in the body where it can lead to harmful effects such as a decrease in bone strength and elasticity, and to an increase in absorption of arsenic and lead. It also disrupts enzyme and hormone activity. Those suffering from poor nutrition are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects. Any beneficial effects to the teeth are mostly topical via gum absorption rather than systemic via ingestion.
Medically
numerous reputable peer-reviewed medical reports have associated fluoride intake with medical problems such as bone and uterine cancer, bone fragility and hip fracture, infant deaths, Down's Syndrome, and Alzheimer's disease. Since the introduction of fluoridation of water supplies in this country the incidence of dental fluorosis has increased dramatically. For instance in South Australia fluorosis in 10 to 16+ year-old children has risen to 56.8% in fluoridated areas, compared with 29.3% in non-fluoridated areas. (Even at the low fluoride intake from treated water, a certain level of dental fluorosis will be found). There is growing evidence that fluoride does not produce a marked reduction in dental caries. In case anyone believes these reports are unfounded extremist opinions, here is the policy position on ingested fluoride and fluoridation published by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology published in 2003: "The IAOMT performed the task of reviewing fluoride in a comprehensive, scientific and unbiased manner in accordance with criteria established to assure the protection of the public safety. The current policy position by IAOMT confirms earlier assessments and asserts that there is no discernible health benefit derived from ingested fluoride and that the preponderance of evidence shows that ingested fluoride in dosages now prevalent in public exposures aggravates existing illnesses and causes a greater incidence of adverse health effects. Ingested fluoride is hereby recognized as unsafe and ineffective for the purposes of reducing tooth decay".
Hygienically
fluoride products used in the artificial fluoridation of water often contain lead and arsenic as contaminants and are added unpurified (as an undesirable by-product of industrial processes) to domestic water supplies.
Legally
ALL Tenterfield councillors and concerned council staff have been informed in writing of the risks of adding fluoride to our drinking water supply, as have NSW Health Service staff. They have a duty of care to their constituents and residents under their jurisdiction. There are recommended safety standards as guidelines, such as the requirement to make a total fluoride intake study prior to adding fluoride to drinking water supplies. If they knowingly authorise water fluoridation without taking due consideration of the risks involved they could be open to legal prosecution.
Logically
WE may be forced, against the majority will, to drink water containing fluoride which is difficult and expensive to remove if we wish to. This decision will be made by supposed 'experts' who repeatedly have displayed their lack of knowledge on the subject (such as stating that fluoride is an element). We should not have to risk our health by accepting policies which appear to be out of date, or risk our financial viability by unnecessary expenditure on such a contentious issue.
Mass medication via drinking water takes no account of an individual's age, gender, exposure to other sources, susceptibility, health status (eg. kidney disease) or daily intake of water (eg. hot or cold climate, summer or winter, active or sedentary, personal preferences). NSW Health has no knowledge of or control over residents' intake of water, especially by children. Many people now drink bottled water, which may or may not be fluoridated. The vast majority of the treated water will go down the drain - an official estimate states 99.46%. Is this considered good economics?
Economically
we are told our local council is so short of funds it cannot afford routine tasks such as adequate road maintenance. Fluoride compounds used to medicate drinking water are highly toxic and require special precautions when being transported, stored and handled. Continuous inspections, monitoring and testing are mandatory, including collection and analysis of at least two separated consumer samples per week. How much is all this going to cost us? We have lived without fluoridation all these years - why now involve all this extra expense when it is not necessary and when the risks and benefits are so much in dispute? Doesn't plain common sense say that we should at least wait until the forthcoming publication of the US National Research Council's review of ‘The toxicologic impact of fluoride in drinking water'?
Statistically
numerous statistics have been presented to support fluoridation, but all statistics can be countered by conflicting findings, eg. Nambucca (fluoridated) has worse decay than Kempsey (unfluoridated) in 12 year olds. The incidence of dental caries is falling in many countries. WHO statistics drawn from various countries show absolutely no correlation between dental caries in 12 year-olds and whether the country's water supply is fluoridated or not. Only six countries in the world impose water fluoridation on the majority of their population. Most of Europe has banned it - at present only about 10% of the UK's population drinks fluoridated water, and this is only if the local population is in favour. Other countries have banned it because of their opposition to compulsory medication (Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg), ethical and medical considerations (France, Finland), risk of poisoning (Denmark, Austria), no legal basis for fluoridation (Netherlands), and because it is uneconomical, unecological, unethical, and toxicologically and physiologically debatable (Czech Republic).
Nowadays we are exposed to more fluoride e.g., from fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash, pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables, and contamination from heavy industries, yet in spite of this the 1 ppm dose rate set in 1945 is still unchanged.
Basic common sense
there is a narrow range between intakes associated with beneficial effects and exposures causing adverse effects, including poisoning. There is no way that dosage can be controlled if fluoride is added to drinking water - some people drink lots of water, others drink hardly any; some drink tap water, others drink bottled water. Many, especially children, drink sweetened drinks which are probably much more damaging to dental health than unfluoridated water. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that countries should not commence fluoridation without first ascertaining the amount of fluoride that individuals are consuming on a daily basis from all sources such as food and medication, stating "climatic conditions, volume of water consumed, and intake from other sources should be considered when setting national standards". Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has stated that ‘in view of the classification of fluoride as an equivocal carcinogen (causing cancer) in high dosage, it is imperative that public health recommendations in the future be based on accurate knowledge of the total fluoride intake of Australians' (1999). Such intake studies have never been conducted in Australia.
Lessons from the past
Can we not learn from past assurances of the safety of DDT, thalidomide, and the hundreds of other ‘safe' chemicals?
Recently it took over three years for our government health authorities to respond to the discovery in America that blood transfusions could transmit AIDS. In that time certainly hundreds, and probably thousands, of Australians contracted AIDS from blood transfusions and have since died. Our health ‘experts' now seem determined to risk a similar mistake again. Is there no hope that basic common sense will prevail?
Critical questions to be answered
Why the hurry? Why not wait until these doubts are resolved? What public consultation has taken place? How will public opinion be assessed by NSW Health, and will this influence the decision?
B If you have an interest in your health and that of you family, come to the School of Arts tomorrow evening (Wednesday) at 6 pm and see if any of these and many other questions receive a straight answer from our health experts.