.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, November 30, 2007

USA - Science has shown fluoride cuts caries

Science has shown fluoride cuts caries
To The Editor: A recent letter questioned the effectiveness of community water fluoridation based on the assertions of one individual, an Australian dental educator.

That apparently in the writer's opinion trumps the collective judgments of thousands of public health scientists in such organizations as not only the World Health Organization but also virtually every public health organization in the world, including our own National Institutes of Health..

Actually, the effectiveness was initially proved in 1945, with a carefully controlled scientific experiment when Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water.

During the next 15 years, researchers monitored the rate of tooth decay among Grand Rapids' almost 30,000 schoolchildren. After just 11 years, an amazing finding was announced: The caries rate among Grand Rapids children born after fluoridation dropped more than 60 percent compared to a control group in Muskegon Mich., without fluoridation!

A similar experiment then was run in Newburg, N.Y., paired with Kingston, N.Y., as a control, which after 15 years gave a 70 percent reduction among 13- to 14-year-olds

The truth is that through these and innumerable experiments since, no fact has been more firmly scientifically established: fluoridation works.

Paul M. Kintner


Wow 70% now!

Why Purified RO Water and Distilled Water are Bad For You

Why Purified RO Water and Distilled Water are Bad For You
by Zoltan P. Rona MD, MSc
During nearly 19 years of clinical practice I have had the opportunity to observe the health effects of drinking different types of water. Most of you would agree that drinking unfiltered tap water could be hazardous to your health because of things like parasites, chlorine, fluoride and dioxins. Many health fanatics, however, are often surprised to hear me say that drinking distilled water or purified water on a regular, daily basis is potentially dangerous. Paavo Airola wrote about the dangers of purified water in the 1970's when it first became a fad with the health food crowd.

Distillation is the process in which water is boiled, evaporated and the vapor condensed. Reverse osmosis or purified water is free of dissolved minerals and, because of this, has the special property of being able to actively absorb toxic substances from the body and eliminate them. Studies validate the benefits of drinking purified water when one is seeking to cleanse or detoxify the system for short periods of time (a few weeks at a time). Fasting using purified water can be dangerous because of the rapid loss of electrolytes (sodium, potassium, chloride) and trace minerals like magnesium, deficiencies of which can cause heart beat irregularities and high blood pressure. Cooking foods in distilled water pulls the minerals out of them and lowers their nutrient value.

Purified water is an active absorber and when it comes into contact with air, it absorbs carbon dioxide, making it acidic. The more purified water a person drinks, the higher the body acidity becomes. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Purified" water, that is essentially mineral-free, is very aggressive, in that it tends to dissolve substances with which it is in contact. Notably, carbon dioxide from the air is rapidly absorbed, making the water acidic and even more aggressive. Many metals are dissolved by distilled water .

The most toxic commercial beverages that people consume (i.e. cola beverages and other soft drinks) are made from purified water . Studies have consistently shown that heavy consumers of soft drinks (with or without sugar) spill huge amounts of calcium, magnesium and other trace minerals into the urine. The more mineral loss, the greater the risk for osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, hypothyroidism, coronary artery disease, high blood pressure and a long list of degenerative diseases generally associated with premature aging.

A growing number of health care practitioners and scientists from around the world have been advocating the theory that aging and disease is the direct result of the accumulation of acid waste products in the body. There is a great deal of scientific documentation that supports such a theory. A poor diet may be partially to blame for the waste accumulation. Meats, sugar, white flour products, fried foods, soft drinks, processed foods, alcohol, dairy products and other junk foods cause the body to become more acidic. Stress, whether mental or physical can lead to acid deposits in the body.

There is a correlation between the consumption of soft water (purified water is extremely soft) and the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Cells, tissues and organs do not like to be dipped in acid and will do anything to buffer this acidity including the removal of minerals from the skeleton and the manufacture of bicarbonate in the blood. The longer one drinks distilled water , the more likely the development of mineral deficiencies and an acid state. I have done well over 3000 mineral evaluations using a combination of blood, urine and hair tests in my practice. Almost without exception, people who consume purified water exclusively, eventually develop multiple mineral deficiencies. Those who supplement their purified or distilled water intake with trace minerals are not as deficient but still not as adequately nourished in minerals as their non-purified water drinking counterparts even after several years of mineral supplementation.

Purified water tends to be acidic and can only be recommended as a way of drawing poisons out of the body. Once this is accomplished, the continued drinking of purified or distilled water is a bad idea.

Alkaline ionized Water is the best possible drinking water. Disease and early death is more likely to be seen with the long term drinking of purified or distilled water . Avoid it except in special circumstances.

Dr Theodore Baroody, in his book "Alkalize or Die", offers a list of symptoms that may be precipitated by Acidosis:

USA - editorial

Fluoridating Santa Monica’s water supply was a controversial matter. I was not in favor of it for the simple reason of why add it to everyone’s supply when people who want it can add it and people who don’t aren’t forced to ingest it. With the water problems we have had with the Charnock Wells being polluted, you think we would be super careful not to put stuff INTO the water again. Especially if what I read was correct, that we are using some type of industrial brand that may exacerbate problems. I am not a scientist and cannot determine the truth behind those claims.

The battle to prevent it appears to be lost, so I sought some advice.

My Australian oncologist said, “When we did it in our township we had 50 percent less holes in our teeth.”

A famed acupuncturist here in Santa Monica said, “The original reason for fluoridation was to prevent tooth decay. But now evidence suggests many harms outweigh the purported benefits. In fact, the American Dental Association does not recommend fluoridated water for babies!”

Some evidence suggests that excess fluoridation can cause a rare bone cancer and many other potential health problems. Proponents of fluoridation cite studies on increasing bone density that are essential for the health of children, women, and the elderly. Why then, with fluoridation being commonplace, do we have such problems with osteoporosis? Interesting stuff.

My suggestion to those who are concerned is to filter their tap water so that both fluoride and chlorine, as well as other impurities, are taken out.

Also check out this website with pretty credible information on the subject, http://fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm.

USA - Letter

Community leaders formed a task force in response to a study about Galveston’s problems with lead contamination.

Is Fluoride Lead Culprit?

I have written before about fluoride in water and tried without success in stopping Bolivar Special Utility District from adding fluoride to the water on the peninsula. When I talked to the board, I brought up that fluoride could cause lead to leach out of old pipes. The board decided to start adding fluoride in 2008 anyway.

After making this decision, district officials put out a warning for the public about the possibility of lead in the water. I went to the last board meeting and suggested that, if they were concerned with children’s welfare, they should have a systemwide study done by an independent testing company before they put fluoride in the water and that, after it has been in the water system for a while, they should have another study done.

The Bolivar district has a chance to see if fluoride really does make lead leach out of plumbing, as officials are not adding fluoride at this time.

Galveston could investigate to see if fluoride could be causing the high lead content in its water.

Mac McDonald Crystal Beach

UK - Child services improving ?

Child services improving
Published on 29/11/2007
Problem: Cumbria has a culture of heavy drinking in some areas but this is being tackled By Keir Mudie Education Reporter
CUMBRIA County Council’s Children’s Services Department is heading in the right direction, according to government inspectors.In their latest Ofsted report, government education experts have explored every aspect of the council’s services for young people – from schools and colleges through to health and road safety.
The inspection team found there were still problems in Cumbria, including the performance of secondary schools, drug abuse and teenage pregnancy.However it acknowledged that the council was improving the way it deals with these problems. They found that the authority had made “significant progress” since its last inspection. Cumbria County Council’s director of children’s services, Moira Swann, said she was delighted with the report and confident that staff can meet Ofsted standards.“The staff have done a fantastic job,” she said.“We have moved on tremendously when you think that areas of the department were in special measures just a couple of years ago.” Mrs Swann went on to address some of the problems laid out in the report, which include the following:n Underperforming secondary schools.
The report: “Too many are currently causing concern and improvement has not been pushed through.” Mrs Swann: “The authority’s role is to monitor, challenge and intervene. We’re constantly looking and analysing and working hard to improve things.
“We have set up a group and are working with headteachers. “In two years time I am confident that the problems will be sorted out.” Children smoking, and using alcohol and drugs.The report: “High numbers of young people smoke, drink or use illegal drugs.” Mrs Swann: “These problems are a fact of life and we have to take a realistic view of them. We’re using a much more focused approach to the way that we provide youth services.
“Youth culture across the country leans towards problems with drinking and smoking and this is something that we are addressing. As well as reorganising the youth services, we are taking a preventative approach by improving education. There will be a full range of new services in place by March 2009 – but we are already changing the way we work.”
Poor dental health.
The report: “The number of children with decayed, missing or filled teeth has increased significantly in parts of the county.” Mrs Swann: “In some areas this could be due to a lack of water fluoridation. We’re taking a preventative approach and making sure we are in schools talking about the issue.”
In their report, inspectors also said: “Overall the council has made good progress in meeting our recommendations and has shown good capacity to maintain and improve its services for children and young people.” Mrs Swann added: “Although many of our services were rated as adequate last December, we were absolutely determined to improve our services. “It’s really gratifying for all of us to get this assessment, which acknowledges all that hard work and what we have achieved in the last twelve months. “The other good news is that we have the ability and capacity to improve even further.”

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Health Canada downplays fluoride fears for infants

Health Canada downplays fluoride fears for infants
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
November 28, 2007 at 9:54 AM EST
For the past year, the American Dental Association has warned parents that if their tap water is fluoridated, they shouldn't use it to make infant formula. The worry: It could cause children to develop mottled teeth.
Canadian health authorities haven't made a similar call, even though the amounts of fluoride that prompted the U.S. recommendation are also found in many Canadian municipal water supplies.
Now, some health experts contend that Health Canada and the Canadian Dental Association have made a mistake in failing to tell parents their children are at greater risk of the mottling - a condition known as dental fluorosis - if they used fluoridated water for reconstituting baby formula. But both the federal agency and the CDA reject these assertions.

"The American Dental Association now recognizes that problem and has sent out their warning. I, for the life of me, don't understand why the Canadians don't follow that lead," said Hardy Limeback, the head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto's faculty of dentistry.

"The days of wholesale deliberate fluoridation ... are numbered," said Warren Bell, a former head of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, who also is concerned that Canadian health authorities haven't issued the same advice as U.S. dentists.
The ADA recommendation applies to infants under one year of age who consume a lot of formula, typically a litre or more a day. These children "are at risk for developing some level of dental fluorosis," says Howard Pollick, professor at the school of dentistry of the University of California, San Francisco, and an ADA spokesman.
Fluorosis, in mild forms, causes faint white streaking in teeth and is considered a cosmetic problem, but in severe cases causes disfiguring staining of teeth.
Dr. Pollick said the risks occur at the level of fluoride recommended for U.S. water systems of 0.7 parts per million in warmer areas (where people tend to drink more water) to 1.2 ppm of fluoride in cooler areas. Health Canada recommends fluoridation at 0.8 ppm to 1 ppm, and about 43 per cent of Canadians drink from municipal systems that use the chemical. Fluoride is added in trace amounts to water because it makes teeth more resistant to decay.
At typical U.S. water fluoridation levels, about 10 per cent of infants who drink a high volume of reconstituted formula would exceed the maximum exposure limit for the chemical, according to Dr. Pollick.
For children at risk, the ADA recommends parents make formula with either distilled water or water treated by reverse osmosis. The procedures remove fluoride.
In a statement made in response to e-mailed questions by The Globe and Mail about why Canada isn't matching the ADA, Health Canada played down the U.S. action.
It said the biggest risk factor for fluorosis is the cumulative amount of fluoride ingested over a child's first three years of life, so any overexposure while on formula may be offset later, although the government agency doesn't do much to publicize to parents that they can use this approach to minimize the risk of infants getting too much of the chemical.
"In other words, possible higher exposure in the first year would be mitigated by lower exposures in the subsequent two years of life when not on infant formula," Health Canada said.
Both Health Canada and the Canadian Dental Association say an additional safety factor is that the amount of fluoride considered dangerous by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is 4 ppm, far above the similar safety figure of 1.5 ppm in Canada.
"We don't expect to see fluorosis as a problem by using our tap water to make baby formula," said Darryl Smith, president of the Canadian Dental Association.
However, Dr. Pollick said the EPA safety level didn't figure into its recommendation, which was based on the far lower levels of fluoride found at municipal water systems. "We're not talking about the EPA's upper limit here," he said.The ADA recommends that rather than using formula, mothers breastfeed infants. Human breast milk contains about 1/100th of the fluoride that is in treated municipal
water.The recommendation to avoid fluoridated water applies only to infants. For the rest of the population, the ADA continues to recommend fluoridated water to prevent tooth decay.

USA - Harrisburg Considers Fluoride In Water

...................Mr. Barrar, in a phone interview yesterday, said he hoped to have the bill ready for passage by December. He said he was positive he had the votes to secure passage, though he expressed some concern that other lawmakers would try and weaken the bill before passage.
"I think it's good public health policy," he said. "The state is picking up more and more of the cost of dental care for low-income children, so there's immediate savings there."
Those potential savings are huge. It costs only 50 cents to $3 per person annually to fluoridate water supplies. Every dollar invested, Mr. Pugliese said, saves $38 in dental care. The association is supporting the bill even though it is likely to decrease dental business.
"Our first mission is to make sure everybody has the best oral health care they can have," he said. "This'll do wonders in reducing decay."
Fluoride is said to strengthen tooth enamel, making it harder and more resistant to acids that cause decay. About half of state residents get fluoridated water. In Philadelphia, fluoride is added to the water supply to reach a level recommended by the American Dental Association, the city's Water Department says..................

USA - Pennsylvania Water Supplies May Soon Have Fluoride Added

Pennsylvania Water Supplies May Soon Have Fluoride Added
Reported by: Scott Hershberger
Wednesday, Nov 28, 2007 @04:32pm EST

WAYNESBORO, PA - You might think that all public water systems put fluoride in the water, but that is not necessarily the case in Pennsylvania. "2/3rds of the community water supplies in this country are fluoridated," said Dr. Robert Zimmerman, Cornerstone Family Dentistry.
The Pennsylvania Dental Association is hoping to see a bill passed that would make it mandatory for water companies with at least 500 customers to add fluoride.
"The fluoride that is in toothpaste or the fluoride that is given in the treatment in dental offices only gets into the surface of the teeth while the fluoride that is in drinking water gets in, all the way through the tooth, when the tooth is being formed," said Zimmerman. While mandatory fluoride may be good news for dentists, a new law could cause more than a toothache for companies that produce and distribute water. "We have multiple water sources. We have nine separate water sources in our system here in Washington Township. We would need to inject fluoride at each one of those sources," said Sean McFarland, Washington Township Municipal Authority.
McFarland’s employees would have more work, but he said they would have time to make sure changes are made if the law would pass.
"My understanding of the legislation is that it goes into effect 120 days after it's passed, and the Department of Environmental Protection starts regulating and enforcing it one year from that date," said McFarland.
Officials said about half the state of Pennsylvania’s water customers already have fluoride in their systems.

There is a video report as well - click title to access - no comment on the negative aspects just the problem of the water industry in implementing fluoridation

Water Fluoridation - Public meeting highlights

Mt Gambier had a public meeting on water fluoridation because the Govt wants to add fluoride to its water supply. This is the highlights of three speakers that spoke against the practice.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Isle of Man debate recording

Click on title to access the sound recording of the Isle of Man fluoride debate. This now has a shortened edited version of the debate and phone in as well as the unedited versions of the Sunday Manx broadcast.

USA - Groups Push Fluoridation

Groups Push Fluoridation on Long Island Despite Increasing Evidence of Harm
November 27, 2007
Old Bethpage – November 27, 2007 – Ignoring scientific evidence of harm, a coalition of Nassau and Suffolk Dental Societies and the Nassau County Department of Health wants to institute fluoridation on Long Island, according to the Nassau County Dental Society Bulletin (November-December 2006) and a Nassau County Health Department report (May 2007).

Fluoride, neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth, is intentionally added to many public water supplies, not to purify the water but ostensibly to prevent tooth decay.

Levittowners voted out 29 years of water fluoridation in 1983. Carle Place and the Nassau communities bordering NYC followed in 1996. The Suffolk County Legislature voted down their Health Commissioner’s fluoridation plan in 1991. Now Long Island is fluoridation-free yet enjoys a lower cavity rate than most fluoridated NYS counties and NYS, as a whole, which is 73% fluoridated.

A 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report reveals that fluoridation poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children’s teeth.

“Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network.

Also, ignoring their own 1990 recommendation for more kidney and allergy fluoride research, NYS Department of Health representatives take part in current Nassau Suffolk Oral Health Coalition meetings where fluoridation is discussed and encouraged but fluoridation dissent is discouraged.Old Bethpage – November 27, 2007 – Ignoring scientific evidence of harm, a coalition of Nassau and Suffolk Dental Societies and the Nassau County Department of Health wants to institute fluoridation on Long Island, according to the Nassau County Dental Society Bulletin (November-December 2006) and a Nassau County Health Department report (May 2007).

Fluoride, neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth, is intentionally added to many public water supplies, not to purify the water but ostensibly to prevent tooth decay.

Levittowners voted out 29 years of water fluoridation in 1983. Carle Place and the Nassau communities bordering NYC followed in 1996. The Suffolk County Legislature voted down their Health Commissioner’s fluoridation plan in 1991. Now Long Island is fluoridation-free yet enjoys a lower cavity rate than most fluoridated NYS counties and NYS, as a whole, which is 73% fluoridated.

A 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report reveals that fluoridation poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children’s teeth.

“Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network.

Also, ignoring their own 1990 recommendation for more kidney and allergy fluoride research, NYS Department of Health representatives take part in current Nassau Suffolk Oral Health Coalition meetings where fluoridation is discussed and encouraged but fluoridation dissent is discouraged..............................

Cure For Cavities?

Cure For Cavities Revealed
In A Revolutionary Tooth Decay Prevention Book
Dental treatments do not address the cause of tooth decay. This is why people keep returning to dentists with more and more cavities. The cause and cure for tooth decay is now revealed!
SAN JOSE, CA (November, 27, 2007) – Announcing a forgotten cure for tooth decay! Read all about it in “Cure Tooth Decay: Heal And Prevent Cavities With Nutrition,” available in print and e-book format from Curetoothdecay.com
According to a recent report by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “tooth decay in primary (baby) teeth increased among children aged 2 to 5 years.” The study further illustrates that on average, 90% of adult men and women have had tooth decay one time in their life.
“Tooth decay is not only unnecessary, but an indication of our divergence from Nature's fundamental laws of life and health,” remarked Weston Price, DDs, the first research director of the National Dental Association (which evolved into the American Dental Association).
Key Tooth Decay Findings:
1. Germs are not the sole cause of cavities.
2. An effective treatment using nutrition that can have a 95% success rate.
3. Blood sugar and blood chemistry are vital to preventing tooth decay.
4. Processed food does not contain the bioavailable vitamins that our bodies need to build healthy teeth and bones.
5. Tooth decay is not genetic, but a result of not following certain health principles.
"It is store food that has given us store teeth," said former Harvard Anthropology Professor Earnest Hooten.
“Our global community deserves to know the safest and most effective method for preventing tooth decay. I am excited to announce a resource that is based on the values of compassion, and service to my fellow humans,” said Ramiel Nagel, author of “Cure Tooth Decay.” “I am confident that people are ready to embrace the fact that dental cavities is a preventable and curable disease.”
A growing body of evidence continues to show that fluoride is dangerous and not a sustainable solution to tooth decay. Dental surgery is great for stopping pain, but fails to prevent cavities from happening. Thus, we have a great need in our culture to understand the fundamental causes of tooth decay, so that we can take effective steps to prevent it.
The CDC study shows that, on average, the amount of cavities increases with age. But the wave of the future for non-surgical dental treatment is here today. Do not take your oral health for granted anymore; learn an organic method for preventing and halting cavities in their tracks. Purchase a digital or print copy of “Cure Tooth Decay!” Visit http://www.curetoothdecay.com

USA - Survey finds big holes in kids’ dental care

Survey finds big holes in kids’ dental care
By Mary Ann Fergus
Chicago Tribune
CHICAGO — Katelyn Patthana confidently slid into a chair to have her molars sealed, no big deal for a 7-year-old who had lived through a dental horror story. The Gilberts, second-grader’s tooth decay was so severe two years ago that dentists pulled six teeth, crowned two and filled five.Katelyn is among a growing number of young children with cavities, creating concern among dentists and parents who hoped that brushing and avoiding candy was enough to silence the drills. But with continual snacking and the use of non-fluoridated bottled water on the rise, experts say parents have to be even more vigilant.
“There’s plenty of new cavities coming through,” says Dr. Nicola Hill-Cordell, a pediatric dentist in Hoffman Estates. “At least once a week, you get a new kid who is (younger) than 2 with a cavity.”
Nationwide, nearly 28 percent of children ages 2 to 5 had at least one cavity, according to a federal survey covering 1999 to 2004. That represents a 4 percent climb from the previous survey, 1988 to 1994, and the first significant statistical increase in 40 years, said Bruce Dye, lead author of a National Center for Health Statistics report on oral health released this spring.
The federal government first assessed tooth decay in the 1960s. After massive efforts to put fluoride in tap water led to declining cavity rates in the 1970s, tooth decay among preschoolers leveled off in the 1980s — until now.
Hectic family lives often leave little time for cooking and preparing fresh vegetables and fruit, Dye said. Trying to avoid sugary drinks, parents often turn to convenient bottled water, but it doesn’t necessarily have the fluoride that dentists once fought for in tap water.
The American Dental Association has long recommended use of fluoridated water and hygiene products such as fluoridated toothpaste.
“Toothpaste is a significant way of delivering it but water is an additional way and it’s cheaper,” said Dr. Indru Punwani, executive director of the Illinois Society of Pediatric Dentists. “This is one way to ensure you are getting fluoride to the child — to the poor, young and old. It’s one more source.”
Experts also partly attribute the surge in cavities to the fact that many immigrants have never been exposed to tooth-decay prevention measures.
“In many cultures, you do not go to a dentist until you get a toothache and they take it out and that’s it,” Punwani said. Born in Laos and raised in the United States, Seng Patthana said no one warned her against putting Katelyn to bed each night with a bottle of calcium-fortified orange juice. The working mother said she thought it was a healthy choice for a growing toddler who didn’t like milk.
“It was shocking,” Patthana said of the cavities. “I thought at least it had calcium. I wasn’t thinking the sugar is sitting there overnight on her teeth.”
The most recent National Center for Health Statistics report, released in April, did have some good news on the cavity front. It showed a decline in tooth decay overall among older children compared with the previous survey covering 1988 to 1994.
Decay in the permanent teeth of children 6 to 11 years old decreased from 25 percent to 21 percent; among adolescents 12 to 19, it dropped from 68 percent to 59 percent.
But the report also documents several disparities along ethnic, racial and economic lines.
Three times as many poor children had untreated dental disease compared with their more affluent counterparts, according to the report. Thirty-one percent of Mexican-American children ages 6 to 11 had cavities in their permanent teeth, compared with 19 percent of non-Hispanic white children.
About two-thirds of Medicaid children didn’t receive dental care in 2005, according to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data for that year.
The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry recommends that children have their first dental visit by their first birthday or with the appearance of the first tooth.
An Illinois law passed two years ago requires kindergartners, second- and sixth- graders to show proof of a dental exam to attend school, but experts say it’s largely a symbolic gesture.
“I think it’s the step in the right direction ... But given dental decay’s progression, it’s too late,” Punwani said. “By the time the average child starts kindergarten, one out of three already have tooth decay.”
With extensive cavities comes the need to find the right treatment and pain relief plan for children, some younger than 2. Punwani sees some of the most complicated cases as head of the University of Illinois at Chicago pediatric dental clinic, where as many as 30 children a day are treated on an emergency basis.

The death of 5-year-old Diamond Brownridge, who was over-sedated in a Chicago dentist’s office last September, was “an aberration,” Punwani said. Still, a state law recently passed as a result of her death promises to strengthen guidelines for dental equipment, monitoring and the training of dental assistants during sedations.
The pain-relief methods vary, depending on dentist and family preference. Some dentists use more natural methods, treating the child with a local anesthetic and plenty of positive reinforcement.
A more complicated case, such as Katelyn’s, generally requires an outpatient hospital visit with general anesthesia.
Seng Patthana and her husband, Khamphone, say they’ve cut down on sweets and now serve milk or water with meals to their daughters Katelyn and Kaylee, 5, who also had several cavities two years ago.
“It was an ordeal,” Seng Patthani said. “And it’s expensive. It’s better to prevent it.”

Fluoridation is mandated in Illinois: NYSCOF

They blame non-fluoridated bottled water but do the really poor drink it?

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

IOM wma file

IOM Fluoride debate held as a wma file. "Opinion" is the debate and the other file is a phone-in. (The IOM radio archive will disappear on Sunday when the new programme is recorded)

IOM Fluoride debate

UK - IOM - Government flouridation scheme is unethical

Political viewpoint.
THE New Year will see the end of the Department of Health and Social Security's 'objective, year-long information awareness campaign' about the proposal to introduce fluoride into the public water supply.2008 will see the consultation phase before the Health Minister.
Eddie Teare MHK will discuss with his Council of Ministers colleagues whether to support this policy or not.For the record I should state that I am firmly opposed to such a measure which I regard as unnecessary and unethical.
I also recognise that others have a contrary view and welcome an opportunity for a full and open debate on such an important matter.
It is therefore sad that some within the Department of Health and Social Security seem to have lost their sense of perspective in this important area and issued a series of misleading and selectively chosen 'facts' to support their position.
For example hearing Pamela Crowe MLC and members for health repeatedly claim that young people regard mottled teeth caused by fluorosis as 'fashionable' might be amusing if it wasn't so important and offensive.
Then to hear Minister Teare try to justify and defend such absurd comments in Tynwald makes me wonder just how serious the DHSS is when it comes to genuinely hearing objections or concerns.The DHSS has also been reticent about how they will undertake next year's consultation and not surprisingly they have declined to advise the public how they will measure the responses.
So it is hardly surprising that the DHSS is allowing the active promotion of fluoridation even during what they describe as an 'objective year-long information awareness campaign'.
For the DHSS public health advisor in water fluoridation to encourage the public to 'lobby MHKs to fluoridate water in the Isle of Man' is blatant promotion of his view and at the same time is contrary to Minister Teare's undertaking to 'present the public with a range of balanced views based on facts'.Again in Tynwald Minister Teare brushed off any suggestion that such clearly biased behaviour was inappropriate even claiming such behaviour 'was not political'.
What! If urging the public the lobby their MHK is not political whatis it? So why does this matter to you? Maybe you are in favour of fluoridation maybe you are opposed to it; possibly you don't feel suitably informed to reach a decision or frankly aren't that bothered. But the important principle here is the engagement between you and the rest of the Manx public and the Government.
That relationship is vitally important for everyone. During my service in Tynwald I have seen a trend towards a nanny state mentality where we — the Government, the professional officers, or elected members — believe we know what is good for you and we are not going to allow a small matter such as public opinion to deflect from the path of self-righteousness.
That is the really important issue at stake here and we must all ensure that a relationship based on genuine consideration of the public's views and wishes are respected and reflected by our policy makers.

Isle of Man - Fluoride experts go head to head in debate

EXPERTS went head-to-head as some 120 people packed into the Promenade Methodist Church, on Loch Promenade, Douglas, to hear the arguments for and against fluoridation.
The case for each side was presented respectively by Professor Michael Lennon, chairman of the British Fluoridation Society, and Dr Paul Connett, professor emeritus of chemistry at St Lawrence University and executive director the Fluoride Action Network.
Organised by the Isle of Man Campaign for Non-Fluoridated Tap Water, the meeting sparked lively debate.

The case for fluoridation
INTRODUCING Prof Lennon, public health director Dr Parameswaran Kishore, said: 'To me the real issue is not whether we fluoridate water or not but how we prevent dental caries. 'Rates of dental decay are equivalent to some of the worst areas in the UK. We also know children from deprived backgrounds have disproportionately more caries and the third factor is that natural levels of fluoride in the Isle of Man are low. Dental caries cause a lot of misery.'
Conceding that fluoride can cause fluorosis, he asked: 'Would you prefer to have slightly mottled teeth or no teeth at all?' And he urged the audience to treat with caution statistics presented as independent medical evidence that may not actually show the true or full picture.
Taking the stand, Prof Lennon explained the concept was not a new idea, the beneficial effects of naturally-occuring fluoride first recognised in the 1920s and the city of Grand Rapids in the US being the first in the world to have it artificially added to the water supply back in the mid 1940s. Some 350 million people worldwide and 5.5 million in the UK now drink fluoridated water, with fluoride introduced at the optimum level for dental health at one part per million.
'My daughter and her young child live in New York and they are drinking fluoridated water and I'm delighted that they are,' he said. Prof Lennon said he was 'astonished' at the number of children requiring tooth extraction under general anaesthetic at Noble's Hospital – 'a really traumatic experience' – at a rate of 267 per 100,000 population compared with just 30 in Birmingham, where the water supply has been fluoridated since 1964.
He said fluoride benefits all social classes but its biggest benefits were for children from poorer families. He accepted there was an ethical debate and that some insisted it was a fundamental right not to drink fluoridated water. 'Well, I don't agree,' he said. 'If we have a public water supply then we really have to make some compromises. If we all had the right to say what we wanted (in our water supply], we would really be talking about anarchy.'
And he claimed 'There are some very strong views about fluoride but it's certainly a minority view. People who by and large support fluoridation just think their health authority should get on with it. Where the minority oppose, they oppose it with some degree of passion – but it is a minority view.'


The case against fluoridation

DR CONNET challenged Prof Lennon's view and insisted it was important to examine the science that underpins the pro-fluoride lobby's claims.
He presented plenty of statistics in support of his claims that fluoride was 'not effective, not necessary, not safe and not ethical'.
Turning first to the ethical argument, he said: 'We are allowing a local state or government to do to everyone what a doctor can do to no-one.' He said it was 'poor medication' as you cannot control the dose – that would depend on how much water you drink – and there was 'plenty of evidence' that many people were being over-exposed to fluoride.
Dr Connett said the level of fluoride naturally occurring in mothers' milk was 0.004 parts per million so that one part per million was 250 times more than nature intended. He said its benefits worked from the outside of the body not the inside so drinking it 'makes as much sense as swallowing suntan lotion'.
Querying whether fluoride was effective, he presented an array of research data which appeared to indicate that in fact there was no correlation between improved rates of dental health and the introduction of fluoride.
'Dental fluorosis rates are very clearly related to fluoride but reduction in dental decay is not,' he said.
He argued fluoride can cause serious health problems, potentially damaging bones, the brain and the endocrine system and that there was an 'inadequate' margin of safety to protect the very young, the very old, those with poor diet, poor kidney function or iodine deficiency.

'This is a reckless public health policy,' he concluded.


Questions from the audience

FOLLOWING the presentations, questions were invited from the audience.
Father of two young boys, James Osborne said he believed education was the key to persuading youngsters not to drink sugary drinks. 'I don't think we need mass medication, I think it's flawed.'

Health Minister Eddie Teare stood up to insist: 'Contrary to opinion, this isn't a predetermined policy. What we are doing is gauging public opinion.'

Walter Graham, spokesman for Northern Ireland Councils against Fluoridation (Ulster voted 'no' to fluoride in 1996), argued: 'It really doesn't make any sense at all.'

He claimed that 40 per cent of water is lost in leaks and of the 60 per cent left, industry uses seven eighths and of the eighth that's left, all but one per cent is used for washing or flushing the toilet.

Pharmacist Hilary Costain asked what other options there were to reduce the high levels of dental decay and Dr Connett suggested looking to the examples of others countries such as Scandinavia where zilotol toothpaste is widely use to prevent oral bacteria from thriving.

Standing up to announce he would have to leave the meeting, which by then had been going more than two hours, Prof Lennon said: 'Dr Connett and I can bat this forward and back all night and we will never come to any conclusion. I'm convinced fluoride is safe and effective. I hope you in the Isle of Man can come to an equitable solution.'

As he was leaving a head count of those for and against was taken with just three – Prof Lennon, Dr Kishore and Minister Teare – voting in support of fluoride.

Whether the vote indicated that opponents of fluoride are far from a minority or whether it merely showed that the anti-fluoride lobby made up the vast majority at the meeting is perhaps another argument that can batted back and forth.

Send your comments to newsviews@newsiom.co.im


Unfortunately I couldnt attend the meeting however I wondered whether non-flouridated water will be provided for those suffering from Flourosis? Will they be entitled to corrective cosmetic procedures at the expense of the DHSS if they do suffer from flourosis? Why cant the families of children affected by dental decay be educated, I dont see why my health should be put at risk becuase they don't healthy diets and/or brush their teeth often enough. Can the DHSS tell me how much tap water a child suffering from dental decay drinks in a day? - could it be that they drink too much sugary pop and by simply drinking unflouridated water instead of pop their teeth would benefit? What is the effect of flouride in our sheep, pigs, cattle, hens and what is the risk of cumulative flouride on those consuming animal products? Will there be a seperate water supply to farms for the animals drinking water? if cumulative effects are apparent?

From What I read it appears that we actually drink less then 1% of the total water that has had the fluoride added so to me it seems a pointless exercise. .I would go with the idea of educating people to use a suitable toothpaste that does the same job more efficiently.
MANXIE, Ramsey

Apart from all the other points against fluoridation I would like to know why on earth the government is going to all the trouble and expense of importing, transporting and storing a toxic substance, setting up special equipment for fluoridation and annoying the local populace to possibly protect a small minority of the population from tooth decay? These measures don't even apply to all children as I brought my two up to look after their teeth and they don't have dental health problems and we do not wish to have this substance forced upon us. Fluoride is being hailed as some kind of magical cure-all for dental caries but what ISN'T being said is that without other dental care such as an appropriate diet and proper cleaning, dental caries will still be a problem. Surely this is a very large sledge hammer to crack a very small nut and is being approached the wrong way round. It's much easier to give the minority the choice whether or not to take fluoride than to make us all take it on the off chance that those who need it might drink enough water to make a difference, assuming fluoride DOES make a positive difference. While we are at it, why don't we pop some amphetamine into the public water supply in the hope it will solve the obesity problem we are told we now have? It's exactly the same concept, just a different minority with the problem (although they may overlap as diet is a key factor]. I wonder who initially decided to push this scheme and I wonder if there's a financial backhander in it for someone.

Why?? should adults who have healthy teeth, be subjected to chemical poisoning, just because some lazy parents cannot instruct there children basic dental care i..e. brushing teeth.

Click on title to go to the article to see the attached video - well worth seeing. I like the percentage argument.

Isle of Man radio programme

Manxradio Opinion

Manxradio Phone in

If the above does not work go to www.manxradio.com/listenagain At the bottom on Sunday Shows click on Opinion and then click on Mannin for the phone in follow-up. Edited version of talks on whether to fluoridate or not IOM water.

UK - Fluoride in tap water sparks angry debate

POOR dental health and deprivation across Burnley and Pendle is forcing NHS chiefs to look into increasing the level of fluoride in the public's water supply.
However, this has sparked debate among campaigners who consider fluoride a toxic chemical linked to osteoporosis and cancer.
Health bosses say there is an obvious link with tooth decay and poor standards of living across East Lancashire, which is among the 100 most deprived areas in England, with Burnley the most deprived, ranking 37th in the country.
The British Dental Health Association says fluoride can help dental health by strengthening tooth enamel, making it more resistant to decay, yet objectors consider it a forced medication which will do more harm than good.
Angry campaigners joined health officials at East Lancashire's PCT meeting to voice concerns, but were told the discussion is at its early stages and advice and evidence would be sought before any decisions were made.
Kathy Reade, chairman of the PCT, said: "We obviously take this seriously and need to respond following considerable investigation and after seeking advice.
"I would suggest we invite your organisation to come and present its findings on fluoridation, as well as members of the public who are of course welcome."
Mr Brian Jackson, a national spokesman on fluoridation for Friends of the Earth, warned the board his group would pursue the campaign against fluoride and would contact lawyers if necessary.
He said: "Fluoride is nasty toxic waste and never should be in drinking water. It's virtually ineffective, we know for certain it actually causes damage to the tooth enamel with dental fluorosis, and it has been linked to many medical problems including arthritis, hip fractures, osteoporosis, dullness of the intellect and mainly bone cancer.
"There has not been enough research done and I'm confident that if thiswas stopped and more research was carried out independently it would be found to be too risky.
"Fluoridation chemicals are, or contain, prohibited poisons, as specified under the Poisons Act and the Poisons List Order."
A report from Government public health consultant Melanie Catleugh is in favour of fluoride. The report says poor dental health among children in East Lancashire has been high since the mid 1990s and five year-old children have an average of two teeth affected by decay.If water fluoridation is accepted by the PCT, a request will be made to the Strategic Health Authority to pursue the feasibility of the scheme.

Under the report's recommendations, fluoridation would be used alongside a series measures to address oral health, including actively helping reduce sugar in people's diets, stopping smoking and tobacco use, and increasing the availability of dentists.

Fluoride Fanatics Beginning to Appear More Mainstream

Fluoride Fanatics Beginning to Appear More Mainstream
planetc1.com-news@1:06 pm PST
by Michael Dorausch, DC
News over the weekend regarding fluoride in tap water is evidence that the debate regarding the safety and effectiveness of the chemical process continues to be heated discussion.
There was a news report in Friday's Globe and Mail, the Canadian publication, regarding a nearly half-century use of water fluoridation, and growing numbers of reports for medical officials and environmentalists regarding the process that has become so commonplace in many industrialized areas.
According to the news, recent research is suggesting that fluoride may be connected to a number of serious conditions, which includes the development of a rare bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in teenage boys, reduced levels of intelligence in children, and the impairment of thyroid function.
The article mentions that those complaining about water fluoridation were often portrayed as a "kooky fringe" and not taken very seriously. That view is changing as scientists have began to look at research that suggests the main protective action from fluoride does not come from ingesting the chemical, but rather from direct absorption through topical application to the teeth. Basically, they're saying brushing one's teeth (with toothpaste that contains the chemical), and then rinsing, appears to be more effective than adding fluoride to municipal water supplies.
The Globe and Mail article is titled: Critics raise red flag over fluoride in tap water
Some related articles have appeared on Planet Chiropractic since August of 2000. Those articles include Fluoride in your Drinking Water which was published in March of 2006.
"An independent panel of experts commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the effect of fluoride in drinking water on public health and released a report this past week saying that the fluoride level in tap water allowed by the EPA should be lowered to protect from several health related conditions."
Fluoride in the Fountain was published in September of 2007 and it discusses fluoride enthusiasts and California laws that stipulate all municipal water shall soon contain a form of fluoride.

"For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best," -- scientists at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)Also from March of 2006 was an article titled: California state law now requires fluoridation of municipal water.
From the article... California state law now requires fluoridation of municipal water. A large portion of San Diego County will begin receiving fluoridated water within a year or two, in spite of strong public opposition. The scientific and ethical arguments against fluoridation are so overwhelming, one must ask, how is it possible that fluoridation retains enough support that laws are enacted against popular will? The apparent answer was well stated by Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.” In order for the rest of us to understand fluoridation, let’s all go take a hike and follow the money trail!
The oldest article I could locate in the archives was from August of 2000, a report that was initially printed in the Mesa Tribune in Arizona. The article is titled Fluoridation Folly and the author asks Is it possible that we could all be nothing more than expendable guinea pigs with fewer fillings?
"To raise the natural fluoride levels of the water supply, Gilbert City Council proposes to dump in fluorosilicates, a waste by-product of the fertilizer industry. Fluoride apologists - led by dentists and 1 stray city council member - consistently fail to mention this toxic little fact. Instead they conveniently bury it under the "spit n' rinse" category."

USA - Fluoride fracas afoot in Erie

Fluoride fracas afoot in Erie
Trustees to decide whether fluoridation plan goes to voters
By John Aguilar (Contact)
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
ERIE — This town of 16,000 is one of just a few remaining communities in Colorado that doesn't fluoridate its water supply, but that could change next spring when Erie residents head to the polls.
Elected leaders are set to vote tonight on a resolution that would place a water-fluoridation measure on the town's April 1 ballot. Trustee Tom Van Lone said he thinks the resolution will pass, leaving the ultimate decision on whether Erie adds fluoride to its tap water up to voters. "I am not a dentist," Van Lone said Monday. "And if it's one of those things where I don't have a black-and-white decision on it, let the citizens decide. It's the only way it's going to get settled." Fluoridated drinking water, while promoted widely throughout the country as an effective tool in the fight against tooth decay, has not been an easy sell in Erie.
Despite the fact that nearly all major municipalities on the Front Range fluoridate their water, the Board of Trustees voted against adding the compound to Erie's water in 2001 after the proposal touched off a firestorm of opposition.
And just nine months ago, Mayor Andrew Moore found that only 25 percent of respondents to a survey he sent to some residents identified fluoridation as a goal the town should pursue.
But Moore said it's important that all voters get a chance to make a choice on the issue.
Fluoridation opponents claim that not only is adding fluoride to drinking water unnecessary, it's potentially dangerous.
The Canton, N.Y.-based Fluoride Action Network claims that ingesting fluoride yields little dental benefit and may result in a litany of health problems, including bone fracture, bone cancer, joint pain, reduced thyroid activity and IQ deficits.
Michael Connett, a spokesman for the organization, said most of Western Europe has rejected fluoridation but has no worse a rate of tooth decay than the United States.
"With the abundance of fluoride products we have in toothpaste, supplements and processed foods, there's no need to put it in our water," Connett said.
But advocates of the practice reject the claims of anti-fluoridation groups as unfounded and alarmist.
Dr. Mitchell Friedman, who owns Lafayette Dental Excellence and has been a dentist for nearly 30 years, said fluoridating water makes an "enormous" difference in reducing the cavity rate. Friedman, who has nearly 500 patients from Erie at his practice, adamantly backs the measure."It's not harmful to anybody's health, and it's not carcinogenic," he said. "There's no scientific evidence to support that."

Monday, November 26, 2007

USA - Professionals Urge End to Water Fluoridation

Professionals Urge End to Water Fluoridation
November 25, 2007
New York - Over 1,100 dentists, physicians, scientists, academics and environmentalists urge Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. (fluorideaction.org) Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide. Signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It’s really obsolete.” An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals’ Statement is available on FAN’s web site, www.fluorideaction.org. “The NRC report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride’s health risks,” says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. “Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added. An Assistant NY State Attorney General calls the report “the most up-to-date expert authority on the health effects of fluoride exposure.” The Professionals’ Statement also references: – The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.– The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic.– CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.– Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.– A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer. – The silicofluoride chemicals used for fluoridation are contaminated industrial waste and have never been FDA- approved for human ingestion. The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it’s as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.” Partially, as a result of this statement, at least one city, Cobleskill NY, stopped 54 years of water fluoridation. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2998.html Many communities rejected or stopped fluoridation over the years. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm On October 2, Juneau Alaska voters rejected fluoridation despite the American Dental Association’s $150,000 political campaign to return fluoride into the water supply after the legislative body voted it out. Take Action to End Fluoridation. Sign the Online Petition to End Fluoridation and call for a Congressional Hearing http://www.actionstudio.org/public/page_view_all.cfm?option=begin&pageid=8276 Contact: Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH, Fluoride Action Network Spokespersonbill@teachingsmiles.com Office 503.675.7300 Cell 425.466.0100 (Pacific Time) or Paul Connett, PhD, Canton, NY, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry and Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network, 315-379-9200 paul@fluoridealert.org Sent: NYSCOFSource: Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net


Fluoride in water pursued
Monday, November 26, 2007
BY DAVID WENNEROf The Patriot-News
Is adding fluoride to the water supply one of the all-time great public health initiatives?
Or is it a plot to weaken the population or perhaps dispose of industrial waste?
There's a new push in Pennsylvania to require that fluoride be added to all public water systems, based on widespread agreement among scientists that it leads to healthier teethThe Pennsylvania Dental Association is leading the campaign, even though dentists in the trade group say healthier teeth will mean less business for them. They have a ground swell of support from a consortium of health-related organizations, including the Carlisle Area Health and Wellness Foundation.
"I think a lot of people just assume Pennsylvania's water is fluoridated," said Rob Pugliese, spokesman for the association.
Actually, about half of state residents get fluoridated water.
Legislation in the state House would require all water systems with 500 or more customers to add fluoride. The bill was approved 28-1 by the House Health and Human Services Committee. It's in the Appropriations Committee now, and it's unclear when the full House might vote.
The committee wants to discuss adjusting the timing so water systems can budget for the expense, rather than be hit in the middle of a fiscal year, said Barb Fellencer, communications director for the committee.
Supporters of fluoridated water cite the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's stance that it's one of the great public health initiatives.
"The state supports fluoridation as a preventive measure. It has been proven and it's supported by research from the CDC, the American Dental Association and other independent researchers," said Dr. Howard Tolchinsky, the state's public health dentist. Tolchinsky said fluoride works through contact with the teeth, rather than by traveling through the body. So it benefits both children and adults with fully-formed teeth.
Pugliese said every dollar spent on fluoridated water saves $38 in dental care.
But some oppose the idea, arguing that fluoride has harmful health effects, and the push for fluoridated water might really be a way to dispose of industrial waste. Dr. Steve Markus, a New Jersey dentist based just outside Pennsylvania, claims no evidence shows that people who live in communities with fluoridated water have healthier teeth than those who don't. He also points out that the benefit of fluoride comes from direct contact with the teeth, so the majority of fluoride consumed in drinking water has no affect.
"If everybody wanted shinier floors, would you put floor wax in the water supply?" asked Markus, 57.
State Rep. Stephen Barrar, R-Chester, introduced the legislation. He worries that "junk science" will derail a bill he believes can greatly reduce what the state spends on dental care for poor children.
Supporters of fluoridated water contend many poor children don't get fluoride if it's not in their water. These children have poor dental health that affects their appearance and performance at school.
They also argue that many poor children don't get routine dental care and say there's a shortage of dentists who take patients covered by Medicaid, the government health plan for the poor.
Bets Clever, executive director of the Carlisle Area Health and Wellness Foundation, said 33 percent of children in the foundation's service area don't see a dentist regularly.
"The cost to repair those teeth is far greater than [fluoridated water]. I'm not a doctor or a scientist, but I wouldn't promote it if it wasn't considered a positive public health strategy," she said.
State Sen. Pat Vance, R-Cumberland County, also is convinced that fluoridated water produces healthier teeth and can reduce some of the ills resulting from lack of dental care.
However, Vance, a former registered nurse and one of the Legislature's top authorities on health care issues, has not favored a fluoridation mandate. She's concerned about the expense for tiny water systems, such as those that serve mobile home parks, but said she might consider a bill that would exempt small systems.
Supporters say fluoridation costs between 50 cents and $3 a year per person, depending on the size of the water system.
United Water Pennsylvania supplies some Harrisburg-area communities that have fluoridated water and some that don't. Spokesman Bob Manbeck said when a community wants fluoride, the first step is an engineering study that looks at the cost of needed equipment and alterations to the water system.
DAVID WENNER: 255-8172 or dwenner@patriot-news.com

Sunday, November 25, 2007

UK - From Safe Water campaign for Avon

The Dentristry Magazine, November edition has an extraodinary editorial comment (see attached) which was sent to our group by a dentist who opposes water fluoridation. In it, the piece argues that "the anti-fluoridation lobby has been silenced. It must have conceded that consumer water
fluoridation is entirely beneficial to the health of the public."

Julian English, the editor, wants to see health authorities penalised if they don't fluoridate - he also wants to see a political party adopt water fluoridation in their manifesto - in fact the Green party are the only party to have a policy although it is against water fluoridation - not what Mr English perhaps wants to see. Anyhow the local group are planning a response - others may also wish to?

Philip Booth, Secretary,
Safe Water campaign for Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire,
Lark Rise, Bread Street, Ruscombe, Stroud, Glos. GL6 6EL
Tel: 01453 755451 E-mail: safe.water@virgin.net

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Canada - Critics raise red flag over fluoride in tap water

Critics raise red flag over fluoride in tap water
From Friday's Globe and Mail
November 23, 2007 at 9:27 AM EST
Nearly a half-century after water fluoridation became widespread, a small but growing number of medical officials and environmentalists are again raising concerns over the practice.
Recent research is suggesting that fluoride may be connected to a number of serious conditions, including the development in teenage boys of osteosarcoma, the rare bone cancer that killed Canadian icon Terry Fox, reduced intelligence levels in children, and impaired thyroid function.
In Waterdown, Ont., a suburb of Hamilton, Cindy Mayor has approached her city council and asked that it stop fluoridation for the area's 500,000 residents. "Here we are, mass-medicating with a drug," she says. The activist frets that fluoridation could be one reason for the growing number of people being treated for lowered thyroid hormone levels.
She isn't alone in worrying about fluoride, placed in many municipal water supplies to make teeth more resistant to decay.While those complaining about fluoride were often portrayed as a kooky fringe - typified by the 1964 movie classic Dr. Strangelove, in which a demented U.S. general feared fluoridation was a communist plot - fluoride criticism has recently gone mainstream.
Although the research linking the chemical with serious conditions is disputed, critics of fluoridation say that at the least it indicates a review of the practice needs to be conducted.A review is even more pressing, in the view of critics, because scientists now believe that the main protective action from fluoride does not come from ingesting the chemical, with the teeth absorbing it from inside the body, but from direct absorption through topical application to teeth.
This means swallowing water is a far less effective way to fight cavities than brushing with fluoridated toothpaste. That may explain the steep decline in cavity rates observed in industrialized countries since the 1970s, irrespective of whether they fluoridate water. Almost all of Europe does not, and yet has seen a sharp reduction in dental caries.
"I think there is a much broader understanding that there might be some legitimate concerns with fluoride," said Richard Wiles, executive director of the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, a public-interest group that has been lobbying the U.S. National Institutes of Health to provide a second opinion on fluoridation.
About 13.5 million Canadians, or about 43 per cent of the population, live in communities with fluoridated tap water, but almost no fluoridation is done in British Columbia or Quebec, according to Health Canada.The EWG worries that the public is being overexposed to fluoride, and says water is the easiest source to eliminate. Fluoridation is based on research from the 1940s, and Mr. Wiles contends that it wouldn't be able to pass a modern risk assessment used for drugs or pesticides.
"We took a look at the science and it was really apparent to us that the current levels of fluoride exposure were unsafe," he said.The view on fluoride's potential downside is rejected out of hand by Health Canada, as well as the Canadian Dental Association."The fluoridation of drinking water supplies is a well-accepted measure to protect public health that is strongly supported by scientific evidence," Health Canada said in an e-mailed statement.
Nonetheless, the department said it is currently studying the recent scientific findings and may adjust the amount it recommends for water.
The Canadian Dental Association also endorses fluoridation. "It's among the greatest public-health measures that has ever been put in place, right up there with vaccination," said Darryl Smith, president of the association.
Dr. Smith worries that if fluoridation critics have their way, it will lead to a loss in the hard-won gains against tooth decay. Currently, about half of the children in Canada younger than 11 don't have cavities.
Although health authorities are confident fluoridation is a good idea, they haven't been very good at picking the optimum dose.Many jurisdictions have, with little fanfare, recently cut the amount they add, to minimize chances that children will get dental fluorosis, or mottled teeth.
The cuts have been substantial enough to suggest that previous levels to which the public was exposed for more than three decades were too high. Toronto's drinking water, after several reductions, now contains half the fluoride it did before 1999, while the province of Quebec cut the recommended amount by 42 per cent in 2004.
Fluorosis, if severe, causes unsightly staining of teeth, but in mild cases the result is white streaking that many dentists consider cosmetic. During the 1990s, anywhere from 20 per cent to 75 per cent of children were afflicted in fluoridated areas.Both Toronto and Quebec fluoridate below the level Health Canada believes is optimum: 0.8 to 1 part per million fluoride to water. Toronto is at 0.6 ppm.
Among the recent studies, the most worrisome is the possible association with childhood osteosarcoma.
The disease, the cause of which is unknown, is fatal in about one-third of cases and almost always leads to amputations.
The research indicates that fluoride exposure among boys, but not consistently among girls, during a critical period of bone growth from age 5 to 10 makes them more susceptible to the bone cancer during their teenage years.
Scientists are on the lookout for effects on bones, because they absorb half the fluoride people ingest.A paper outlining the finding was published in 2006 in the journal Cancer Causes & Control and produced by Harvard University researchers.
Researchers found that boys aged 6 to 8 who were exposed to more fluoridated water were about four times more likely to develop the cancer than those exposed to lower levels. The researchers called their results "remarkably robust."
Although similar findings in young male rodents have been seen in laboratory experiments, other studies that investigated lifetime human exposure to the chemical did not detect any association with osteosarcoma.The EWG's Mr. Wiles said these findings are the kinds of research clues that should cause governments to consider listing the chemical as a probable carcinogen.
In its statement, Health Canada says it wants to see whether further research confirms the cancer finding before taking action. "The findings of the study are in contradiction with the majority of current science," it said, although it said health authorities around the world "have taken seriously the suggestion that fluoridation might increase bone cancer rates."Also worrisome are four studies in China, published in scientific literature from 1996 to 2007, that found a strong association between water with high fluoride levels and sharply reduced IQs in children. Some parts of China have water naturally rich in fluoride and the chemical was not deliberately added, as it is in Canada.
Although the concentrations that led to the reduced intellectual functioning were far higher than found in Canada, the studies weren't designed to discover whether neurological effects occurred at the lower levels typical of the West.
Fluoride has also been found to disrupt normal thyroid hormone functions. There are concerns that fluoride exposure may be associated with hypothyroidism, a condition of lowered thyroid hormone levels. Those with the illness often experience depression, fatigue and weight gain.
Hardy Limeback, head of protective dentistry at the University of Toronto and a former advocate of fluoridation, is alarmed by these studies.
"We don't know what the health implications are of a lifetime exposure to fluoride in drinking water," he says.If fluoridation is ended, it may lead to a modest increase in tooth decay, which Dr. Limeback estimates at one extra filling in every fifth child. Given the emerging data on its possible risks, he says, this would be a small price to pay.Ms. Mayor in Waterdown isn't waiting for Health Canada to complete its study of the new research. She doesn't drink or cook with tap water, and instead buys distilled water that has had fluoride removed.
Fluoride primer
Researchers hit upon adding traces of fluoride to water after observing that people living in areas with drinking water naturally rich in the element had lower cavity rates.
Fluoridation is primarily done in Canada, the United States and Australia, but almost nowhere else in the world. Western Europe and Japan have almost no fluoridated water supplies.Small amounts of fluoride make teeth stronger so they resist decay better. Too much fluoride causes teeth to be mottled.
A typical big city that fluoridates will spend about $1 per resident each year to add the chem- ical to drinking water supplies.
Although fluoridation has been practised for nearly half a century, it has always been controversial. Critics contend that if fluoride had to pass a modern assessment for a new drug, it would flunk. But health authorities insist that fluoridation is a good thing and that the benefits of better oral health outweigh potential risks.
Once fluoride is added to water, it isn't easy to get out. It can't be captured through simple filtering devices. It can be removed through reverse-osmosis filters or through distilling.
Many bottled waters don't contain a lot of fluoride, but some are rich in it. Those worried about fluoride should check the labels.
Martin Mittelstaedt

Fluoride facts

Fluoridation practices vary widely around the world and in Canada. Most of Europe doesn't fluoridate, and practices vary across the country. There are no national figures to show whether cavity rates differ substantially as a result of fluoridation.
Our provinces' populations vary in percentages that have fluoridated water.
Fluoridated water Not fluoridated
B.C. 3.9% 96.1%
Alberta 74.6% 25.4%
Saskatchewan 31.7% 68.3%
Manitoba 73.2% 26.8%
Ontario 70.3% 29.7%
Quebec 6.9% 93.1%
New Brunswick 19.1% 80.9%
Nova Scotia 44.8% 55.2%
Newfoundland 3.5% 96.5%
PEI 23.4% 76.6%
Nunavut 7.1% 92.9%
Yukon 100%
NWT 53.8% 46.2%


Page 2 of 2

USA - Prevention is the best medicine

....Tooth decay a common problem for children in the United States. More than 28 percent of children ages 2-5 have decay in their baby teeth and 50 percent of 11 year olds have had cavities. By the time they reach 19, two-thirds of people have tooth decay in their permanent teeth. Low income children are twice as likely to suffer from tooth decay and fewer than 20 percent of Medicaid-covered children receive a yearly preventative checkup, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. Untreated cavities can cause children pain, weight loss and missed school days, according to the Web site. ..............

Five drops of blood: Invasion of privacy?

................Then there's the public health perspective. Testing newborns is like requiring car seatbelts or putting fluoride in drinking water - a small inconvenience for a greater good, said David Orren, the Health Department's chief legal counsel. “The data in the hands of public health is very different from data in the hands of an identity thief or hacker.” ..................

Unless they send it by mail.

Delta Dental of Minnesota, United Way of Greater Duluth and Children's Dental Services team up with Duluth Public Schools to expand school-based denta

...........Tooth decay (dental cavities or caries) is one of the most common chronic diseases in childhood. More than half of all children have caries by the second grade and 80 percent of all teens have cavities by the time they finish high school. “Preventative measures, such as education, sealants and fluoride treatments, have a long-term impact on a child’s future dental health and well-being,” explains Sarah Wovcha, Children’s Dental Services.

“In Minnesota, 70 percent of low-income children don’t receive any dental care,” cites Therese Scherrer, Director of Community Impact at United Way of Greater Duluth. “This was a concern that was well documented in our recent Community Impact Report.”...................

USA - In fluoridated Detroit, Michigan:"One-third of the children had ECC [cavities], and 20% had severe ECC. "

Blackwell Synergy - Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol, Volume 35 Issue 6 Page 439-448, December 2007 (Article Abstract)

In fluoridated Detroit, Michigan:"One-third of the children had ECC [cavities], and 20% had severe ECC. " :NYSCOF

Friday, November 23, 2007

Scary picture

USA - Nothing but the tooth

Nothing but the tooth
Preschool-age children showing higher instances of cavities
Amanda Strindberg/The Press-Enterprise
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
At 4 years old, Kylie Metcalf needed a dentist big time.A trip to the tooth doctor revealed a cavity count of 11.Christine Moscowitz, left, holds the hand of daughter Haley, 3, as Dr. R. James Richardson II, center, and his assistant, Adrienna Morgan, begin work. “I was shocked,” said mom Kristi Metcalf, while sitting with her daughter, now 5, in the waiting room of Corona, Calif., pediatric dentist R. James Richardson II before a routine checkup. “We brushed and flossed since she was little.”For Haley Moscowitz, 3, a recent visit to Richardson also found tooth decay. Two cavities meant two fillings for the pint-size patient.
“She’s only 3. It seems so young,” said mom Christine Moscowitz, while holding her daughter’s hand as Richardson discreetly gave Haley an injection of “sleepy juice.”

Kylie and Haley represent a worrying trend. Cavities in the preschool-age crowd are on the rise.While cavities decreased in permanent teeth, a new study shows 28 percent of 2-to-5-year-old children surveyed from 1999 to 2004 had cavities compared with 24 percent of children surveyed from 1988 to 1994.
Three-year-old Haley looks at her mother, Christine Moscowitz, after her dental visit with Dr. R. James Richardson II.
For the past four decades, tooth decay in baby teeth had been decreasing. But the latest federal report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides the first statistical evidence that this trend is reversing, dental experts say.
Reasons for the upswing were not studied, but experts say the troubling pattern shows the preschool-age crowd might be getting too much sugar and not enough fluoride and not brushing properly.“I see so much decay,” said pediatric dentist Roy Beam, of Kids World Children’s Dentistry in Riverside. “Baby teeth are just like adult teeth. They will decay.”Richardson’s days are also busy filling the cavities of small children, many younger than 5, he said.
The grape-flavored relaxing laughing gas, the aquarium with bright-colored clown fish and the token-taking machines stuffed with prizes make filling the cavities easier, but tooth decay in young children is never pleasant, he said.“A deep cavity in a baby tooth hurts,” Richardson said.The key is early prevention, experts say. The American Dental Association recommends a child visit the dentist by age 1.
There are several factors in the upswing.“Kids are eating more prepackaged meals, less fruits and veggies, and more items that are presweetened,” said Dr. Bruce Dye, of the National Center for Health Statistics.
Dr. James Crall, chair of UCLA’s pediatric dentistry program, agrees.“All the food contributing to the obesity epidemic is detrimental to teeth,” he said.
Multiple snacks with simple carbohydrates, such as crackers, fruit snacks, pasta and cereal, are also likely contributing to the increase, said Dr. Mary Hayes, a Chicago pediatric dentist and spokeswoman for the American Dental Association.
“It’s this idea of grazing,” she said. “With the wrong foods, you are simply allowing the bacteria to thrive and causing an acid attack on the tooth more often.”
It’s the same story with a child sipping juice all day or going to bed with a bottle.
“You’re allowing the bacteria to be happy,” Hayes said.Hayes advises no more than 4 ounces of juice a day. After that, she considers it candy water.
Experts say another issue contributing to the climb in youngsters’ cavities is the growing number of bottled water drinkers.
Furl Bottled water typically doesn’t contain enough fluoride to prevent decay, according to the American Dental Association.
“If you chose not to use fluoridated water, you are removing that chance for prevention and success,” Hayes said.Parents should also help their children brush. Unless children can tie their own shoes, they do not have the motor skills to brush properly, Hayes said.Dentists suggest brushing twice a day. Begin using a pea-size amount of fluoridated toothpaste once the child turns 2 years old.
A princess toothbrush has made brushing more fun for Haley, mom Christine Moscowitz said.“It’s kid-friendly and she can relate to it,” Moscowitz said.
For Brooke Dieterle, 5, of Riverside, it’s the watermelon toothpaste that gets her brushing.
“I don’t know what we’d do without it,” mom Kelli Dieterle, 42, said.Why brush? “Because if you don’t, your teeth might get stinky,” Brooke said.

Australia - Upper house passes bill

Upper house passes bill
November 23, 2007
THE State Government now had no choice but to take Warrnambool's fluoride debate seriously, according to DLP member for Western Victoria Peter Kavanagh.
Mr Kavanagh said the DLP's fluoride bill which passed through Parliament's Legislative Council (upper house) on Wednesday night would force the Government to consider the contentious issue.
The bill aims to legally require the Government to hold a referendum before adding fluoride to a water supply.
This week Mr Kavanagh also tabled a petition to Parliament signed by 2543 western Victorians who don't want fluoride in their water.
He believed the pressure from this petition had helped the bill be passed by the Legislative Council.However, before the bill can become a law it needs to pass the Legislative Assembly, which Mr Kavanagh said was highly unlikely because the Labor Party held the majority and would vote against it.
In the upper house the Liberal and minor parties voted for the bill after what Mr Kavanagh said had been an emotional debate.``When the Government saw that it was going to lose the debate its main speaker called the case against fluoride `voodoo','' he said.``In fact, the case that was presented against fluoride was based on research by Harvard University and by scientists published in the British Medical Journal and by the 2000 Nobel Prize winner for Medicine, Dr Arvid Carlsson.''
Mr Kavanagh said he thought the bill passing the Legislative Council would influence the Government.``It's got no chance of getting past the lower house, but its passage in the upper house will emphasise to the Government that there's considerable opposition to its policy of fluoridating new areas of Victoria regardless of public opinion.''Mr Kavanagh said he wouldn't be surprised if this led to the State Government holding a review of fluoride.``My opinion is that such a review would probably reveal some fairly significant doubts about the wisdom of using fluoride these days.''Warrnambool anti-fluoride campaigner Peter Hulin said he had not given up on the bill passing the lower house.
``I think it's possible for it to pass, all we need to do is educate the politicians on what the up-to-date studies are and then give them a conscience vote on the information not on party lines,'' he said.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

New Scientist: letter from Canada

Fluoride flayed
24 November 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
James Beck, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Your report on fluoride in tea includes the sentence: "In places where people ingest too little fluoride, it is added to water supplies to strengthen tooth enamel and prevent cavities" (6 October, p 21).

This is surprising, given that in Europe the battle against fluoridation is largely won. Fluoride (in the generic sense) is not a nutrient; there is no "too little". It does not strengthen enamel or prevent cavities except for a slight topical effect.

There is now ample evidence that the reduction in tooth decay (caries) in industrialised countries in recent decades has occurred as much - or more - in non-fluoridated areas as in fluoridated ones, and that cessation of fluoridation is not followed by any increase in the incidence of caries. There is, however, much evidence associating fluoridation with bone cancer, suppressed thyroid function, lowered IQ, bone fracture, increased levels of lead and other intoxicants in body tissues, and bad effects on other body systems. All these associations hold for concentrations of fluoride comparable to those imposed in fluoridated water supplies in North America.

Aside from efficacy and toxicity, it is unethical, if not illegal, to administer a substance that has not been approved by a proper authority, that is not controlled in dosage, that is not consented to by the recipient after informed consultation, and the effects of which are not monitored by competent professionals. In North America fluoridation fails on all counts, being unapproved, unevaluated, not consented to, not controlled and not subject to refusal.

From issue 2631 of New Scientist

Australia - Council to adopt fluoridation

Council to adopt fluoridation
After decades of debate the Lithgow Local Government area is to get a fluoridated water supply.Council at this week’s monthly meeting voted by a 5-3 majority to adopt fluoridation, rejecting a concerted campaign by anti fluoride lobbyists from Australia and overseas.With the decision Lithgow Council is to join the considerable majority of Councils across Australia who have already opted for treatment of their water supplies, including the neighbouring Blue Mountains area.Council officers have now been instructed to prepare a report on options for implementing the decision.The vote ends a debate that has emerged intermittently in Council for more than 40 years.Earlier this year Council was told that Lithgow youngsters fare badly in terms of dental health when compared with their Mountains neighbours and other areas that already have fluoridation.Due to heavy demands on space in today’s edition the full fluoridation report will appear in Saturday’s Lithgow Mercury.

Australia - Rebuff for doctors on fluoride query

Rebuff for doctors on fluoride query
November 22, 2007
AN anti-fluoride petition signed by 21 south-west doctors has angered a State Government spokesman and sparked a speedy response from the state's chief health officer.The Standard reported on Monday the petition had been mailed to Department of Human Services chief health officer John Carnie.
The doctors argued in the letter it was ``imprudent'' to add fluoride to public water supplies until ``modern data'' either proved or disproved the alleged benefits of the practice.Their petition came after south-west health organisations including South West Healthcare backed fluoridation, which the Government announced in July.
DHS spokesman Bram Alexander said discussion and debate about fluoridation was important, but there was recent scientific evidence to prove fluoridated water was safe and beneficial to people's teeth.
``It (the petition) shows a lack of willingness (on the doctors' behalf) to have a look and do some research themselves,'' he said.
Mr Alexander said the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) made a statement in June this year that was available on the organisation's website.
``It says, `fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride,'' he said. ``It is recommended that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6 - 1.1mg/l, depending on climate, to balance reduction of dental caries and occurrence of dental fluorosis.''Australian Medical Association Victoria Branch president Doug Travis had also affirmed his support for fluoridation, Mr Alexander said.He said Dr Carnie had replied to the signatories.``The decision has already been made to add it (fluoride) to Warrnambool, Allansford and Koroit's water supply and that is not likely to change,'' he said.

USA - Let the editors have a piece of your mind

Let the editors have a piece of your mind
Reader Feedback - Currently 3 comment(s) Comments
Daily Pilot Managing Editor Brady Rhoades and Daily Pilot City Editor Paul Anderson will host a Chat with the Editors from 5 to 7 p.m. Tuesday, at Skosh Monahan’s, 2000 Newport Blvd., Costa Mesa.
Tell the editors how topics such as the Newport Beach city hall site, group homes on the peninsula, placing a skate park at Lion’s Park, expansion of the John Wayne Airport, fluoridation and local sports have affected you.
Reader Feedback
There are 3 comment(s) comments on this story:
David Kennedy, DDS wrote on Nov 21, 2007 9:39 AM:

" Every medical and dental organization on the planet including the California Department of Health and the ADA now agrees that a baby should not be dosed with fluoride much less hydrofluosilicic acid because it will cause fluorosis. Who is going to pay to buy bottled water for these families? Who will pay to cover up and bleach their damaged teeth boens and replace their diseased joints? Shouldn't the water be safe for us all to drink? Sincerely, David Kennedy, DDS Past President International Academy fo Oral Medicine and Toxicology "

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Effect of high F water on children’s intelligence in India

Research report
Fluoride 40(3)178–183
July-September 2007
Effect of high F water on children’s intelligence in India
Trivedi, Verma, Chinoy, Patel, Sathawara
178 178
MH Trivedi,a RJ Verma,a NJ Chinoy,a† RS Patel,b NG Sathawarac
Ahmedabad, India
SUMMARY: The intelligence quotient (IQ) was measured in 190 school-age children,12–13years old, residing in two village areas of India with similar educational and socioeconomic conditions but differing in fluoride (F) concentration in the drinking water. The children in the high F area (drinking water F 5.55±0.41 mg/L) had higher
urinary F levels (6.13± 0.67 mg/L) than the children in the lower F area (drinking water F 2.01±0.09 mg/L; urinary F levels 2.30±0.28 mg/L). The mean IQ score of the 89
children in the high F area was significantly lower (91.72±1.13), than that of the 101 children in lower F area (104.44±1.23). A significant inverse relationship was also present between IQ and the urinary F level. In agreement with other studies
elsewhere, these findings indicate that children drinking high F water are at risk for impaired development of intelligence. Keywords: Fluoride in drinking water; India school children; Intelligence quotient; Urinary
According to current research findings, fluoride (F) produces neuronal dysfunction and synaptic injury by a mechanism that involves free radical production and lipid peroxidation.1-4 A recent study revealed that a high F level in drinking water depressed learning-memory ability of brain in Wistar rats,5 in agreement with earlier findings of Mullenix et al. showing that F exposure caused a common pattern of sex and dose-specific behavioral deficits in rats.6 Brain histology of NaF-intoxicated rabbits revealed loss of molecular layer and glial cell layer, and Purkinje neurons exhibited chromatolysis and acquired a ‘ballooned’ appearance.7 Reduction and even complete loss of Nissl substance was observed in rabbit7 and rat8 brain. In recent studies in our laboratory, we found a significant dose-dependent
reduction in DNA, RNA, and proteins in the cerebral hemisphere, cerebellum, and
medulla oblongata regions of the brain in mice.9-10 In related work, Wang and oworkers11 recorded evidence of DNA damage in brain cells of adult rats exposed to high F and low iodine. Effects of F on the thyroid gland and its function have also been studied.12-14 Moreover, animal experiments on the effect of high F and low iodine on biochemical indexes and the antioxidant defense of the brain have revealed decreased learning-memory in offspring rats.15-16 An association of high F in drinking water with lower intelligence in children in China has been reported by Li et al.17 Earlier, Xiang et al.18 determined a benchmark concentration-response relationship between IQ <80 and the F level in .......................

USA - Dental Association says fluoride causing discolored baby teeth

Dental Association says fluoride causing discolored baby teeth
From NBC12 News
The American Dental Association says some children are getting to much fluoride and it's causing discoloration in their teeth. While the condition is not extremely common, the ADA says there is one easy way to keep your child's fluoride level in check.
Because the condition - called flurosis - occurs at a young age, they recommend parents use distilled or filtered water to make some of the formula-ready bottles to feed their baby.
Dentists say flurosis first develops before the teeth erupt into the mouth and recommend wiping off babies’ gums with a warm washcloth. The ADA also stresses that flurosis is not permanent and should go away once the baby teeth fall out.

War of nutrition

....................The correlation between sugar consumption and caries is also a sociocultural phenomenon. In newly industrialised countries, such as certain Middle Eastern countries, the incidence of caries has increased as residents switch from a dependence on traditional, staple foods, to a dependence on refined carbohydrates, without an accompanying change to regular oral hygiene habits.................

Sodium fluoride not healthy

I've silently watched the recent debate over fluoridation of the region's water supply. But, until the publication of Dr. Ainslie's recent letter (Reader Mail, Nov. 9), chose to stay silent.
As an independent health researcher for the past 11 years, I've learned that true and accurate facts are hard to obtain. Various branches of medical science vie for research funding and money is forthcoming only when profit can be made.
Health Canada offers no independent research to substantiate the safety of products being introduced to consumers. Instead, companies seeking approval from Health Canada submit their own research for products they want to market, making the approval process less than credible.
Fluoride is indeed a naturally occurring trace mineral that is essential to the human body. But, fluoride isn't added to toothpaste and drinking water. Sodium fluoride is an industrial by-product. It is this man-made chemical that is added to toothpaste and drinking water.
Comparing fluoride and sodium fluoride is about as accurate as saying oxygen and carbon dioxide are the same thing. True, they both contain oxygen, but when a molecule is added, one becomes toxic to the human body.
Sodium fluoride is not healthy for human consumption. Among other health risks, it suppresses the immune system for 12 hours following ingestion. Further, it has been proven to cause pitting and erosion in tooth enamel.
That's good news for doctors and dentists, but not for the general population. I strongly recommend against water fluoridation.

Lori D'Ascenzo

Healthy Lifestyle Directory

Niagara Falls