Wednesday, April 30, 2008
City Pondering Fluoridating Drinking Water
Water Department applying for grant through First 5 LA in anticipation of future fluoridation
By Allison Jean EatonBulletin Staff Writer
COMPTON – Although the jury is still out on the overall safety of adding fluoride to drinking water, the city could soon take up the common practice.
The water department is applying for a grant through First 5 LA that, if received, the city could use in the future if it decides to fluoridate, said Kambiz Shoghi, director of the Compton Municipal Water Department.
First 5 LA is a county child advocacy organization created by California voters in the 1990s. Its aim is to improve the lives of children ages prenatal through 5 through the investment of tobacco tax revenues into various programs.
The group has earmarked $20 million to fund countywide water fluoridation infrastructure equipment, construction and related public education materials, according to an April 15 staff report.
The grant money, if awarded, will be used to purchase the requisite equipment to properly add and monitor fluoridation levels, Shoghi said.
Fluoride is a natural element that already exists in groundwater supplies in minute amounts. It hardens tooth enamel, strengthening teeth and preventing cavities. Municipalities have been adding it to water supplies since 1945.
California lawmakers in 1995 signed AB733, which requires all public water systems with 10,000 or more service connections to fluoridate their systems.
Dr. Eugene Sekiguchi, a dentist and professor of dental science at the University of Southern California, believes fluoridation is a matter of public health. According to him, dental disease and cavities are the No. 1 disease in children and are the main reason children miss school and adults miss work.
Additionally, many dental ailments can lead to more serious health issues. Gum disease, for example, can be directly linked to heart disease.
“Fluoridating the rest of Compton’s water supply is very important,” he said.
Dentist Maritza C. Cabezas, who works for the county public health department, agrees.
“We’re not adding anything new. Fluoride is already in water. It is in every water that you drink. Some have a lot, some have a little, but any water from anywhere has fluoride,” she said. “It’s something that’s naturally there.”
Cabezas cited a several years old countywide survey that she said illustrates the need to ensure all drinking water in the county is fluoridated. According to that study, 30 percent of kindergarteners have tooth decay. By third grade, that number more than doubles to 70 percent.
“We have a huge problem. This whole county has a problem with decay, and fluoride works,” she continued. “It’s hard to see those kids in school in pain.”
Water fluoridation is even haled by the Centers for Disease Control as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
But too much fluoride can be toxic. Although levels in drinking water are considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency and are recommended by such groups as the American Dental and American Medical associations, it is additional exposure that many experts are worried about.
Besides being artificially added to some water supplies, fluoride is found in many dental products like toothpaste. Additionally, it is present in trace amounts in many foods and beverages including hot dogs, cheddar cheese, flour tortillas, russet potatoes, chicken broth, raisins, chocolate ice cream, white wine, beer, milk, diet Coke and brewed teas.
According to a January article in Science American, recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride might increase the risk of tooth, brain, bone and thyroid disorders. In the 1990s, studies revealed that in lab rats, neurological and behavioral disorders like hyperactivity and laziness can be linked to high exposure levels both before and after birth.
Furthermore, a 2001 study conducted by Elise Bassin DDS for her doctoral thesis at Harvard found that boys who grew up in areas where at least moderate levels of fluoride were added to the water supply were more likely to develop osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer.
The optimal daily intake of fluoride ranges from .05 to .07 milligram per every kilogram of body weight, according to a 2006 report by a National Research Council (NRC) committee. This amount was determined to adequately protect teeth while minimizing other health risks. The NRC found that eating certain foods like those listed above could put a person’s diet above the daily recommended range.
For this reason, the 2006 report recommended the federal government lower its limit on fluoride in drinking water because of potential health risks to both children and adults.
These were some of the issues brought up by Councilwoman Yvonne Arceneaux, who recently raised questions about the practice of fluoridation.
“There are other sources of fluoride, and we may be getting more than is allowed by the EPA through other sources, and cumulatively with the water intake and these other sources, it could pose a threat,” said Arceneaux. “It’s something I think we need to monitor very closely.”
Currently, only a portion of the city’s water is artificially fluoridated. The city purchases roughly 40 – 50 percent of its water from the Metropolitan Water District, which began fluoridating in 2007. The water the city extracts from the underground water table is not, and this would be the water the city would fluoridate if it decided to move in that direction, said Shoghi, head of the water department.
Shoghi told The Bulletin that currently no concrete plans exist to add fluoride to the city’s water supply. Applying for the grant is his way of being financially prepared in case the Council decides to move in that direction in the future.
USC’s Sekigushi insists that fluoride has been proven to be safe and effective.
“It’s been in use for over 50 years. There always seems to be concern about the safety of fluoride, but there are literally 50 years worth of studies in support of the use of fluoride.”
But Arceneaux is still concerned.
“I just want to make sure we’re not remedying one problem with another,” she said.
Easy answer - if in doubt leave it out.
The newest member of Tynwald has indicated he intends to get to grips with the controversial issue of fluoridation in his first debate in the Court, next month.
David Callister, MLC, is against the idea, and will table several questions for the Health Minister.
David Callister (pictured) was speaking to Beth Espey on Agenda.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
By Staff Reporter
THE Green Party is campaigning against the addition of flouride to water supplies and is the only party pledging to prevent it from happening.
Advocates of flouridisation say it will help to turn around poor dental health as flouride, despite effectively being a poison, can help to strengthen teeth.
Eric Hyland said people know the Green Party was concerned about the environment, but in this election he wants to put over the message that it is about more than that.
He said: "Fluoridation robs you of your freedom to choose. Fluoride is toxic waste. It is more toxic than lead and marginally less so than arsenic. This is what the Government wants to put in your drinking water. It is illegal under the Poisons Act to administer poisonous or noxious substances to anyone and the Green Party will continue to campaign against it."
Tuesday April 29, 2008
Fluoride has been added to the tap water in Drayton Valley since the mid 1960s, but that may all be about to end. Last Wednesday town council heard a presentation from water plant manager Bernie Berube, who urged them to abandon the process.
Fluoride is added to drinking water because it helps to prevent dental cavities. However, it has been linked with some serious health problems when taken in excess. Berube said the water plant had trouble monitoring exactly how much fluoride was in the water.
"We’ve had a number of difficulties in testing because of the character of the water in the North Saskatchewan," he said.
Fluoride was first introduced to Drayton Valley’s water supply as the result of a plebiscite held Oct. 19 1966. In a very close vote 145 people voted in favour of fluoride, with 139 voting against. There were seven spoiled ballots.
Most urban municipalities in North America use the process, although there has been a move away from it in recent years.
Berube said that stopping fluoridizaton would also have a financial benefit to the Town, although he didn’t feel that was the most important issue.
"That’s just a bonus," he said. " The big thing is that this is a health and safety issue for our customers."
Adam Jensen, a public health inspector with the David Thompson Health Region didn’t take a strong stance on either side of the issues. However, he did says that dental health experts were keen to see fluoridization continue.
Mayor Me Hamdon says Town administration is checking to see if it would be necessary to hold another plebiscite to stop adding fluoride. In the mean time council is looking for more information from experts in the field.
Consider the following: - Dental fluorosis: Definitive sign of systemic fluoride poisoning. - The FDA admits: No scientific proof that water fluoridation chemicals stop tooth decay and are safe for lifetime ingestion.
- Centers of Disease Control (CDC): Up to 48 percent of children in fluoridated areas now have dental fluorosis, 4 percent have permanently yellow or black stains and pitting (severe fluorosis).
- JAMA: Hip fractures 86 percent higher in fluoridated areas. Fluorosis of teeth or bones causes tensile strength loss, particularly affecting hips.
- The NYSDJ: Children 6 months to 3 years, no more than 1/4 gram of fluoride/day, or the equivalent of 8 oz. of fluoridated water.
- The CDC: No fluoridated water in infant formulas.
- Eight studies: Fluoride lowers IQ/learning
- Dr. Roger Masters, Dartmouth professor emeritus, finds that peeling lead paint in old houses has little effect on blood lead levels unless the child’s drinking fluoridated water.
- Dryden, Ore., (April 14) defeats fluoridation referendum 87 to 13 percent.
Hendersonville water customers: Demand a vote on fluoridation!
Monday, April 28, 2008
Apr 28 2008 by Madeleine Brindley, Western Mail
A WELSH campaign to scrap VAT on fluoride toothpaste has won the backing of First Minister Rhodri Morgan. It is hoped that the Welsh Assembly Government will now put pressure on Chancellor Alistair Darling to remove the 17.5% tax.
Campaigners believe that making fluoride toothpaste cheaper – even if by only a few pence – will help to reverse Wales’ appalling tooth decay problems, especially in children.
The breakthrough comes after the Assembly Government announced plans to teach three-year-olds how to brush their teeth properly and hand out free toothbrushes and toothpaste to children.
Wales has some of the worst levels of tooth decay in the UK, especially in the South Wales Valleys.
Community dentists have spoken of children as young as two suffering from tooth decay and having to remove all a five- year-old’s teeth because they were black.
And the British Dental Association in Wales has said some of the nation’s children have “never seen a toothbrush”.
Responding to a question from Wrexham AM Lesley Griffiths, Mr Morgan said he would be happy to write to the Chancellor to request the removal of VAT from fluoride toothpaste.
He added: “We still have above-average tooth decay among Welsh children generally, so we have to undertake a number of special steps to try to bring the oral health of our children up to the UK or European average or better.
“Undoubtedly, the supply of free toothbrushes and fluoride toothpaste in nursery schools and so on is an important initiative that we hope will help in the battle to bring the oral health of our children up to scratch.”
Ms Griffiths, who is leading the no-VAT campaign, said: “I am delighted by the First Minister’s response. Making fluoride toothpastes cheaper by removing VAT will have great benefits in tackling tooth decay in children right across the UK but particularly in Wales, when greater attention is needed.
“It is now internationally recognised that fluoride toothpastes have played a huge part in the decline in tooth decay over the last 30 years.
“The British Dental Associa- tion’s position on this is clear – less decay means less work for dentists and saving for the NHS.
“By exempting fluoride tooth- pastes from VAT, the UK government will be encouraging parents to choose fluoride toothpaste as a first option.
“This single action by the Chancellor would, I believe, have a hugely beneficial effect on the dental health of children across Wales and the UK.”
More than half the children in Wales have tooth decay, although the problem is highest in areas of deprivation, such as the former South Wales coalfield.
In Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil, children have, on average, four decayed, missing and filled teeth by the time they are five. It is fewer than two in areas such as Ceredigion and Monmouthshire.
Fluoride can help improve dental health by strengthening the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to tooth decay. It also reduces the amount of acid that the bacteria on teeth produce.
Children who have fluoride when their teeth are developing tend to have shallower grooves in their teeth so plaque can be more easily removed. It also promotes the repair of damage.
In Europe toothpastes must have a fluoride concentration of less than 1,500 parts per million.
Stuart Geddes, director of the British Dental Association Wales, said of the VAT campaign: “This is something that we would support.”
In 90% fluoridated Wisconsin,"nearly one out of every four children at Head Start centers and one-fifth of third graders have untreated tooth decay, which can interfere with their abilities to talk, eat and learn.
According to the Wisconsin Hospital Association, 1,092 emergency department visits at four Waukesha County Hospitals in 2005 were for dental problems; 40% of those patients were either uninsured or eligible for Medicaid."
posted by nyscof
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Written by James Irwin
Friday, 25 April 2008
Fluoridation’s dirty little secret
If the benefits to teeth from fluoridated water are hard to find, the damage done to teeth by fluoridated water is easy to see – literally.
Dental fluorosis is a mottling of the tooth surface that can range from mild discoloration of the tooth surface to severe staining and pitting. The condition is permanent after it forms in children during tooth formation.
Back at the 1965 trial in Columbia, the court was repeatedly assured by pro-fluoridation witnesses that fluoridation at one part per million would not produce dental fluorosis, first by Dr. William Draffin, former president of the South Carolina Dental Association, and later by Dr. Fred Lewis, Director of the Division of Dental Health at the State Board of Health.
Yet today in the U.S. the prevalence of dental fluorosis is surprisingly high, and increasing. The Centers for Disease Control in 2005 released a survey of American children showing an overall dental fluorosis rate of 32 percent in U.S. school children aged 8-19. This represents a 40 percent increase in the incidence of dental fluorosis since the previous survey done 15 years earlier. This increase in dental fluorosis provides a biomarker of overexposure to fluoride in U.S. children. While, as expected, the incidence of dental fluorosis is 2 and a half times higher where drinking water is either fluoridated or naturally high in fluoride, many children even in localities without significant fluoride in the water now show signs of dental fluorosis. How can this be?
A ubiquitous toxin
It turns out that drinking fluoridated water is only one of a number of sources of exposure to fluoride. Children in unfluoridated localities consume sodas and other beverages manufactured in fluoridated localities using fluoridated water. This is known as “the halo effect.” In addition, grape products, tea, and processed chicken can be high in fluoride apart from water used in processing and preparation. (The fluoride in grape products is due to residues of the pesticide, Cryolite, which is widely used on grapes.)
A major source of fluoride intake for children in particular is swallowed toothpaste. Fluoride toothpaste contains about 1000 ppm fluoride. While adults on average ingest 3 percent of the toothpaste they use for brushing, 2 year old children in one study swallowed a mean of 65 percent of the toothpaste they brushed with. It was found that many small children don’t even rinse after brushing. You can confirm what a bad idea this is by examining the warning label on your tube of fluoride toothpaste:
“Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, get medical help or contact a poison control center right away.”
Fluoride intake from swallowed toothpaste can easily surpass that from fluoridated water for many small children.
Non-nursing infants can also receive a surprisingly high exposure to fluoride when fluoridated water is used to reconstitute their infant formula. The NRC Review lists average fluoride intake for this group at 0.87 – 1.15 mg/kg of body weight/day – about 3 times the dose in mg/kg/day received by the average adult drinking the same fluoridated water.
Of course, anyone drinking fluoridated water who drinks more water than average will receive a higher than average exposure to fluoride. While the EPA estimates average water consumption for adults at l.l5 liters per day, the Centers for Disease Control recommends that anyone exercising heavily in hot weather consume 0.5 – l liters of fluids per hour. There are also between 5 and 10 million people in the U.S. with undiagnosed or poorly controlled diabetes, which is characterized by high water intake. People with renal insufficiency also receive a higher effective dose of fluoride due to their kidneys’ impaired ability to remove fluoride that they ingest.
Fluoridation’s collapsing margin of safety
This relatively uncontrolled exposure to fluoride resulting from water fluoridation at one ppm was justified back in 1965 by claims of a wide margin of safety between expected exposures from fluoridation and the dose of fluoride required to produce deleterious health effects. By contrast, the 2006 National Research Council review of fluoride standards found that 4 ppm of fluoride in drinking water is not protective of public health, and did not assert that a standard of 2 ppm is protective of public health either. The wide margin of safety claimed in 1965 had officially collapsed, replaced by uncertainty as to what exactly constitutes a safe level of fluoride in drinking water, and by the realization of how little is actually known about the effects of fluoridation after 40 years of what amounts to the intentional contamination of our water supply.
At the 1965 trial in Columbia, the star witness in opposition to fluoridation was Dr. George Waldbott, a leading fluoride researcher who had come all the way from Michigan to testify. Dr. Waldbott described his research on hypersensitivity to fluoridated water, and refuted claims that there was a wide margin of safety between exposures from fluoridation and negative health effects. He said that physicians and dentists testifying in support of fluoridation “testify in good faith and they are honest and sincere, but they are simply not aware of what is going on,” since research unfavorable to fluoridation could not get published in the U.S.
On August 17, 1965, Judge John Grimball ruled that “The city has a right to place fluoride in the water and require its citizens to drink it whether they wish to or not, because it is a well thought out plan supported by excellent medical authorities.” Fluoride opponents appealed the judge’s ruling to the S.C. Supreme Court, where it was upheld 4 to 1 on May 11, 1966. On July 6, 1967 the fluoridation of Columbia’s water supply began, and has continued ever since.
CDC still promoting fluoridation despite evidence
Today 152 million Americans receive artificially fluoridated water and another 10 million receive water from groundwater sources with fluoride levels of at least 1 ppm. Fluoridation continues to be actively promoted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. The CDC has declared that fluoridation of drinking water in the U.S. is “the major factor responsible for the decline in dental caries (tooth decay) during the second half of the 20th Century,” ignoring the evidence that non-fluoridated localities have experienced similar declines. According to the CDC, “extensive research conducted over the past 60 years has shown that the fluoridation of public water supplies is safe and effective.” The CDC dismisses the recent NRC review of fluoride standards, claiming that “the NRC committee did not examine the health risks of water at the levels recommended for fluoridation.”
Citing the findings of the National Research Council review, the Georgia-based Lillie Center on August 7, 2007 filed an ethics complaint against the CDC Division of Oral Health. In its complaint the Lillie Center charged the CDC with “mislead[ing] the public concerning the results of studies about harm from ingesting fluoride,” and “omit[ting] vital information in its information disseminated to the public concerning vulnerable population groups that are particularly susceptible to harm from fluoride.”
In fact, the CDC’s active support and promotion of fluoridation is critical in providing this intentional contamination of our water supply with political cover from questions about its safety and effectiveness. In its ethics complaint, the Lillie Center describes how the system works:
“Water districts and cities adopt the position [that fluoridation is safe] by deferring to … the opinion of state health departments, and state health departments defer to CDC’s Oral Health division.”
That is indeed how it works here in South Carolina. In response to my inquiry about the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation, Columbia Utilities Director John Dooley stated that in fluoridating our water the city of Columbia is only following the advice of DHEC, whose goal, according to Dooley, “is to increase the number of South Carolinians receiving the oral health benefits of optimally fluoridated drinking water.” When I wrote him again, Dooley responded, “We advise you to contact DHEC regarding fluoridation practices.”
DHEC Oral Health Director Christine Veschusio told me that in deciding to endorse fluoridation, “We base our decision on organizations such as the CDC.” Paul Connett, director of Fluoride Action Network, describes the relationship between the CDC and state health departments more bluntly:
“Policy is determined from the top [by the U.S. Surgeon General] and sent down to the state health departments just like the military. If you are in this bureaucratic chain of command, you do not challenge policy without risking your job and your pension. In the case of fluoridation, this policy is orchestrated by the Oral Health Division of the CDC …State health departments throughout the 50 states promote the practice [of fluoridation] faithful to the chain of command.”
As much as Columbia city officials would like to pretend that the decision to fluoridate our water is DHEC’s, it was a vote by Columbia city council that started fluoridation forty years ago, and it would only take a vote by Columbia city council to end it. Over the past 2 years I have sent letters, e-mails, and information packets to city council members in an attempt to inform them about fluoridation, with absolutely no response. Ultimately it will require political pressure, not pleas for the protection of public health, to motivate our city council to close the fluoridation valves at the city water plants, and end the intentional contamination of our water supply that their predecessors mistakenly approved in 1965. Given the current level of public ignorance, and the unwillingness of the mass media to examine this issue critically, I am not holding my breath.
For more information on water fluoridation, see the Fluoride Action Network website, http://www.fluorideaction.net
Additional Fluoride Facts:
Easy to Add, Hard to remove - Ordinary water filters do not remove fluoride, and boiling fluoridated water only concentrates the fluoride. Effectively removing fluoride from water requires distillation, high-quality reverse osmosis, or a special activated alumina filter.
Natural fluoride levels - The water that enters Columbia’s water plants has fluoride levels of about 0.1ppm. In general, unpolluted surface waters have fluoride levels below 0.2 ppm, with the majority below 0.1 ppm. However, in some places groundwater contains much higher levels of fluoride. At last count, 105,618 people in South Carolina (mostly in the low country) received public water supplies from groundwater with more that 4ppm fluoride, more people than in all other states combined.
Natural does not mean safe - The fact that groundwater in some places has high levels of fluoride is used by fluoridation proponents to imply that fluoride is safe because it is “natural.” But some groundwater also has naturally high levels of arsenic, a known carcinogen. Would anyone claim that this makes water tainted with arsenic safe?
One man’s trash … - Fluoridation provides a tremendous financial windfall to the phosphate fertilizer industry. The chemical used to fluoridate Columbia’s water (as well as most fluoridated water in the U.S.) is produced mainly from the volatile fluorosilicates caught by the phosphate fertilizer industry’s pollution control scrubbers. This byproduct would otherwise be classified as hazardous waste.
A tale of two toxins – In Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (5th edition, 1984), fluoride is rated as slightly more toxic than lead (fluoride is rated as very toxic; lead is rated as moderately to very toxic). Yet the permissible level of lead in drinking water is 0.015 ppm, while for fluoride it is 4 ppm – 250 times higher. In fact, fluoride is intentionally added to drinking water at a rate 66 times higher than the allowable level for lead.
By Tracy Overstreet
The Grand Island Independent
Posted Apr 25, 2008 @ 05:36 PM
GRAND ISLAND — Grand Island is beginning fluoridation preparations.
Utilities Director Gary Mader is gathering estimates on what it will cost to install a needed fluoride storage tank, to prepare local fluoride pumps idled a decade ago and to operate the fluoridation system every year.
The Nebraska Legislature mandated that communities of more than 1,000 residents fluoridate drinking water supplies by June 1, 2010, unless a city opts out by public vote.The Grand Island City Council could schedule such a vote or one could be requested through a petition.
Hall County Election Commissioner Dale Baker said 4,336 signatures -- the equivalent of 15 percent of registered voters -- would be needed to put the vote on the next regularly scheduled primary or general election ballot.
The primary is set for May 13, but ballots have already been prepared.
The deadline for getting an initiative on the Nov. 4 general election ballot is Sept. 2, Baker said.
If petitioners attempted to get a fluoridation repeal through a special election, a total of 5,782 -- or 20 percent of registered voter signatures -- would be needed, Baker said.
Grand Island's water has 0.5 ppm (parts per million) of naturally-occurring fluoride, Mader said.
The last time the city added fluoride to the water was in 1997 -- a practice that was stopped in May 1998 after 56 percent of voters objected.
Mader said 0.5 ppm of fluoride was added to make Grand Island's fluoridation level at 1.0 ppm.
"One to 1.4 ppm is considered optimum," Mader said.
The city had obtained an $18,000 state grant in 1997 to assist with the start-up equipment, which had a total purchase price of $40,000. Annual operations at the time were about $27,000.
Mader said Thursday he expects estimates for a current fluoridation system to be fairly close to the costs from 10 years ago.
Thank you for the abuse report. We will review the report and take appropriate action.
Loading comments, please wait...
Fluoride is a toxic waste and should not be added to drinking water.
We said no in 1998 and no should be said again....what part of NO doesn't the Legislature and city council understand?ed2008-04-27T04:18:48
Report Abusethey are going to add it to our drinking water?How are they going to do that? nobody drinks tap water its all bottle water any more
Saturday, April 26, 2008
One sided argument for fluoridation
No mention that yes you will be consulted and then dismissed as each argument is weighted - a dentist is worth how many hundreds of individuals saying no?
Dont expect Dr Andrewe Mortimer even to consider anything against fluoridation he is convinced he is right.
Waterloo Watch Says Fluoride In Our Tap Water Is Unnecessary
Waterloo Region To Decide On Plebiscite Issue
By: Carole Clinch
The Town of Dryden, Ontario voted against fluoridation of their water on April 22nd, ending a debate that has gone on for more than one year. Council will decide what to do with the $300,000 they set aside for the intended fluoridation. Perhaps Waterloo Region would save $300,000 a year if they stopped fluoridating. Both Kitchener and Cambridge have natural fluoride in their water. (0.1-0.3ppm) Ninety-eight percent (98%) of Europe has said no to fluoride.
We’re finding out now that adding fluoride to drinking water to prevent cavities simply doesn’t make sense.
Recent research demonstrates clearly that drinking fluoridated water does not prevent cavities. The same research shows a growing list of harmful effects. In a recent Globe and Mail article (Nov 28, 2007) Warren Bell, former head of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment stated; "The days of wholesale deliberate fluoridation ... are numbered."
There have been significant developments in policy and in the research which are worth noting. For example, Health Canada now states that prescribing controlled doses of pharmaceutical grade fluoride under the care of a doctor is no longer recommended: "Health Canada does not recommend the use of fluoride supplements (drops or tablets).”
Fluoride is a toxic chemical. Read the government warnings regarding toothpaste and mouthwash:
“Keep out of reach of children under 6 yrs of age.”
“If you swallow more than used for brushing, get medical help or contact a PoisonControlCenter right away.”
"If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Centre right away."
“Never give fluoridated mouthwash or mouth rinses to children under six years of age, as they may swallow it.”
“Use non-fluoridated toothpaste or no toothpaste for young children.”
A pea-size amount of fluoridated toothpaste contains about 0.25mg of fluoride. One glass of fluoridated water contains the same amount of fluoride. We are told not to ingest the pharmaceutical grade fluoride in toothpaste. We are told to ingest the industrial grade fluoride in drinking water.
The fluoridation chemicals (hydrofluorosilicic acid, arsenic and lead) are all toxic substances from Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency list. Toxic substances are man-made and accumulate in our bodies over our life time.
Environment Canada also states that; “Hydrofluorosilicic acid is identified as a dangerous good under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations and has been classified as a Class 8 corrosive substance.” The disposal of these “hazardous waste” products is expensive. They may not be put into our lakes, rivers or streams.
We are paying companies to put their hazardous waste into our drinking water, hence source water. Shouldn't these companies pay for the disposal of their own hazardous waste, in a manner that does not cause environmental or human health harm?
The new 2002 Safe Drinking Water Act of Ontario does not permit the addition of “drinking water health hazards” to our drinking water and dilution of contaminants is “no defense”. Toxic substances by definition are “drinking water health hazards.”
Health Canada, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, have not been able to find any chronic toxicology studies to demonstrate safety of the actual products used in water fluoridation systems after 60 years of use.
Ingesting Fluoride is not Effective – Use Topically
What is clearly emerging in the research literature is that fluoride is a toxic substance which should not be ingested, but should be applied topically, on the surface of the teeth. We apply sunscreen on our skin, where it is effective. We do not swallow it because it is toxic.
98% of Europe does not use water fluoridation. Many countries have banned it outright. Quebec City discontinued water fluoridation on April 1, 2008; Niagara Region passed a by-law in February 2008 prohibiting water fluoridation. Thunder Bay recently said no thanks to water fluoridation. The number of citizens drinking fluoridated water in British Columbia and the province of Quebec has dropped to about 4%.
Policy Lags Behind the Science
The Physician’s Desk Reference discusses the 1 to 4% of the population which may be hypersensitive to fluorides. Our understanding of allergic and hypersensitive reactions is enhanced by the research on penicillin and peanuts. There is a growing awareness that for some individuals there is no safe dose.
The American Dental Association recommends that children under 12 months of age should not consume fluoridated water.
A recent review in The Lancet describes fluoride as "an emerging neurotoxic substance" that may damage the developing brain.
The National Research Council has identified fluoride as an "endocrine disruptor" while recent research from Harvard University has found a connection between fluoride and bone cancer that is “remarkably robust”.
According to Dr. Kathy Thiessen, co-author of the National Research Council 2006 Report on Fluorides in Drinking Water: “A carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effect of fluoride cannot be ruled out from the available data, and at the very least, a cancer-promoting effect is likely. For carcinogenic substances, the risk of cancer increases with the amount of exposure, such that even a very low exposure carries with it some cancer risk.”
Individuals with kidney disease and young children are unable to adequately filter toxins and individuals who drink large volumes of water such as lactating mothers, athletes and outdoor workers ingest more of these toxins on a daily basis, therefore are susceptible to overdose.
Evidence suggests that those with kidney impairment should avoid fluoride consumption. The US National Kidney Foundation’s alleged failure to warn kidney patients that they are particularly susceptible to harm from ingested fluoride from drinking water and other sources is the subject of a precedent-setting letter to the Foundation from a legal firm.
Is collateral damage to infants and minorities an acceptable price for fluoridation?
We cannot control the dose
Concentration is quantity of fluoride in a volume of water, expressed as milligrams fluoride in one liter of water (mg/L or ppm). Dose is quantity of fluoride ingested in a day, expressed as milligrams of fluoride in a day (mg/day).
Any discussion of fluorides in drinking water must acknowledge the global increase of fluorides, as discussed in the January 2008 Scientific American article “Second Thoughts About Fluoride”. Fluorides are present in the air, water, foods (pesticides, fertilizers and post-harvest fumigants contribute to the fluoride content in our food chain), consumer products and drugs. Increased uses of fluoridated drinking water in the processing of foods and beverages have a multiplier effect in the food chain.
We cannot control the dose of these ubiquitous fluorides because we cannot tell individuals how much to drink. Calculating how much fluoride exposure individuals receive from other sources is virtually impossible. Due to this inability to control the dose, it is reasonable to assume that the incidence and severity of such adverse health effects is likely to rise with the increases in fluoride exposures from all sources.
According to the US National Research Council 2006 Report on Fluorides in Drinking Water, fluorides in drinking water are the largest source of fluorides (representing approximately 60% of our daily consumption).
How can anyone claim that water fluoridation provides a SAFE dose when the dose cannot be controlled?
Below is a chart demonstrating the fluoride doses at various fluoride concentrations (0.6-1.5mg/L), based on the amount of water consumed in a day. High water consumers (athletes, lactating mothers, soldiers, outdoor workers, diabetic patients) consume up to 12 liters of water per day:
Water/day Fluoride consumed/day by concentration level
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5(mg/L)
1L/day 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5(mg/day)
2L/day 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 3.0
3L/day 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.5
4L/day 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 6.0
5L/day 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.5
6L/day 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.2 9.0
7L/day 4.2 5.6 7.0 8.4 10.5
8L/day 4.8 6.4 8.0 9.6 12.0
9L/day 5.4 7.2 9.0 10.8 13.5
10L/day 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 15.0
11L/day 6.6 8.8 11.0 13.2 16.5
According to the United Nations: “As a general guideline, prolonged total Fluoride intake exceeding 1.0 mg/day can produce clinical signs of Fluorosis in adults."
Many communities in Southwestern Ontario have fluoride concentration levels well in excess of the Health Canada maximum acceptable contaminant level (MAC) of 1.5mg/L, such as Stratford (2.1mg/L), Sebringville (2.76mg/L), Chepstow (1.89mg/L), Mitchell (1.93mg/L), to name a few.
The use of hydrofluorosilicic acid may be doubling our exposure to lead through the interaction of fluorosilicates with lead pipes, lead solder and leaded brass infrastructure components. We also need to be concerned about the arsenic we are adding to our drinking water. It is a level 1 carcinogen.
The Thyroid-Iodine-Fluoride Connection
Thyroid pathologies such as simple goiter and hyperthyroidism, and breast mastopathies such as fibrocystic breast disease and breast cancer are associated with iodine deficiency and seem to be preventable. Fluoride is a well-established enzyme disruptor. It interferes with the uptake of iodine in thyroid and extra-thyroid tissues like the breast, which require iodine for normal architecture and function. A growing number of researchers and clinicians hypothesize that breast changes due to iodine deficiency lead to breast cancer.
Iodine is an essential nutrient. Fluoride is not. “Health Canada does not consider fluoride as an essential nutrient.”
Municipalities, burdened with burgeoning costs of these fluoridation chemicals due to shortages may now upload dental health care to where it rightfully belongs – to the province – with the announcement by the McGuinty government on March 17, 2008 to spend $135 million over 3 years on a dental care plan for low-income families. Providing effective delivery of dental education and dental care which can be targeted to those in need is essential if our society is seriously interested in facilitating improvements in oral health.
An ideal environmental solution to pollution
Rebecca Hamner from the United States Environmental Protection Agency wrote in 1983; “In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized.”
In response to the above comment, Dr. Hirzy, Senior Vice-President of one of the EPA Headquarters Union wrote; "If this stuff gets out into the air, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it's a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing!"
With background levels of fluoride (up to 0.25mg/L) in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence waterway exceeding the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (0.12mg/L), adding these toxic substances into our drinking water, hence source water is not a sustainable activity. Harm of aquatic species such as water flea and salmon is known to occur at these current background levels, and where sewage effluent enters our waterways, the fluoride levels are in excess of 1.0mg/L, diluting to background levels only after several kilometers.
<1% of fluoridated water is actually consumed.
>99% is returned to our environment and our source water.
Is this an efficient or effective method for delivering this drug?
Hurricane damage to some of the mining facilities in Florida has created a temporary shortage in fluoridation chemicals. This shortfall is mitigated by increased exports of these fluoridation chemicals from China.
To learn more about the complex environmental, legal, public health and ethical issues surrounding water fluoridation please visit Waterloo Watch or the Fluoride Alert Network.
Friday, April 25, 2008
By SUE WOOLLEY
North News reporter
THE DHSS is aware of dental decay 'hot spots' within the Island that could be 'pushing up' the statistics being used to promote water fluoridation, it was suggested at a meeting of Ramsey Commissioners.
The claim was made by chairman Mary Bruce, who said the information relating to 'hot spots' had been 'let slip' during a public meeting in the town hall two nights earlier when opposing sides of the argument were presented by director of public healtADVERTISEMENTh Dr Paul Emerson and Save Our Water campaigners.
It was a lively, sometimes stormy meeting, attended by around 70 people.
The reference to 'hot spots' was made by Dr Emerson who, in answer to questions from the floor, said the department would be reluctant to reveal their location.
'We were advised hot spots have been identified in the Island — from which I would have thought that the underlying problems causing dental decay could be identified,' said Mrs Bruce.
'Also we could see where the good places are and from that see what factors, even without fluoridated water, contribute to healthy teeth.'
18 April 2008
She said the discussion on fluoridation was very much science-based, but she felt they should look at the problem at a much lower level.
'My view is that dental decay is not caused by a lack of fluoride in our natural water, it is in fact being caused by poor diet, poor education and a lack of basic school dental services aimed at identifying those children at risk and providing sound advice on dental hygiene.
'I can accept that fluoridation may present a solution, however I cannot accept that we should go down that route. The causes of dental decay present other issues. We should be attacking the cause and obtaining the wider benefits which would then be obtained from better education.'
Richard Radcliffe was opposed to fluoridation after researching the subject. He described it as 'mass medication' and said the public of the Island were being used as 'unsuspecting guinea pigs', being given no choice but to ingest toxic substances — by-products of the aluminium industry — through the public water supply.
He highlighted the fact that fluoridation has never been approved by the USA's Food and Drug Administration body, adding: 'It is a total waste of money on a grand scale. This money should be used in a more targeted way to educate people towards improved diet and lifestyle.
'The government would be better spending the money on education rather than mass poisoning of the population.'
Only one member of the board was pro-fluoridation. John Gaggs expressed the view that one part per million of fluoride would be a safe level and would dramatically reduce the incidence of tooth decay in children.
The commissioners resolved to inform Health Minister Eddie Teare and the town's MHKs that they are wholly opposed to the proposal and believe more resources should be put into health education, regular school dental inspections and dietary advice.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
By Jeff Corcino Staff Writer
The Clearfield Municipal Authority decided at its meeting last week that it will continue to add fluoride to its water after being threatened with lawsuits from the Pennsylvania Dental Association and a local dentist if it stops fluoridation.
Last December the CMA board voted to ask the state Department of Environmental Protection for permission to stop adding fluoride to its water. CMA made the request at the time because it is in the process of bringing the Moose Creek Reservoir back on line and wanted to know if it would have to add fluoride to the water at Moose Creek. CMA manager Jeff Williams said CMA never added fluoride to the water at Moose Creek prior to it going offline in 1991.
Mr. Williams said the actual request to remove fluoride from the water never made it to the DEP because it was going to be included it in its applications to DEP for the Moose Creek Reservoir.
However, after the report on the December meeting appeared in the newspaper, Mr. Williams said, the Pennsylvania Dental Association contacted him on the issue and threatened to sue if CMA followed through on it.
Although there are other public water systems in the state that do not add fluoride to their water, CMA is the only one that does that has ever asked to stop, and the dental association threatened to sue CMA, Mr. Williams and all of the board members personally if they went through with the plan to remove fluoride from the water, Mr. Williams said.
So the CMA board decided it wasn't worth the expense of fighting off litigation and decided to continue to add the fluoride to water.
Before the CMA could have removed fluoride from its water, DEP requires there be a 30-day comment period. Mr. Williams said CMA was going to use this time period to let the public decide whether the water should be fluoridated.
"But I guess the Pennsylvania Dental Association made the decision for them," Mr. Williams.
The Pennsylvania Dental Association did not respond to The Progress' request for an interview.
In other business, Mr. Williams said the CMA board voted to go out for bids for the construction of the filtration plant at the Moose Creek Reservoir.
CMA received a low-interest loan of approximately $3 million from the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority for the project, but CMA Engineer Mark Glenn said as it is now designed the plant could cost approximately $6 million. Once the bids are in and the cost of the project is known, CMA can pair back the project to the point where the cost is closer to the financing package CMA received from PENNVEST, Mr. Williams said.
The Isle of Man Medical Society is urging members of Tynwald to support fluoridation of the public water supply.
In a letter to all MHKs and MLCs, Chairman Robert Fayle describes it as an 'important health promotion and disease prevention measure', which would help avoid the pain and misery of dental decay.
He goes on to counter arguments against fluoridation by saying it does not have any harmful consequences, adding the substance would replicate a situation which occurs naturally in some places.
In conclusion Mr Fayle recommends members support 'this simple and safe measure, for the sake of the future health of the children and adults of the Isle of Man'.
Meanwhile, a Dalby resident has petitioned MHKs about the possible dangers of water fluoridation.
Sandy Gorst has bought 24 copies of a book called 'The Fluoride Deception' and has given one to each member of the House of Keys.
He says he has many concerns about fluoridation (audio file attached):
The issue of whether or not to fluoridate the Island's water supply could be debated in
Tynwald later this year.
Thursday, April 24, 2008, 05:27 PM
Re: April 20 article “Bottled water’s problems surfacing.”
I’ll stop drinking bottled water and switch to drinking tap water as soon as the city stops putting fluoride in our water supplies.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
HEART DISEASE SECRET DRUG COMPANIES DO NOT TELL YOU! Part 3
If you didn't look at the last 2 films this one is well worth while
Didn't know Poland was fluoridated, if it is it is not very effective as Wales is supposed to have a dental problem.
Read Comments(2)Recommend (1)Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
To members of the Port Huron City Council: Please allow me to introduce myself. I am Dr. Annette Mercatante, the new provisional medical director of the St Clair County Health Department.
My background is in family practice in this community. I also live and am raising my son in this area.
My job is to assess the health care needs of this community, develop and implement policy to achieve public health goals and to enforce these policies. I am honored to have this position and will work diligently for the benefit of our community.
In this manner, we share similar responsibilities for the health and welfare of this town. I am sure you take this responsibility as seriously as I do, and I look forward to our future interactions.
I encourage you to consider both the pros and cons of fluoride supplementation in municipal water. There have been more than 50 years of experience, debate and study of this issue. It can be very confusing, and even more so when there are organized, coordinating efforts to disrupt this service.
I was dismayed by the seemingly large amount of anti-fluoride information, until I began to track down sources for the "data." With the exception of fluorosis (a cosmetic concern of mottled teeth from excessive fluoride ingestion), there is little clinically-relevant data that negates the value of using this supplement.
The dangers cited on various Web sites, and by anti-fluoride coalitions, often are taken out of context and made to look worse or different than what the real data shows. Likewise, there are expert coalitions formed by independent researchers with excellent resources and training that have repeatedly evaluated this area.
Each study has supported the ongoing use of fluoride for children and adults. I cannot find any reference to eliminating fluoride for any age group, although there have been discussions of lowering the maximum EPA guidelines from 4ppm to 2ppm.
As we consider this issue of health and welfare for our citizens, please consider this: If your child were facing a serious dental or health problem, would you take the advice of a health food store clerk (one of the "sources" I found while talking to a flouride opponent) or a leading expert in science, epidemiology and health?
When I run into a medical problem with which I am unfamiliar or uncertain, I first do no harm. I pause, collect more data, discuss and read, then try to reformulate my opinion.
This approach has been very helpful to me through the years, and I urge you to allow me to continue utilizing these skills in assisting you in this decision, which would clearly impact the health and welfare of all our citizens.
Thank you for allowing me to contribute. If you have any questions or comments, I urge you to call me: (810) 987-5300 ext. 135, or e-mail me at email@example.com.
Dr. Annette Mercatante is the new provisional medical director of the St. Clair County Health Department.
I wrote the city manager and the city council. I cited many publications from scientific journals and research reports on the negative health affects (including cancer in children) that ingesting fluoride can cause. I have only received a response from Mark Bryne, so far. He shared the same viewpoint that I do. All of the professionals say research proves it has positive benefits, but when asked, can never cite the proof or the research they got the information from. He said he is voting to remove fluoride from our drinking water.
I also sent an e-mail to Dr. Mercatante citing the numerous scientific journals and research by real scientists that prove fluoride is harmful. I have yet to receive a response.
I am very concerned that we have a lot of professionals using their credentials as proof that their opinions are fact. They are not fact. Many organizations, including the CDC and the EPA have changed their stances on fluoride.
4/22/2008 2:55:52 PM
Recommend Report Abuse
I was born and raised in Kimball Twp on well water - there was no flouride added to the water. My teeth along with my siblings and parents are completly healthy and strong. I have lived in Port Huron now for 11 years. There really isn't any need for the flouride added if you and the other family members are brushing, flossing and rinsing correctly. My opinion is for the city to save the money for more important uses - roads, lighting, and the emergency personnel.
I agree with the title but not her findings - "fluorosis is only cosmetic" apart from the huge cost to make it right it is a sign of toxic poisoning.
Written by Dr. Mike M. Deldar, on 04-22-2008 08:40
Most people assume that the fluoride they get from their toothpaste and tap water is adequate for their needs. This is not always the case. Getting fluoride treatment from the dentist after your check-ups is not only a great way to fight tooth decay but there are other reasons to be sure you are getting enough fluoride.
Children often get cavities due to poor homecare habits. They forget to brush or hurry through brushing and rarely clear plaque from all tooth surfaces. Flossing effectively is not the high priority of children. Fortunately, the extra protection offered by fluoride treatments can counter these threats and reduce the risk a child will develop cavities.
Fluorides are beneficial for children, but many adults also suffer from problems for which fluoride may be the answer. A National Institute of Dental Research survey reported that adults had an average of 23 decayed and filled tooth surfaces. Recurrent or secondary decay around fillings represents a major dental problem. Surveys find that 40-50 percent of total adult fillings are done to replace existing fillings. Research shows that properly applied fluoride blocks cavities by forming a more acid-resistant surface layer. It can even reverse early forming cavities.
As we grow older, many suffer from gum recession. This means root surfaces become exposed. Gum recession can cause tooth sensitivity to both hot and cold. Fluorides coat and insulate the teeth from hot and cold.
Advanced gum (periodontal) disease is caused by bacteria that attack the gum tissue and the bone supporting the teeth. Fluoride is used to inhibit the bleeding and tender gums caused by the plaque bacteria. Periodontal disease can reoccur at any time, fluorides are used to help prevent reinfection. With periodontal disease a deeper cleaning is needed and fluorides help sustain the treatment performed by your dentist.
Fluoride also helps those patients that have braces or any orthodontic appliance. Braces act a “food trap”. There are two major problems associated with orthodontic treatment: Gingivitis and decalcification. With braces, it is hard to get around and remove all the plaque that builds up and this will cause gingivitis. Food left on teeth comes in contact with bacteria, which causes acid. This acid robs your teeth of calcium and phosphate, causing decalcification.
Fluoride helps protect recurring decay to teeth supporting a crown or bridge. After oral surgery, fluorides are used to control bacteria and help tissue heal at the surgical site. Bacterial plaque is the number one cause of premature implant failure. Recurring decay to teeth threatens these types of restorations. Fluorides control the acid-producing bacteria and helps protect your investment.
Getting a fluoride treatment is one way to help in not coming back to the dentist for fillings. Fluoride is needed regularly to protect teeth against tooth decay no matter what age we are.
Dr. Mike M. Deldar and his wife Dr. Sohaila Deldar have two dental offices, Family & Cosmetic Dentistry Neuromuscular TMJ Treatment in Castleton, 6535 E 82nd Street Suite 211 (317) 849-3597 and Advanced Cosmetic Dentistry & TMJ in Noblesville 14753 Hazel Dell Crossing Suite 700 (317) 208-0000. Opinions may not reflect those of the Noblesville Daily Times.
Users' Comments (1)
Posted by mary sparrowdancer, on 04-22-2008 12:26,
1. Strange, we never needed it before
Fluoride was never, in the history of humanity, ever "needed" for any health purpose. It only became "needed" in the 1900s, after fluoride wastes began increasing due to nuclear experiments and chemicals. Then, suddenly, it became important to find some sort of "need" for this deadly toxin.
Hasn't he heard of fluorosis?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Recently, a pathologist from Cornell University, posted a YouTube video on horses killed from drinking silicofluoridated water in Pagosa Springs, Colo. During winter, the horses refused to drink city water from their troughs and ate snow instead. In summer, they had no choice and developed severe stomach pain, hoof, bone and teeth defects and allergic skin reactions. ... The Cornell pathologist analyzed tissues, finding severe chronic fluoride poisoning (Krook and Justus, "Fluoride," 2006) ... Town citizens protested, and their water district stopped silicofluoridation, much like the Eskimos who blocked further fluoridation in Alaska after their water district's fluoride poisoning incident in 1994.
In 1985, salmon disappeared from the Columbia River when fluoride discharges elevated the river's levels to only 0.5 ppm. Oregon University researchers found it narcotized salmon, blocking navigation upstream for spawning. After stopping the discharge, the river cleaned itself and salmon returned. Sacramento started fluoridating last year. It's likely involved in the salmon collapse, since fluoride, smaller than the water molecule, cannot be eliminated by filtration before treated water returns to the river. How can anyone justify fluoridation harm to animals and fish populations?
So far, more than £10,000 has been spent on promoting flouridation by the DHSS, which insists it will improve dental health among Island youngsters, without any major side-effects.However, after a recent meeting addressed by both the pro and anti-flouride lobby groups, the majority of commissioners made their views clear.
Mary Bruce has no doubt where the main problems come from (audio file attached):
Mrs Bruce is one of eleven candidates contesting this week's election in Ramsey's North Ward.The others are Dr Alexander Allinson, Brian Beattie, Steven Bevan, Jan Fergusson, John Gaggs, Nigel Malpass, Kevin Mayne, John McDonough, David Sugden and Wilf Young.
Radio clip on bottom of report - sensible woman.
Fluoride Lowers Self Esteem in Children
Fluoride ingestion from toothpaste, water and foods is rising, ruining children's teeth and lowering their self esteem --/24-7PressRelease/ - April 22, 2008 - Fluoride exposure is rising and causing children's tooth imperfections, ranging from white spots to brownish discolorations and pitting (fluorosis), dentist Elivir Dincer reports in the New York State Dental Journal. (1) "Such changes in the tooth's appearance can affect the child's self-esteem which makes early prevention that much more critical," writes Dincer. Children, aged 2 to 7 years, can swallow about one-quarter milligram of fluoride with every brushing because their swallowing reflexes are not fully developed, reports Dincer. "Children from the age of 6-months to 3-years should not have more than one-quarter milligram of fluoride per day. Brushing the teeth of a 2-year-old twice a day will expose the child to about one-half milligram, exceeding the allowable [daily] limits" [from toothpaste alone], writes Dincer. Intentionally swallowing the toothpaste which is likely, given the pleasant flavor of children's toothpaste, increases children's fluorosis risk, Dincer reports. Fluoridated water, supplements, mouth rinses and/or foods add to daily fluoride intake. Up to 48% of children have fluorosis, with 4% moderate/severe (yellow/brown teeth), reports the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (2). Fluoride over-exposure at ages 22- to 25-months can discolor the permanent two front teeth while they form under the gums.Two-thirds of US water suppliers add fluoride chemicals to reduce tooth decay. This fluoridated water is used to make many foods and beverages. (3) "Water and processed beverages (e.g., soft drinks and fruit juices) can provide approximately 75% of a person's fluoride intake," according to the CDC. (4)Mixing infant formula with fluoridated water (5), fluoride supplements (6) and foods with naturally higher fluoride levels, such as tea and ocean fish, independently increase risk of dental fluorosis. Fluoride-containing pesticide residues remain on various foods. Fluoride is also inhaled via ocean and shower mist and is in some medicines.Why isn't this information reaching the public?In 2000, dental researcher AK Mascarenhas wrote, "There is substantial evidence that fluoridated water, fluoride supplements, infant formulas, and fluoride toothpastes are risk factors for fluorosis," alone and together in "Risk factors for Dental Fluorosis: A review of the recent literature," in Pediatric Dentistry, 4/22/2000.Mascarenhas censored our news release which broadcasted her tax-payer supported research to the American public by successfully requesting Ascribe news service to deny our business. We have seen little evidence that organized dentistry or federal health officials passing all this information to the public."It's obvious that fluoridation is dosing our children with uncontrollable and undesirable amounts of fluoride," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. "Besides affecting teeth, fluoride can be hazardous to your general health," he says. "Since fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth and no child is, or ever was, fluoride deficient, it's time we stop adding unnecessary and costly fluoride chemicals into water supplies," says Beeber.Over 1600 professionals joined Environmental Protection Agency scientists in calling for an end to fluoridation. (7) Join the over 11,000 individuals supporting them by signing the petition asking for a Congressional investigation at http://congress.FluorideAction.Net
By Barbara Dawidjan and Katherine M. Pelullo
April 21, 2008
IMAGINE walking into a dentist's office with a severe toothache and being told by the dentist that there is good news and bad news. The good news is that because you are poor, you qualify for free dental care from the state in the state's Medicaid program, MassHealth. The bad news is that your dentist won't be able to treat your toothache because he or she only takes patients who have private insurance or who can pay out-of-pocket.
more stories like thisUnfortunately, this is not the exception but the norm in the delivery of oral healthcare in Massachusetts. Of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, 69 do not have a single dentist. Of the communities with dentists, 30 percent don't have enough to care for all the people who live there.
And the most disturbing statistic of all: Of the state's more than 5,000 active licensed dentists, more than 80 percent refuse to see even one MassHealth patient, including the more than 460,000 MassHealth-eligible children. A bill now on Beacon Hill would allow dental hygienists to help fill this gap.
Without access to oral healthcare services for all residents, disparities in oral health will continue to plague our state. A 2004 state report found that nearly 50 percent of third-graders had a history of dental disease, and 26 percent live with untreated cavities. Research has linked oral health problems to heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases.
However, unlike these other diseases, dental disease is preventable through the use of fluorides, dental sealants, and access to professional care.
Because current law in Massachusetts prevents a dental hygienist from delivering services except under the supervision of a dentist, low income patients typically have no access to either a dentist or a dental hygienist.
Pending legislation would modernize state law to allow dental hygienists to practice in public health settings without the direct supervision of a dentist. This is not some new-fangled Massachusetts idea. Twenty-two other states have passed similar laws, including Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. In these states, dental hygienists may go directly to patients in public schools, Head Start programs, and nursing homes to perform the same preventive oral health treatment they do in a dentist's office.Unfortunately, the Massachusetts Dental Society seeks to block this legislation from becoming law.
Even though the bill requires a dental hygienist to establish a collaborative agreement with a dentist and refer patients to dentists for the kind of care that only a dentist can provide, and specifically bars hygienists from independent practice, the dental society remains vehemently opposed.
At a time when dentists are turning away thousands of Bay State residents who need their services, they choose to spend thousands of dollars on ads meant to scare the public into thinking that dental hygienists are somehow unqualified to treat patients "outside of the traditional practice."
This rhetoric fails to note that under current state law, "supervision" of a dental hygienist does not require the dentist to be physically present in the same location where the dental hygienist provides care. Hygienists are more than qualified to see patients in a dentist's office (and allow the dentist to make a healthy profit from that service) when the dentist is at a continuing education conference or on vacation, out of state or even out of the country.
But when hygienists seek to provide the same care to kids in schools or to seniors in nursing homes, all of whom are now often denied services from the dentist for whom they work, the hygienist is suddenly labeled "unqualified."
The bill has gained the endorsement of the two prominent health-related committees in the Legislature. Also, the state Department of Public Health supports its intent. In a recent report the department endorsed the use of registered dental hygienists to help close the gap in access to oral health care.
It is one thing for dentists to refuse to see poor kids and seniors, but it is quite another for them to stand in the way of other perfectly qualified health professionals who are trying to help.
Barbara Dawidjan is president of the Massachusetts Dental Hygienists' Association. Katherine M. Pelullo is chairwoman of the association's Council on Regulation and Practice.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Posted 6 hours 49 minutes ago
The Mayor of the Mount Alexander Shire is predicting strong community views for and against a proposal to fluoridate drinking water supplies.
Information is being sent out to residents in the shire about the benefits of water fluoridation in reducing tooth decay.
The Mayor and former pharmacist, Alan Elliot, says he is against universal compulsory medication.
But he says the council does not have a position on the issue and wants a plebiscite to decide if the fluoridation goes ahead.
"That's something for the community to decide, although I believe that probably DHS [Department of Human Services] have decided that and this is probably more an information session to tell us what they are going to do and not what we'd like to happen," he said.
By Kevin Werner
NewsApr 18, 2008 Restaurants, schools and society have accepted that some people are allergic to peanuts and have accommodated their needs through needed regulations and protocols.
And doctors, nurses and the medical community have taken steps to protect patients who are hyper sensitive to penicillin.
So why, asks Carole Clinch, research co-ordinator for People for Safe Drinking Water, are politicians, dentists and the rest of society reluctant to accept that fluoridated drinking water may not be good for the public?
During a presentation last week to the Conserver Society of Hamilton and District's Annual General Meeting, Ms. Clinch said that between one to four per cent of people are hypersensitive to fluoride. Yet government agencies, the medical community and the media have for years ignored the problem and instead touted fluoridation as a "miracle" cure for tooth decay, she said. But recent studies have suggested fluoridated water may contribute to some health-related issues.
Fluoridation has been called "one of the greatest achievements in public health in the 20th century," by health advocates, and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
Post-war communities followed the advice of the medical and dental communities, and supported municipalities pouring fluoride into their drinking water supply.
But over the last 10 years studies are now suggesting that maybe fluoridation has some detriments to the population.
Ms. Clinch, who is part of a Kitchener-Waterloo group seeking to eliminate fluoridation in municipal drinking water, said that studies over the years have linked fluoridation to dental fluorosis skeletal fluorosis, and even bone cancer.
They argue studies have found that fluorsilicates increases blood lead levels in people, and there are connections between high amounts of fluoride to skeletal fluorosis, kidney disease, diabetes and thyroid condition.
Ms. Clinch said she used to drink the fluoridated water from her municipality, aggravating her thyroid condition. By eliminating her water intake, and by using iodine properly her condition was all but eliminated, she said.....
HEART DISEASE SECRET DRUG COMPANIES DO NOT TELL YOU! Part 1
Not fluoride but I found it interesting. I refused to go on statins or beta blockers about 13 years ago when a work medical check found my bllood pressure was hgh.I agree with this advice. I'm still alive and well.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
TB News SourceWeb Posted: 4/18/2008 4:30:51 PM
Voters in Dryden have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of fluoridating their public water supply with 87 per cent voting no in Monday night's byelection.
This brings an end to a debate that was a hot topic in the community for more than a year.
The question was first posed to residents in Dryden in the last municipal election in November 2006. At that time, 56 per cent of those who voted were in favour of adding the chemical to the city's water supply.
A petition containing more than ten per cent of the electorate soon followed reviving the debate and forcing council to put the question back to the public, one more time.
Council had previously set aside $300,000 to add fluoride to the city's water and a decision on what to do with those funds will be discussed at an upcoming Dryden council meeting.
Apr 19 2008 by Madeleine Brindley,
THE first petition marking a new electronic way of lobbying the Assembly Government will urge the administration not to add fluoride to drinking water.Anti-fluoride campaigner John Warman’s petition is the first to feature on the National Assembly’s e-petitions website, which was launched this week.
It comes as there is evidence of growing support in some quarters for water fluoridation as a means of addressing Wales’ appalling dental health. The nation, and particularly the South Wales Valleys, has some of the highest levels of five-year-olds with tooth decay.
But Mr Warman, a Neath Port Talbot councillor and founder of the Campaign Against Fluoridation, said he hopes the petition will show the Assembly Government that Wales does not want this form of “mass medication”.
He said: “This is compulsory medication and we do not need it. Instead we need more money spent on education and manufacturers to reduce the amount of sugar in their products, which is causing decay in children’s teeth at such an early age.
“People should have the choice about fluoride in the same way they are able to make choices about other aspects of their health. I know that I am going to get a lot of support for this petition as people are very uncomfortable about this issue. Fluoride is a poison and we do not want it in our water supply.”
The British Dental Association (BDA) in Wales is now considering launching its own petition in support of fluoridation in response.
Stuart Geddes, the BDA’s director, said: “I’m disappointed about this petition and hope that it is not supported by the public.”
Fluoride was last added to the water supply in Wales 17 years ago and many believe that it holds the key to reversing Wales’ poor oral health. After water fluoridation was stopped in 1991 in Anglesey, tooth decay rose by 68%.
More than half of children in Wales have tooth decay, although the problem is highest in areas of deprivation, such as the former South Wales coalfield.
In Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil children have, on average, four decayed, missing or filled teeth by the time they are five. It is fewer than two in areas such as Ceredigion and Monmouthshire.
It is understood that the Welsh Assembly Government has no current plans to fluoridate water supplies in Wales.
A spokesman said: “We acknowledge that, in view of the poor dental health in Wales, the introduction of water fluoridation has the potential to deliver significant health gains and address health inequalities. We are sensitive to the fact that there are some groups opposed to fluoridation.”
The Assembly Government last month launched a £4.6m oral action plan which will include teaching three-year-old children how to brush their teeth.
A scheme to give children free toothbrushes and fluoride toothpaste is also being considered.
Only 11 homes in Wales currently receive fluoridated drinking water. These homes are in the Elan Valley and receive their water from the same source as that supplying the West Midlands, which is fluoridated.
Nick Bourne, the Welsh Conservatives’ leader of the opposition, who uncovered this fluoridation anomaly, said: “I am against compulsory fluoridation as the benefits it may have for teeth are offset by other detrimental problems.”
But Lesley Griffiths, AM for Wrexham, who has previously called for a National Assembly debate on the matter, which could see AMs voting on whether Wales should restart water fluoridation, said: “I believe the scientific case has been made and fluoridation is one important tool that can be used in the prevention of tooth decay among children.”
E-petitions – which are available to read and sign online at www.assemblywales.org/get home/e-petitions – are a way of asking the National Assembly to consider any issue, problem or proposal that it has the power to do something about.
The Assembly’s rules mean that any petition that the Presiding Officer decides is admissible must be considered.
A Ramsey Commissioner who opposes water fluoridation proposals has called for a more holistic approach to dental health in the Island.
Geoff Quayle says other methods of tackling tooth decay must be tried before adding fluoride to the Island's supply, which he feels should only be considered as a last resort.
With the issue in the news, the town's commissioners discussed it at a meeting on Wednesday evening and voted against the DHSS's proposals.
Mr Quayle says they weren't convinced by the department's case
Saturday, April 19, 2008
People in Ramsey who have received copies of the DHSS leaflet called 'Water Flouridation - Information for Isle of Man residents' are being advised to throw them away. The DHSS, which is distributing the material as part of an ongoing campaign, has been forced to amend the content, after an inaccuracy was pointed out during a debate in Tynwald. It says 40 'pre-amended' versions of the leaflet were handed out at the Water Flouridation meeting in Ramsey on Monday. Anybody who has the incorrect version will receive a final, amended copy when 40,000 are sent out to every home in the Island next week.
The leaflet is part of a public consultation exercise on the proposal to flouridate the Island's water supply, to tackle the growing problem of tooth decay
Friday, April 18, 2008
Nebraska lawmakers overrode Gov. Dave Heineman's veto of LB245, which will require Nebraska cities or villages with populations of 1,000 or more to fluoridate their water -- unless voters decide otherwise. It's not as radical a move as it seems; fluoridation was mandated in 1973, and although cities and villages were allowed to opt out of the mandate at that time, there was no provision for reconsidering that decision.
In good news for rural water districts like one being built for Bartley, Indianola and Cambridge, the responsibility remains with the communities being supplied with water -- which in this case are all smaller than the 1,000 population threshold.
Many words have been published here about the possible health affects of fluoridation, but we think there are more basic philosophical reasons to oppose addition of the chemical.
Yes, fluoride may help reduce tooth decay, but we don't feel it's a city's responsibility to provide any sort of blanket medical treatment to its population through the water supply. What's next? Vitamins? Antidepressants?
Taking care of our own health and that of our children is our own responsibility, not that of the city government.
We tend to agree with Gov. Heineman, who called it another unfunded mandate local taxpayers are forced to bear.
For McCook, the issue is moot, because we already have more than enough naturally occurring fluoride in our water supply.
Thankfully, the final bill extended the deadline for compliance two years, giving communities a chance to put the measure on a general election ballot, rather than calling a costly special election.
We tend to think voters here would turn down the idea of adding fluoride to our water, if they were given the chance.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
This week's response is from veterinarian Larry Gilman of the Bishop Ranch Veterinary Center, 2000 Bishop Drive, San Ramon; (925) 866-8387.
Q: We've been warned not to use toothpaste with fluoride on our dogs, but in recent years, dog toothpastes containing fluoride have appeared on the market. I realize that, because our pups don't live as long as humans, the fluoride wouldn't build up in their systems to the degree that it would in a human, but still, who wants to poison his dog, even in small doses! What is the real risk of fluoride for dogs?
A: Brushing your dog's teeth daily helps removes bacteria, plaque and debris and is a great addition to pet health care. Dogs don't get cavities, but they do get periodontal disease, and brushing helps prevent this. The appropriate toothpaste to use is a pet toothpaste that has enzymes to control plaque.
The use of fluoride in pet toothpastes is controversial, and most veterinary dental specialists and general practitioners don't recommend its use because of the potential problem of toxicity. Human toothpastes can have higher levels of fluoride, as well as salts, detergents and baking soda that can harm your dog's teeth.
Don't forget that people rinse after brushing, but dogs just swallow the toothpaste. An overdose of fluoride can cause vomiting and at higher levels can lead to kidney damage.
Why are there pet toothpastes with fluoride? Because it appeals to the consumer, and it sells. Talk to your veterinarian to learn more about dental health, and remember: Brushing your dog's teeth is a good thing, and most dogs can be trained to accept this daily fun activity.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Location: Isle of Man
Telephone poll to inform fluoride debate
INFORMATION FLOW: Should fluoride be added to our water supply?
A TELEPHONE poll of 1,000 randomly selected Island residents will be carried out next month to find out if the public want fluoride in their drinking water.
Health Minister Eddie Teare insisted that if there was no strong public mandate then his department would drop the proposal. But the launch of the latest phase of the consultation came amid continuing accusations of bias – and an embarrassing u-turn over an information leaflet being distributed to households. And Mr Teare admitted that even if the public voted in favour he was still likely to face a long political battle before fluoride could be introduced to the Island's water supply. He said: 'I've no idea how it's going to go. If the view of the public is they don't want fluoride then that's fine – we will walk away. I do feel this whole debate has been useful in raising the issue of the poor state of oral health in the Isle of Man.' Public health officials are convinced fluoridation is the most cost-effective way of tackling alarmingly high rates of dental decay among the Island's children. But the anti-fluoride lobby accuse them of 'state-sponsored propaganda' and insist fluoride is unsafe and far from cost-effective. The Department of Health and Social Security has appointed independent market research company GfK/NOP to conduct the telephone poll of 1,000 randomly selected residents which will take place in early May. It will include those with ex-directory numbers. They will ask: 'Do you think tooth decay rates on the Isle of Man are above average UK level, below it, or about the same?'. They will continue: 'In fact tooth decay levels on the Isle of Man are considerably higher than the average UK level. 'In many developed counties, and in some parts of the UK, fluoride is added to the water supply to reduce levels of tooth decay. Would you favour or oppose fluoride being added to the water in the Isle of Man.' Kevin Glynn, campaign director for anti-fluoride group Save Our Water, said: 'How can you have a poll when only one side of the argument is given? I would say it is weighted as it doesn't include information on dental fluorosis, a proven side-effect.' But Mr Teare said: 'We're going to accused of trying to manipulate things. This thing has got very personal and I regret that. We will have no input in the poll. The questions have been drafted by GfK/NOP. It's not weighted. We've not attempted to phrase the questions in such a way that there's only one answer.' In Tynwald last week, the minister was criticised over a new public information leaflet, due to be distributed to all Island households this week. A line in the leaflet claimed that the Water Authority was 'now seeking to bring in legislation on fluoridation'. Water Authority chairman David Cannan pointed out this wasn't correct and the leaflets have now been re-printed by the DHSS at a cost of £2,500 with the offending line removed.
Mr Teare said: 'There was a dispute about this in Tynwald and we took it out to avoid any ambiguity. We had relied on information taken in good faith from the Water Authority but they didn't feel comfortable with it so we removed it at their request. We reprinted it at DHSS cost because we just want to get on with it.' But the minister admitted that even with a strong public mandate, he could still face a tough challenge to persuade the politicians to vote for the legislation needed to add fluoride to the water supply. 'I've got a very difficult road to cross,' he said. Save Our Water say they may challenge the public information leaflet on fluoridation. Mr Glynn said: 'We already know information put out by the DHSS is biased. This leaflet is just propaganda and may well be in breach of advertising codes as well because they are making medicinal claims of a food product.'
Thursday, April 17, 2008
........................Stay tuned to NaturalNews.com for more on this story. We'll be joining with other pro-consumer groups (like the Organic Consumers Association) to rally our readers in opposition to this food irradiation effort.
I believe we must keep our food supply fresh and alive. (Sounds kinda obvious, huh?) And if there's a little extra bacteria on the spinach, it's nothing that a healthy body can't handle anyway. Take some probiotics and avoid antibiotics, and you'll be just fine. E. Coli is really only a threat to the health of individuals who have had their immune systems (or intestinal flora) destroyed by pharmaceuticals in the first place. There's nothing wrong with some living organisms in your milk, on your almonds or on your spinach. Wash your food, get plenty of sunlight and avoid using antibiotics.
The human body is NOT a sterile environment. To try to make our food supply sterile is insane, and anyone who supports the irradiation of the food supply is, in my opinion, supporting a policy of genocide against the American people. To destroy the vitality of the food supply is a criminal act of such immense evil that it stands alongside the worst crimes ever committed against humanity.
You see, it's not enough for them to poison our water (fluoride), poison our children (vaccines) and lie to us about the sun (skin cancer scare stories). Now they want to destroy our foods... and thereby take away any natural medicine options that might actually keep people healthy and free. Remember: A diseased population is an enslaved population.
Now go eat your Big Mac, drink your Pepsi and don't ask too many questions............
Posted 3 hours 52 minutes ago
Colac residents are frustrated there was not more consultation before the Department of Human Services (DHS) decided to add fluoride to the city's water supply.
But DHS says residents were invited to a community information session last month where they were able to ask questions about the issue.
Many residents have contacted the Member for Polwarth, Terry Mulder, wanting to know why there was not a debate about the issue.
Mr Mulder says he personally thinks fluoride will improve the town's dental health, but he will raise the community's concerns about the lack of consultation.
"It appears as though the Government have made their mind up," he said.
"They are going to go ahead with it.
"I'll certainly make my concerns known in relation to what I believe is a lack of consultation on the matter, but [Premier] John Brumby seems to run roughshod over communities once he's made his mind up on something."
By Tracy Overstreet
The Nebraska Legislature on Wednesday approved a bill that requires drinking water be fluoridated in cities of 1,000 or more residents. The fluoridation is mandated by June 1, 2010, unless a city opts out by public vote. That vote can either be forced by initiative petition or can be placed on the ballot by a majority vote of a city council or village board.
When contacted Wednesday afternoon, Grand Island city council members were divided.
Half of the council's 10 members were for or leaning toward following the state mandate to fluoridate. Three were adamant for a public vote. One was undecided. One was unavailable.
"Fluoridation is as important to teeth as restricting secondhand smoke is to lungs," said Council President Mitch Nickerson, who also serves on the board of directors for the Central District Health Department.
State Sen. Joel Johnson, a retired surgeon from Kearney, sponsored the fluoridation bill. He called it a key step toward preventing tooth decay.
Nickerson said he used to be an opponent to government mandates related to health issues, but has changed his mind over time. He's for fluoridation after having seen the thousands of residents requiring dental work at the Mission of Mercy free dental clinic in Grand Island.
"This is very important to public health," Nickerson said.
Councilman Kirk Ramsey also believes fluoridation is important to helping and improving the health of the community, particularly children. He would welcome any debate before the city council as a way to educate the public about the importance.
"If I had to vote today, I would not support it going to a public vote. I'd vote to fluoridate," Ramsey said.
Councilmen Jose Zapata and Bob Niemann were leaning in favor of fluoridation, as was Councilman Bob Meyer, who said he's inclined to let the state mandate go into effect.
"I probably wouldn't vote against it unless it cost us a fortune to fluoridate," Meyer said.
The Grand Island City Council voted in 1996 to add fluoride up to the optimum level of 1.0 ppm. It began to be added in 1997, but was stopped in May 1998 after 56 percent of Grand Island voters objected to fluoridation in a public vote.
At that time, the fluoridation equipment cost about $40,000 to install and Grand Island had received an $18,000 state grant for the setup. It cost about $27,000 a year to operate.
Grand Island Utilities Director Gary Mader said he believes the fluoridation pumps are still in city inventory, but the storage tank for fluoridation was used for another purpose when fluoridation ceased.
"I think we'd really need to start from scratch to design the system" and get it approved by health inspectors, Mader said. "It would take probably six months to a year to get it done."
But not all council members are for moving forward with fluoridation.
"I have mixed feelings," Grand Island City Councilman John Gericke said. "I think it should go to a public vote."
Councilwoman Peg Gilbert was also unsure of how to proceed because she "hadn't studied the issue in detail."
Gilbert, who is a registered nurse, said her initial research months ago led her to be in favor of fluoridation, but she has since read material that gave her "a moment's pause."
"I really can't answer it yet it's not like smoking, which I knew," she said.
"Frankly, I'm more inclined to send it to a vote," Councilman Larry Carney said.
"I think I'd let the public decide," Councilwoman Joyce Haase said. "It's a citywide thing.
"I hear good and bad there's more good than bad, it helps prevent cavities, but you worry about the people on medications," Haase said.
The Legislature approved the fluoridation bill, 34 to 8.