FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK helps Southampton in the fight to stop the threat of fluoridation

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
FAN Bulletin 1044: Professionals ask SHA board members to reject fluoridation. Part 1Feb 11, 2009
Even though the official deadline for submissions to the Southampton (UK) Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has officially passed we have asked some of the distinguished professionals from around the world, who have signed the Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Fluoridation worldwide, to urge the SHA board members not to vote to fluoridate Southampton's water supply. Over the next few issues of this bulletin we will be printing (with permission of the authors) some of these statements. Like that of Dr. Hardy Limeback, distributed in yesterday's bulletin, these statements offer powerful additional information readers can present to other decision makers.

Below is my opening salvo warning the board members to expect these statements. There are two purposes in this initiative. 1) To erode any notion that they can go ahead with this foolish endorsement anonymously. Each board member is being sent an individual message. The whole world is watching what they do. 2) To demonstrate that there are many professionals who have studied this issue very carefully and reject the simplistic notions that the practice is acceptable, ethical, necessary, effective and safe, as they have been told by the "authorities" who are running this show.

Paul Connett

Statement from Dr. Paul Connett, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network.

Dear Martin Howell,

I am writing to you in the waning days of the process in which the SHA will make its decision on whether or not to give the go ahead to fluoridate Southampton and some surrounding communities. For some of us who have followed this issue very closely for many years it is utterly extraordinary that this archaic practice is being given any consideration at all. Using the public water supply is a dreadful way to deliver medication (you cannot control the dose or who gets it, and you will be forcing it on people who don't want it, some of whom will not be able to afford to avoid it) and helps to explain why most countries - including most of Europe - do not do this. Moreover, the level used (1 ppm) is 250 times the level of fluoride in mothers milk. The evidence of systemic benefits is incredibly weak and I have yet to hear one proponent emphatically state that in their professional judgment that there is an adequate margin of safety to protect everyone (including the very young, the very old, those with impaired kidney function and those with an inadequate diet, including borderline iodine deficiency) regardless of how much water they drink, from the harmful effects documented in many studies reviewed by the National Research Council (NRC, 2006). I submitted a very lengthy elaboration and supporting documentation of these issues in my written submission. This is not the place to rehash that submission but rather to appeal to you to exercise the utmost integrity in this matter.

There seem to be two worlds operating here. There is the world of the governments which promote this practice, whose policy seems overly influenced by dentists who have very little training in medicine, let alone toxicology and whose familiarity with the scientific literature is very limited and often second hand. Then there is the world of independent scientists, doctors and some dentists who, like myself, have found themselves examining the literature on this issue with an open mind and have been appalled by the way that politics continues to trump honest scientific discourse on this matter. It is extremely frustrating to deal with 'authorities' who feel it is enough to flash their credentials and repeat again and again that hundreds (even thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is safe and effective, when that is simply not the case.

However, if having carefully reviewed the scientific literature and the ethical arguments on this matter you are absolutely convinced that this practice is sensible, ethical, safe and effective, so be it. If on the other hand you are not convinced I would urge you to resist the governmental pressures which swirl around this issue. I hope that there will be enough people on the SHA panel to insist that this time around honest science prevails and that you will be one of the voices that will make that happen. The public's trust is at stake. Your decision will undoubtedly have national ramifications and possibly worldwide ones. That is why I have asked several scientists, doctors dentists and environmental leaders from the over 2,100 people who have signed the "Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Fluoridation Worldwide" ( see http://www.FluorideAlert.org/professionals.statement.html ) to share with you their experience on this matter with you why they think this practice should be ended. You should be hearing from them shortly.

Sincerely,

Paul Connett, PhD,
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University,
Canton, NY

Statement from Bo H jonsson, MD, PhD, Department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Dear Martin Howell and others,

It has come to my attention that fluoridation of Southampton and some adjacent communities is considered. I have for several years taken an interest in this question. My position is that positive effects of fluoridation are clearly questionable according to current science and that the health risks can definitely not be ignored. My fellow countryman Arvid Carlsson (Nobel Laurate 2000 in Medicine) in 2005 stated that water fluoridation is "absolutely obsolete". It takes you less than a minute to watch this interview passage: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson-interview.html

Please, I very much appreciate if you acknowledge receiving this e-mail.

Sincerely,

Bo H Jonsson, MD, PhD
Department of clinical neuroscience
Karolinska Institutet
Stockholm, Sweden

Statement from Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 2000

Dear SHA board members,

I am writing to you from Sweden where in the 1970s I was part of the team of scientists who worked hard to prevent fluoridation being introduced into our country. Since then more and more evidence supports the legitimacy of our concerns. My specialty is neuropharmacology, for which I won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2000.

Fluoridation is an obsolete practice. It goes against all principles of modern pharmacology. The use of the public drinking water supply to administer the same dose of fluoride to everyone, from the infant to those who consume copious amounts of water (such as diabetics), goes against all principles of science because individuals respond very differently to one and the same dose and there are huge variations in the consumption of this drug.

Meanwhile, WHO data indicates very little difference, if any, in tooth decay in 12-year olds between those living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Cheng et al. (2007), British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702). It is very clear that our children's teeth have not suffered in Sweden because we rejected fluoridation.

In the 1970's, noting that the level of fluoride in mothers milk is orders of magnitude lower than the levels used in water fluoridation, I was concerned about the potential effects of fluoride on the brain, and other organs, in infants fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water. Since then there have been numerous animal studies indicating that fluoride can damage the brain and 23 studies associating high exposure to fluoride with a lowering of IQ in children (studies available at http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html ).

People may quibble with the limitations of these ecological studies but the fact is that the pattern is remarkably consistent. One study indicated that this effect might occur as low as 1.8 ppm, which provides no adequate margin of safety when you are exposing a whole population of children to fluoridated water at 1 ppm.

It has become clear that the major benefits of fluoride appear to be topical not systemic (CDC, 1999, 2001). In pharmacology, if the effect is local, it is awkward to use it in any other way than as a local treatment. I mean this is obvious. You have the teeth there, they're available for you, why drink the stuff?

I urge you to reject the proposal to fluoridate Southampton and instead to review carefully the methods used in non-fluoridating countries which have successfully combated children's tooth decay without exposing them -unnecessarily - to this pharmacologically active substance.

Sincerely,

Dr. Arvid Carlsson