FAN newsletter
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORKhttp://www.FluorideAlert.org FAN Bulletin 1049: Vermont Victory; Scientific shocker in Southampton UK; & FANs DVD March 4, 2009 Dear bill,, March 3: Residents in the town of Plainfield, Vermont, voted to end fluoridation
The Burlington Free Press reported: "... Supporters of the fluoride ban here said too many questions existed about its possible hazards to keep it in Plainfield's water system. The town's residents have a choice to use toothpaste with fluoride or have their children get fluoride treatment in school, they said. "Inadvertent dosing is probably the wrong way to go," said Sarah O'Brien, 51, who has worked on environmental health issues...
FAN'S new DVD "Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation" The DVDs are in the mail to those who donated to FAN's 2009 Fund Raiser. You should will be receiving them this week!
SOUTHAMPTON (UK). South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) voted unanimously for fluoridation on Feb 26th.Approximately 200,000 people will receive fluoridated water in Central Southampton, Lordshill, Freemantle, Polygon, Totton, parts of Eastleigh, Weston, Shirley, Portswood, St Denys, Netley, Aldermoor, Millbrook, Bassett and Woolston.An intense £140,000 "consultation" program to fluoridate the Southampton area, approved in May 2008, ended on Feb 26 when the 12-member National Health Service South Central SHA Board unanimously voted for fluoridation. Their decision is final and the only appeal is through the courts. According to newspaper reports the SHA spent £140,000 on this effort while the Southampton City Primary Care Trust spent £30,000 to promote fluoridation -see The real cost of fluoride According to Guardian reporter James Meikle, "The government has been trying to extend fluoridation for years, having changed the law in 2003 to enable health chiefs to order, rather then request, water companies to add fluoride." The South Central SHA is the first to implement the 2003 directive and Meikle states: "Authorities in north-west England, Derbyshire, Bristol, and Kirklees in West Yorkshire are thought to be among those preparing to press on with similar proposals."
• According to the SHA's own survey of 10,000 people in the affected area:"28% said they supported the proposal and 72% were opposed" (page 3) (see The 'consultation' with only one answer by Philip Johnson in The Telegraph)
Scientifically flawed consultant reviews by BAZIAN LTD.At the 11th hour, on February 20, critical SHA documents were released to the public. The SHA hired Bazian Ltd. to review the NRC 2006 report and the 18 IQ studies that found an association of high fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in children (there are 23 published studies, but 5 have yet to be translated from Chinese). The SHA did not allow the public to comment on Bazian's critiques. BAZIAN'S CRITIQUE OF THE NRC REPORT: According to FAN's Chris Neurath: The Bazian critique has mischaracterized the purpose, methods, and results of the NRC 2006 review. Bazian dismissed the NRC report as not relevant to Southampton because it relied mostly on studies where the drinking water fluoride level was 2 mg/L or higher. The intended level in Southampton is 1 mg/L. This dismissal reveals a lack of understanding of principles of toxicology and public health policy. Instead of saying health problems from drinking 2 mg/L are irrelevant to Southampton the proper reaction should be great concern because there is no margin of safety. Toxicology and public health policy commonly seek a margin of safety of 100-fold, or at a minimum, 10-fold. Even using a minimum margin of safety, fluoridation at 1 mg/L is 5 times too great to assure safety for all people."BAZIAN'S REVIEW OF 18 IQ STUDIES THAT REPORTED AN ASSOCIATION OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE TO LOWERED IQ IN CHILDREN.Bazian dismissed the 18 IQ studies in part by stating "None of the studies explicitly dealt with artificial fluoridation of drinking water. Instead they dealt with cases in which drinking water was naturally high in fluoride, or high fluoride exposures came from use of high fluoride coal for heating and drying grain." Again, the Bazian consultants ignored the necessity for a margin of safety. The lowest level at which fluoride was estimated to reduce IQ in children, 1.8 mg/L (according to Xiang et al., 2003) clearly offers no adequate margin of safety to protect all the children of Southampton. Whatever the weaknesses found by Bazian in the 18 studies on childhood IQ, they pale when compared to the evidence from the UK and other fluoridated countries on this matter - because the authorities in these countries have never done a single study!
• See Chris Neurath's Feb 26 letter to the SHA Board• The pdf copy of Chris' letter with graph illustrating the NRC 2006 findings for fluoride exposure and health effects (page 4)
• FAN's Feb 26 press release
• Bazian's 49 page NRC critique (pdf): Critical appraisal of "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's standards • Bazian's 58 page IQ critique (pdf): Independent critical appraisal of selected studies reporting association between fluoride in drinking water and IQ
• Links to the key Southampton reports and news coverage
SHA's own document titled: Water fluoridation - the scientific evidence (pdf) by Professor John Newton, Regional Director of Public Health and SHA Board member
Issue: IQ studies:Response: These studies have "not been considered in the consultation document" on advice from Bazian Ltd. (pp 13-14)Issue: NRC 2006 reportResponse: This report is not considered in the consultation document on advice from Bazian Ltd. (pp 14-15) Issue: Baby formula made with fluoridated tap waterResponse: "It is not a recommendation to avoid fluoridated water." (p 16) Issue: Alternatives have not been tried or not given sufficient attentionResponse: "it was assured by Southampton City PCT that they had already assiduously pursued other approaches but that these had not been fully effective." (p 17)Issue: Further research is requiredResponse: "... The important question is not whether further good quality research would help, but what does the existing research tells us we should do now? (p 21)Issue: Precautionary PrincipleResponse: "... we do not believe the principle should be applied in the case of water fluoridation in Southampton... The SHA must weigh the evidence of harm (due to dental fluorosis) against the harm of dental caries and extractions under anaesthetic at the rates they occur now if we do not act..." (p 22)Issue: The SHA has not surveyed the current total fluoride intake of people in Southampton.Response: "... no adverse effects other than mild to moderate dental fluorosis would be expected to be associated with fluoride intake from food, either in adults or in children at the intake levels in the UK..." (p 16)
Correction: In the last bulletin we gave the wrong link for Jennifer Luke's 1997 PhD thesis: The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. It's at http://fluoridealert.org/luke-1997.pdfEllen Connett (for Paul who's on the road)
The Burlington Free Press reported: "... Supporters of the fluoride ban here said too many questions existed about its possible hazards to keep it in Plainfield's water system. The town's residents have a choice to use toothpaste with fluoride or have their children get fluoride treatment in school, they said. "Inadvertent dosing is probably the wrong way to go," said Sarah O'Brien, 51, who has worked on environmental health issues...
FAN'S new DVD "Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation" The DVDs are in the mail to those who donated to FAN's 2009 Fund Raiser. You should will be receiving them this week!
SOUTHAMPTON (UK). South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) voted unanimously for fluoridation on Feb 26th.Approximately 200,000 people will receive fluoridated water in Central Southampton, Lordshill, Freemantle, Polygon, Totton, parts of Eastleigh, Weston, Shirley, Portswood, St Denys, Netley, Aldermoor, Millbrook, Bassett and Woolston.An intense £140,000 "consultation" program to fluoridate the Southampton area, approved in May 2008, ended on Feb 26 when the 12-member National Health Service South Central SHA Board unanimously voted for fluoridation. Their decision is final and the only appeal is through the courts. According to newspaper reports the SHA spent £140,000 on this effort while the Southampton City Primary Care Trust spent £30,000 to promote fluoridation -see The real cost of fluoride According to Guardian reporter James Meikle, "The government has been trying to extend fluoridation for years, having changed the law in 2003 to enable health chiefs to order, rather then request, water companies to add fluoride." The South Central SHA is the first to implement the 2003 directive and Meikle states: "Authorities in north-west England, Derbyshire, Bristol, and Kirklees in West Yorkshire are thought to be among those preparing to press on with similar proposals."
• According to the SHA's own survey of 10,000 people in the affected area:"28% said they supported the proposal and 72% were opposed" (page 3) (see The 'consultation' with only one answer by Philip Johnson in The Telegraph)
Scientifically flawed consultant reviews by BAZIAN LTD.At the 11th hour, on February 20, critical SHA documents were released to the public. The SHA hired Bazian Ltd. to review the NRC 2006 report and the 18 IQ studies that found an association of high fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in children (there are 23 published studies, but 5 have yet to be translated from Chinese). The SHA did not allow the public to comment on Bazian's critiques. BAZIAN'S CRITIQUE OF THE NRC REPORT: According to FAN's Chris Neurath: The Bazian critique has mischaracterized the purpose, methods, and results of the NRC 2006 review. Bazian dismissed the NRC report as not relevant to Southampton because it relied mostly on studies where the drinking water fluoride level was 2 mg/L or higher. The intended level in Southampton is 1 mg/L. This dismissal reveals a lack of understanding of principles of toxicology and public health policy. Instead of saying health problems from drinking 2 mg/L are irrelevant to Southampton the proper reaction should be great concern because there is no margin of safety. Toxicology and public health policy commonly seek a margin of safety of 100-fold, or at a minimum, 10-fold. Even using a minimum margin of safety, fluoridation at 1 mg/L is 5 times too great to assure safety for all people."BAZIAN'S REVIEW OF 18 IQ STUDIES THAT REPORTED AN ASSOCIATION OF FLUORIDE EXPOSURE TO LOWERED IQ IN CHILDREN.Bazian dismissed the 18 IQ studies in part by stating "None of the studies explicitly dealt with artificial fluoridation of drinking water. Instead they dealt with cases in which drinking water was naturally high in fluoride, or high fluoride exposures came from use of high fluoride coal for heating and drying grain." Again, the Bazian consultants ignored the necessity for a margin of safety. The lowest level at which fluoride was estimated to reduce IQ in children, 1.8 mg/L (according to Xiang et al., 2003) clearly offers no adequate margin of safety to protect all the children of Southampton. Whatever the weaknesses found by Bazian in the 18 studies on childhood IQ, they pale when compared to the evidence from the UK and other fluoridated countries on this matter - because the authorities in these countries have never done a single study!
• See Chris Neurath's Feb 26 letter to the SHA Board• The pdf copy of Chris' letter with graph illustrating the NRC 2006 findings for fluoride exposure and health effects (page 4)
• FAN's Feb 26 press release
• Bazian's 49 page NRC critique (pdf): Critical appraisal of "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's standards • Bazian's 58 page IQ critique (pdf): Independent critical appraisal of selected studies reporting association between fluoride in drinking water and IQ
• Links to the key Southampton reports and news coverage
SHA's own document titled: Water fluoridation - the scientific evidence (pdf) by Professor John Newton, Regional Director of Public Health and SHA Board member
Issue: IQ studies:Response: These studies have "not been considered in the consultation document" on advice from Bazian Ltd. (pp 13-14)Issue: NRC 2006 reportResponse: This report is not considered in the consultation document on advice from Bazian Ltd. (pp 14-15) Issue: Baby formula made with fluoridated tap waterResponse: "It is not a recommendation to avoid fluoridated water." (p 16) Issue: Alternatives have not been tried or not given sufficient attentionResponse: "it was assured by Southampton City PCT that they had already assiduously pursued other approaches but that these had not been fully effective." (p 17)Issue: Further research is requiredResponse: "... The important question is not whether further good quality research would help, but what does the existing research tells us we should do now? (p 21)Issue: Precautionary PrincipleResponse: "... we do not believe the principle should be applied in the case of water fluoridation in Southampton... The SHA must weigh the evidence of harm (due to dental fluorosis) against the harm of dental caries and extractions under anaesthetic at the rates they occur now if we do not act..." (p 22)Issue: The SHA has not surveyed the current total fluoride intake of people in Southampton.Response: "... no adverse effects other than mild to moderate dental fluorosis would be expected to be associated with fluoride intake from food, either in adults or in children at the intake levels in the UK..." (p 16)
Correction: In the last bulletin we gave the wrong link for Jennifer Luke's 1997 PhD thesis: The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. It's at http://fluoridealert.org/luke-1997.pdfEllen Connett (for Paul who's on the road)
posted by Bill at
9:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home