Saturday, January 31, 2009
By: dave chevrier on 1/30/2009 8:01:35 AM
Excessive exposure to fluoride causes an arthrtiic bone disease called skeletal fluorosis.Skeletal fluorosis, especially in its early stages, is a difficult disease to diagnose, and can be readily confused with various forms of arthritis including osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis.
In the advanced stages, fluorosis can resemble a multitude of bone/joint diseases, including: osteosclerosis, renal osteodystrophy, DISH, spondylosis, osteomalacia, osteoporosis, and secondary hyperparathyroidism."The radiological severity of knee osteoarthritis was greater in the endemic fluorosis group than in controls... [E]ndemic fluorosis may increase the severity of osteoarthritis in the knees."
SOURCE: Savas S, et al. (2001). Endemic fluorosis in Turkish patients: relationship with knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology International 21: 30-5.
"Radiographs of the skeleton and bone scintigraphy showed degenerative osteoarthritis... Interestingly, laboratory findings, skeletal radiographs and bone densitometry, gave no indication for abnormalities of bone metabolism or mineralization. Without bone biopsy we would have failed the correct diagnosis (of skeletal fluorosis)."SOURCE: Roschger P, et al. (1995). Bone mineral structure after six years fluoride treatment investigated by backscattered electron imaging (BSEI) and small angle x-ray scattering (SAXS): a case report. Bone 16:407.
"Clinical Phase 1 Fluorosis: Sporadic pain; stiffness of joints; osteosclerosis of pelvis & vertebral column. Clinical Phase 2 Fluorosis: Chronic joint pain; arthritic symptoms; slight calcification of ligaments..."SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services. (1991). Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride. Washington, DC.
"The most frequent symptoms in those exposed >6 yr were low back pain, painful knee, elbow, and hip... Analysis of workers' complaints showed no specific pain or other symptom that we could refer only to fluorosis...The only characteristic feature would be multiple-joint involvement in the case of fluorosis. This would differentitate fluorosis from monoarticular osteoarthritis (OA), but unfortunately not from multiple-joint osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA)."
SOURCE: Czerwinski E, et al. (1988). Bone and joint pathology in fluoride-exposed workers. Archives of Environmental Health 43: 340-343.
"t is postulated that fluoride activates the calcification of cartilage...Thus it would be interesting to investigate the effect of fluoride on the evolution of joint alterations in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthrosis."SOURCE: Bang S, et al. (1985). Distribution of fluoride in calcified cartilage of a fluoride-treated osteoporotic patient. Bone 6: 207-210.
"Crippling fluorosis... is characterized by dense bones, exostoses, neurologic complications due to bony overgrowth, osteoarthritis, and ligamentous calcification."SOURCE: Riggs BL. (1983). Treatment of osteoporosis with sodium fluoride: An appraisal. Bone and Mineral Research 2: 366-393.
"[E]xtensive research from India has revealed severe arthritic changes and crippling neurological complications even where the fluoride concentration in water naturally is as low as 1.5 ppm[/E]...Even though extensive bone deformities may not be found on a large scale from fluoride in water at the 1 ppm concentration, some of the early signs of the disease, such as calcifications of ligaments, joint capsules, and muscle attachments, are likely to occur. Indeed these conditions are characteristic of osteoarthritis, in which the formation of microcrystals of apatite (known to be promoted by fluoride) has now been clearly demonstrated... For example, Pinet and Pinet described in detail X-ray changes encountered in skeletal fluorosis in North Africa that are in every respect identical with those present in the arthritic spine of the elderly elsewhere."
SOURCE: Waldbott GL, Burgstahler AW, and McKinney HL. (1978). Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.
"The onset of chronic fluorosis is insidious and may be confused with chronic debilitating diseases such as osteoarthritis, trace-element toxicosis, and trace-element deficiencies."SOURCE: Shupe JL. (1970). Fluorine toxicosis and industry. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 31: 240-247.
"Whereas dental fluorosis is easily recognized, the skeletal involvement is not clinically obvious until the advanced stage of crippling fluorosis... Such early cases are usually in young adults whose only complaints are vague pains noted most frequently in the small joints of the hands and feet, in the knee joints and in the joints of the spine. These cases are frequent in the endemic area and may be misdiagnosed as rheumatoid or osteo arthritis."
SOURCE: Singh A, Jolly SS. (1970). Chronic toxic effects on the skeletal system. In: Fluorides and Human Health. World Health Organization. pp. 238-249.
"The ligamentous calcification [of skeletal fluorosis] is often periarticular and shows as osteoarthritis of the spine and hip joints as well as of the sacro-iliac joints."SOURCE: Kumar SP, Harper RA. (1963). Fluorosis in Aden. British Journal of Radiology 36: 497-502.
In the early stages of skeletal fluorosis, the "only complaints are vague pains noted most frequently in the small joints of hands and feet, the knee joints and those of the spine. Such cases are frequent in the endemic area and may be misdiagnosed as rheumatoid or osteoarthritis. Such symptoms may be present prior to the development of definite radiological signs. A study of the incidence of rheumatic disorders in areas where fluoridation has been in progress for a number of years would be of interest." SOURCE: Singh A, et al. (1963). Endemic fluorosis. Epidemiological, clinical and biochemical study of chronic fluoride intoxication in Punjab. Medicine 42: 229-246.
"Although skeletal fluorosis has been studied intensely in other countries for more than 40 years, virtually no research has been done in the U.S. to determine how many people are afflicted with the earlier stages of the disease, particularly the preclinical stages. Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed... Even if a doctor is aware of the disease, the early stages are difficult to diagnose."
SOURCE: Hileman B. (1988). Fluoridation of water.Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News August 1, 1988, 26-42.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Early signs of fluoride poisoning
Early signs of fluoride poisoning Researchers examining 112 cases of fluorosis in Ontario, Ohio, Italy and British Columbia found the following collective symptoms (Fluoride, 1998; 31: 13-20), which tend to appear before the bones are affected:
Musculo skeletalArthritis, especially in the cervical and lumbar spine, muscle pain, pins and needles, inability to control extremities. Gastro intestinal Gastric pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating, diarrhoea, constipation, acute abdominal episodes, inflammation of the mouth. Neurological Migraine like headaches, blurred vision with moving spots, convulsions, muscular fibrillation. Respiratory Nasal and conjunctival problems, emphysema, asthma, nose bleeds. Skin
Dermatitis, inflammation around capillary blood vessels. Other symptoms Cough, excess mucus, breathing difficulties, mouth ulcers, bleeding gums, palpitations, vertigo, difficulty sleeping, excessive thirst, excessive urination, frequent episodes of lower urinary tract disease, oedema in hands and ankles, joint pains, stiffness, rheumatic pains, rash, marked mental deterioration mainly memory loss and ability to concentrate tinnitus, fatigue and extreme exhaustion. Many people became bedridden.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
A study published in the journal Human Reproduction measured levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in the blood of 1,240 women. Those with higher levels were more likely to take longer to become pregnant. UK experts said more research was needed to confirm a link. PFCs are useful in industry because they are resistant to heat, and have the ability to repel water and oil.
However, high concentrations have been linked to organ damage in animals, and the chemicals have the ability to persist for long periods in the body.
It is an important finding and certainly warrants further detailed research, particularly in those trying for a family Tony RutherfordBritish Fertility Society
The researchers, from the University of California in Los Angeles, analysed blood samples taken at the time of the woman's first antenatal visit, then interviewed the women about whether the pregnancy was planned, and how long it had taken them to get pregnant.
The levels of the chemicals varied from 6.4 nanograms per millilitre of blood - a nanogram is a billionth of a gram - to 106.4 nanograms per ml. When the group of women were divided into four groups depending on these levels, they found that, compared to women in the group with the lowest readings, the likelihood of infertility - taking more than a year or IVF to get pregnant - was significantly higher for women with higher levels of PFCs in their bloodstream.
Dr Chunyuan Fei, one of the researchers, said that earlier studies had suggested that PFCs might impair the growth of babies in the womb.
She said that more women in the groups with higher exposure to PFCs had problems with irregular menstrual cycles , which might suggest that interference with hormones was the reason.
Professor Jorn Olsen, who led the study, said that the team were now waiting for further studies to confirm the link between fertility problems and PFCs.
Tony Rutherford, chairman of the British Fertility Society, said that the findings were "interesting". "This research shows a tenuous link in the delay to conception in women with the highest levels of two commonly-used perfluorinated chemicals.
"It is an important finding and certainly warrants further detailed research, particularly in those trying for a family. "The study emphasises the importance of remaining vigilant to potential environmental factors that may impact on fertility."
There is a tenuous link with fluoridation as well but we can't have too much can we Health Secretary Alan Johnson?
28th January 2009
New guidelines on the use of topical fluorides for the prevention of tooth decay in Irish children and adolescents are now available.
The aim of the guidelines is to maximise the benefits from the use of topical fluorides for Irish children under the age of 16 years. The guidelines cover fluoride-containing toothpastes and mouthrinses, as well as professionally applied fluorides, including varnishes and gels.
The guidelines were developed in response to a consultancy report on the use of fluorides in the promotion of oral health in the Republic of Ireland, and their launch marks the introduction of the first evidence-based principles for the HSE public dental service.
Lead researcher Carmel Parnell, a senior HSE dental surgeon, said that the report found variations across the country in the practices and policies for caries-prevention programmes involving fluorides, and identified a lack of guidance within the public dental service on the best use of professionally applied topical fluorides.
Although the guidelines were put together for the public dental service, Ms Parnell points out that they will also be of interest to general dental practitioners and their dental teams, and to parents of children using the public service.
The guidelines will be implemented this year, but according to Ms Parnell it will be probably a number of years before their impact will be seen.
The guidelines were established by a collaborative group involving the Oral Health Services Research Centre in UCC, the HSE and the Cochrane Centre in Oxford. The initiative was funded by a strategic research and development award from the Health Research Board.
Health Minister's comment an unacceptable use of his position
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
POTTSTOWN — If you have an opinion about a proposal to halt the addition of fluoride to Pottstown's public water supply, then make some time on your schedule on Wednesday.
In order to gather public opinion on the proposal — and to comply with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection rules — the Pottstown Borough Authority will hold public hearings at three different times.
They will be held from 9 to 11 a.m., from 2 to 4 p.m., and from 6 to 8 p.m. on Wednesday.
All the hearings will take place in the Council Chambers room on the third floor of Borough Hall, 100 E. High St.
And even more hearings may take place.
Brent Wagner, superintendent of the Pottstown Wastewater Treatment Plant, who is in charge of organizing the hearing, said with snow expected Wednesday, bad weather may actually result in another day of hearings being scheduled.
"If it snows, we'll still hold the hearings, but I'll set up another one in the future," Wagner said.
"It wouldn't be appropriate not to have another hearing if people can't get there because of the weather," he said.
The proposal was first raised during the budget deliberations of the borough authority, during which a spike in the cost of chemicals was noted. Noting that eliminating fluoride from the water treatment process would save $32,000 a year, the borough authority voted 3-2 on Dec. 16 to push ahead with the process by which Pottstown would halt the addition of fluoride to the water.
In addition to the cost savings, authority member Don Read said the presence of fluoride in Pottstown's water could make it harder to market to other water companies. Currently, Pottstown's is the only public water system in Montgomery County that adds the chemical, which dentists insist is a great public health asset in the prevention of cavities.
In fact, Pottstown is one of only nine public water systems in all of southeast Pennsylvania that adds fluoride to its water.
Last month, the authority heard from two local dentists, both of whom pleaded with the members to continue adding fluoride to the water, a plea which won the votes of authority members Aram Ecker and Tom Carroll.
Bruce Terry, a Phoenixville endodontist, and Elkins Park dentist Bernard Dishler and a representative of the Pennsylvania Dental Association, told the authority that adding fluoride helps prevents dental decay by "40 to 60 percent," particularly among low-income populations who might not otherwise be able to afford dental care.
"Every $1 invested in fluoride in the water saves $38 in dental treatments later on," Dishler told the authority last month.
Since the vote was taken, Wagner said while neither he nor borough hall has been flooded with calls, officials have taken note of the positions being taken in The Mercury by advocates of both positions.
"Some of the 'Sound Offs' have had very good information," Wagner said in reference to the paper's call-in feature.
"All the dentists seem to be in favor of it, but everyone else has been saying to remove it," he said. He added that, personally, "I have no opinion on it."
On Jan. 6, Pottstown dentist Mark J. Piacine wrote a letter to the editor saying he was "shocked" that the authority was considering doing away with adding fluoride.
"Our town was among the first communities of its size, a leader in the nation, when it established this dental benefit more than 40 years ago," he wrote. "Not adding fluoride to our Pottstown water supply would be a definite step backward."
On the other side of the argument, Lorraine Ruppe of Pottstown, in a Jan. 11 letter to the editor, chided "Aram Ecker and Tom Carroll for blindly supporting deceptive dental association spin related to adding fluoride to Pottstown's water."
She wrote that fluoride's dental benefits are "topical" and that "swallowing fluoride to prevent tooth decay makes as much sense as swallowing suntan lotion to prevent sunburns."
Ruppe wrote that "peer reviewed science has raised concerns that fluoride may present unreasonable health risks, particularly among children." She added that it is suspected in contributing to everything from bone cancer to learning disabilities.
One day earlier, the Alliance for a Clean Environment published a letter citing a review by the National Academy of Sciences which argued that fluoride may contribute to brittle bones, diabetes, reduced IQ and early onset of puberty.
In spite of the entreaties of as respected a public servant as Councilor Amy Valentine, we implore the City of Plattsburgh not to stop fluoridating the water until somebody with more clout than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends it.
Valentine and a few others have urged the city to stop putting tooth-decay-preventive doses of fluoride into the water that comes out of city taps. The authority cited by Valentine and others is Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network in St. Lawrence County, who claims that 23 studies, many in India and China, show the material could diminish IQ scores in children. Also, too much fluoride can actually damage teeth, he adds.
Offsetting that evidence, if you're generous enough to call it that, is the CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which hail fluoridation as one of the 20th century's greatest public-health developments.
In Plattsburgh, fluoride has been added to the water supply, one drop at a time, since 1956. In that time, no one we know of has demonstrated that children's brains have been fogged, though local dentists attest to substantial gains against tooth decay.
The Town of Plattsburgh entertained a similar debate about two decades ago and learned that the opponents of fluoridation were led by a dentist. These days, dentists are apparently more enlightened. Even though they could undoubtedly point to fluoride as being counter to their financial interests, they are leading the chorus for fluoridation because they see the sublime benefits to children's teeth.
Plattsburgh has been heralded for its treatment program, winning a Water Fluoridation Quality award from the CDC in 2007. By itself, that would not be reason enough to retain the program in the face of controversy.
But the real question is which side do you trust. The CDC, ADA and local dentists have heartily endorsed the fluoridation. Studies of unknown reliability in China, India and perhaps elsewhere hardly negate those endorsements.
Legitimate reasons to be suspicious have simply not been brought forward. Had the past 50 years demonstrated that Plattsburgh had turned out a significant percentage of poorly developed brains, less enthusiasm for the program might be warranted. But we haven't seen that kind of medical history.
Before the city ends a treatment program that has met with such success, far more evidence of risk must be provided. As it is, all the city has to show for its treatments is sturdier teeth.
Councilor Valentine has been a clarion voice of reason in the past. On this one, she seems to be badly out of harmony with people who have the city's best interests in mind.
Councilor Valentine needs support.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
by Sally Stride
Sixty-four years ago, on January 25, sodium fluoride was poured into Grand Rapids, Michigan’s public water supply to prove that fluoridation reduces children’s tooth decay. Five years into the experiment, things weren’t going as expected. Cavities declined equally in the non-fluoridated control city of Muskegon, too. So, to blur the truth or prove their expectation, Muskegon was fluoridated also.
So what’s happening today?
Ingested fluoride is not stopping cavities and is causing dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. For example, according to data presented at the 2006 American Association for Dental Research’s annual meeting:
Grand Rapids children are showing high rates of tooth decay and dental fluorosis. According to the Grand Rapids Press, one pediatric dentist said in 2007 “…we see children under the age of 2 with active decay…Rather than just a few cavities, we're seeing a lot of cavities. It's not unusual to see a child with 8 to 10 cavities."
Detroit Michigan is also fluoridated. A study shows that, although fluoridated tap water is the most consumed item, 83% of low-income Detroit African-American adults, 14-years-old and over, have severe tooth decay. Almost all Detroit’s African-American 5-year-olds have cavities, most of them go unfilled. In fact, there are cavity crises in all fluoridated cities and states (See: http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com ) because 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients and over 108 million Americans lack dental insurance. Our food supply has become fluoride-polluted. The USDA had to create a database of fluoride content of some foods to help Americans tally their daily fluoride intake to avoid dental fluorosis and the National Institutes of Health just granted $3 million to a researcher to find out why children are getting dental fluorosis.
It makes better fiscal sense to stop adding fluoride chemicals into the public water supply instead of feeding the research community millions of dollars to tell us we are over-fluoridating our children.These studies add to a growing body of evidence pointing to fluoride's ineffectiveness and lack of safety.
Monday, January 26, 2009
By JOE LoTEMPLIO Staff Writer
The debate over the use of fluoride in drinking water has been waged many times over the past few decades across the country.
It's on now in the City of Plattsburgh.
The city is considering the removal of fluoride from its water system, and officials want to hear from both sides of the argument.
"I am certainly not deluded enough to know that this could be a hard sell to the rest of the community," said Councilor Amy Valentine (D-Ward 5), who wants to eliminate fluoride.
"If we choose to go forward, it's going to take a lot of public education and time."
The city has been using fluoride in its water system since 1956. Only the city and the Town of Plattsburgh water systems use fluoride in Clinton County, though Rouses Point did so in the past.
Fluoride was introduced to the country post-World War II as a means of preventing tooth decay.
It has been hailed by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the major public health achievements of the 20th century.
CUTS CAVITIESThere is no shortage of supporters of fluoride as the CDC is joined by the American Dental Association and numerous state and local health departments as its champions.
"It would be a tragedy to lose it," said John Kanoza of the Clinton County Health Department.
"It cuts the amount of cavities in half."
Dr. Robert Heins, a local dentist and Clinton County legislator, said the ADA has supported the use of fluoride unwaveringly for 50 years.
"It's really unfortunate that this debate has come up again, but we can debunk all the arguments against fluoride," he said.
The amount of fluoride used in the city's drinking water supply is minimal.
William Todd, the city's water plant manager for 40 years, said they use one part per 1 million gallons of water.
"We've been using fluoride since I've been here and we haven't had any problems with it," Todd said.
Todd adds the compound to the system through a machine at the water plant on Route 3. It comes in a powder form and is mixed with water to form a fluoride solution.
The solution slowly drips into the two large clear wells at the plant containing 5 million gallons of water.
The fluoride machine is tested three times a day to make sure just the right amount is added.
"I can understand why some towns with smaller water systems don't use it, because they don't have somebody to watch it constantly," Todd said.
The city won a Water Fluoridation Quality award in 2007 from the CDC for its "consistent and professional adjustment of the water fluoride content to the optimal level for oral health for 12 consistent months."
Nationwide, about 170 million people have access to fluoridated water.
Todd said it costs the city about $13 per day to keep its system fluoridated.
Every dollar spent on fluoridation saves about $38 in avoided dental bills, according to the CDC.
But not everyone is sold on its benefits.
Councilor Valentine, a nurse by profession, keeps up on literature about fluoride. She decided several years ago to have her family stop using fluoridated toothpaste.
"There are a lot of health-related concerns associated with ingesting it," she said.
LOWER IQS?Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network in St. Lawrence County, has been working to ban the substance for the past 12 years.
Connett says fluoride, while it may prevent tooth decay, can be dangerous.
There have been 23 studies, many in India and China, he said, that show the use of fluoride could possibly lead to lower intelligence quotients among children.
"There is a growing alarm that in order to stop tooth decay, we may be damaging our children's brains," Connett said.
Too much fluoride can also cause dental fluorosis, which is the discoloring and brittling of teeth, studies have shown, including a 2005 CDC study that said as many as 32 percent of American children have some form of fluorosis.
Connett said only about 30 countries in the world use fluoride, and only eight countries provide fluoride to more than 50 percent of their citizens.
"The real way to fight tooth decay is through a better diet and avoiding sugar," he said.
Connett has a theory on why dentists tout fluoride for prevention of tooth decay among children.
"Dentists don't want to treat children because they can make more money on adult tooth problems, and kids don't like to go to the dentist, and they can be a pain," he said.
Heins, who specializes in children's dentistry, turns red when he hears Connett's theory.
"I think he is the one whose IQ has been lowered," Heins said. "There have been a gazillion studies showing that fluoride is safe. These are just scare tactics."
Connett is scheduled to speak to the city's Common Council on fluoride sometime in March.
Heins promises to be there with other dentists to rebut any claims against fluoride.
"I'll have every dentist on the planet there if I have to," he said.
E-mail Joe LoTemplio at: email@example.com
Monday, January 26, 2009 by: Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor(
NaturalNews) Many of the pharmaceuticals consumed in the United States are made in India, where labor is cheap and environmental laws are lenient on powerful corporations. U.S. drug companies are exploiting this situation to manufacture hundreds of millions of doses of high-profit pharmaceuticals in India, where ingredients purchased for a few cents can be re-sold to U.S. health patients for hundreds of dollars (the markup on some drugs is literally over 500,000%).
There's something else Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about its drug operations in India: Big Pharma's manufacturing facilities dump millions of doses of toxic pharmaceutical chemicals directly into India's waterways.
Researchers were recently stunned to discover that 100 pounds of a powerful antibiotic called ciprofloxacin was being dumped into a local stream every day! That's a quantity of antibiotics that could treat an entire city of 90,000 people every day.
But that's not all: The same waterway contained an astonishing 21 pharmaceutical chemicals reports the Associated Press, some at levels that were 150 times the highest levels of contamination found in U.S. waterways. (And even the levels found in the U.S. were quite alarming.)....................................
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Posted 21 hours ago
Sir:I am, and have been for several years, extremely concerned about our elected officials feeling it is their right or duty to add fluoride to our drinking water here in Lambton County.
Fluoride is a poison that does much damage to our bodies, ranging from bone deterioration to possibly contributing to Alzheimer's disease and reduced IQ in children and, when ingested, virtually having no positive effect to teeth. These are a few of the negative effects (reference: an article written by Dr. W. Gifford-Jones published by Sun Media on Jan. 20, 2007).
If, after research, some people prefer to add fluoride to their "clean water" for their families to ingest, certainly that is their prerogative, but I see it as going way past anyone's rights or obligations, elected or not, to force the poison fluoride onto those of us who are unwilling to drink it. It should make no difference whether we reside in the city or rural areas.
There is an abundance of information on the internet for anyone who cares to research it.
M. D. Horley Mooretown
January 23, 2009
For a patient whose water source does not contain fluoride, how important is supplementation? If supplementing, how much, how often, and at what age do you start and stop?
—Amy Waggner, FNP-C, Washington, Ind.
The American Dental Association and the CDC have very clear guideline statements regarding this topic. For urban areas with fluoridated water supplies, no additional supplementation is needed. Fluoridated water supplies are titrated to a 0.6-0.7 ppm concentration.
It is estimated that more than 100 million Americans live in areas where there is no added fluoride in the water supply. In these areas, the following guidelines apply: age 0-6 months, no supplement; aged 6 months-3 years, 0.25 g/day; aged 3-6 years, 0.50 mg/day; and aged 6-16 years, 1.0 mg/day.
One source suggested that a “pea-sized” amount of fluoride toothpaste twice daily is adequate for children younger than 6 years of age. Other sources include multivitamins (liquid and chewable). For more information, see Am Fam Physician. 2004;70:2113-2120.
—Sherril Sego, MSN, FNP (123-10)
From the January 2009 Issue of Clinical Advisor
Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. Fluoride supplements put children at heightened risk of dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) without any evidence of benefit. An Australian newspaper reports "Colgate's chief dental officer had recommended the supply be stopped on December 1 to avoid the risk of children developing dental fluorosis - a condition caused by a fluoride overdose."
Saturday, January 24, 2009
By JIM HENLEY | La Crosse
Here’s how to turn $60,000 into “peanuts” in one easy lesson. Let’s say that $60,000 is the annual cost of fluoridating our municipal water supply. Then assume that 1 percent of the water is used for drinking by children and adults. This means $59,400 is not used for drinking and ends up in our topsoil or down the sewer.
The $600 that is left is reduced to $180 since about 30 percent of the population are children. That puts another $420 down the sewer or into the soil.
This reduction to “peanuts” is a dubious attempt to reduce dental cavities in children.
However, all is not wasted because watering our lawns and washing our clothing, dishes and automobiles will never result in tooth decay. This squandering of money goes on every day, every month and every year.
To summarize, three-tenths of 1 percent of the fluoridated water is swallowed by children and 99.7 percent of the fluoridated water is NOT used to prevent tooth decay in children.
This is not a cost-effective plan by any means and is one of the biggest hoaxes ever put over on the American public.
It is an “ideal” way of putting a protoplasmic poison down thousands of gullets without committing a crime.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 09:20
2 readers have commented on this story. (Click headline title to see comments)
Click here to read their views.
FLUORIDE DANGER: Our PCT is set to spend up to £700,000 on providing extra strength fluoride toothpaste for children, including babies, who have just developed their first teeth.
Fluoride of any strength is a risk for children. Dr Vyvian Howard, one of this country's leading toxiologists and an expert on the effects of toxins on the infant brain, has shown that damage from early over-exposure to fluoride can range from lowered IQ and psychological problems to mental retardation and a higher incidence of Down's syndrome births. Dr Howard can be heard on the Fluoride Action Alert website, which should be compulsory viewing for all those in favour of this form of mass medication.
We are often told that fluoride has been used safely in parts of Britain and the USA for 40 years. If this were so, why are so many states now quietly removing it from their water supplies? Parents in States which still retain it are now being told that they must never use it to make up infant formula feed. This makes it astonishing that any UK health professional would allow fluoride into a baby's mouth.
Could Kate Taylor Weetman, consultant in dental public health, please tell us what research there has been on the safety of giving small children extra strength fluoride?
KATE BOULTON Biddulph
Fluorie Discolors Teeth
New York – January 2009 -- On January 25, 1945, sodium fluoride was slowly poured into Grand Rapids, Michigan’s public water supply to prove that fluoridation reduces children’s tooth decay. Five years into the experiment, things weren’t going as expected.
Cavities declined equally in the non-fluoridated control city of Muskegon, too. So to blur the truth or prove their expectation, Muskegon was fluoridated also. Children’s teeth were checked but not adults or other body parts.
Sixty-four years later, research exposes fluoride’s undesirable health effects to human organs and systems that weren’t considered in the 1940’s. Many fluoridation-supporting organizations are now covering their legal aspects.
The American Dental Association admits in its Fluoridation Facts
booklet “decreased fluoride removal may occur among persons with severely impaired kidney function who may not be on kidney dialysis.”
The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its fluoridation support after a lawyer contacted them about their legal responsibility to tell the truth. They now advise that individuals with Chronic Kidney Disease be notified of fluoride’s danger to them.
The kidney-impaired retain more fluoride and risk skeletal fluorosis (an arthritic-type bone disease), fractures and severe enamel fluorosis, which may increase the risk of dental decay, reported the U.S. National Research Council in 2006.
The Centers for Disease Control concedes that fluoride’s beneficial effects are topical and not systemic, meaning there’s really no good reason to swallow fluoride. Swallowing fluoride creates dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or stained teeth – now afflicting up to 48% of school children, up to 4% moderate/severe, according to the CDC
The CDC’s 2001 fluoride recommendations says, "The laboratory and epidemiologic research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates that fluoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical ... Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted,..."
As of 2006, both the ADA and the CDC advise that fluoridated water not be mixed into concentrated infant formula because it unnecessarily puts babies at high risk of developing dental fluorosis.
So what’s happening today?
Grand Rapids children are showing high rates of tooth decay and dental fluorosis.
According to the Grand Rapids Press, one pediatric dentist said in 2007 “…we see children under the age of 2 with active decay…Rather than just a few cavities, we're seeing a lot of cavities. It's not unusual to see a child with 8 to 10 cavities."
Detroit Michigan is also fluoridated.
A study shows that, although fluoridated tap water is the most consumed item, 83% of low-income Detroit African-American adults, 14-years-old and over, have severe tooth decay. Almost all Detroit’s African-American 5-year-olds have cavities, most of them go unfilled.
In fact, there are cavity crises in all fluoridated cities and states (See: http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com ) because 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients and over 108 million Americans lack dental insurance.
Our food supply has become fluoride-polluted. The USDA had to create a database of fluoride content of some foods to help Americans tally their daily fluoride intake.
Stopping fluoridated water from flowing into our food supply by ending water fluoridation seems like a better idea, to me.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Minnesota is 98% fluoridated:NYSCOF
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Madeleine Logan | 21st January 2009
Pharmacy manager Garry Franklin says Colgate and Oral B have discontinued fluoride tablets.
Dave NoonanPHARMACY manager Garry Franklin was bemused when he saw deputy mayor Paul Antonio encouraging the use of fluoride tablets this week - considering they are no longer being produced.
The head of the council's water committee had no clue Colgate and Oral B had discontinued their lines when he suggested the product as an alternative to fluoridated water on Monday.
He was only informed on Tuesday that Colgate's chief dental officer had recommended the supply be stopped on December 1 to avoid the risk of children developing dental fluorosis - a condition caused by a fluoride overdose.
The tablets have since been cleared from Toowoomba chemist shelves, according to Mr Franklin and several pharmacists contacted by The Chronicle yesterday. Cr Antonio said a “couple of country pharmacies” had limited supplies.
“I'm sure we could approach a pharmaceutical company who could supply tablets if the demand was there,” Cr Antonio said.
Toowoomba-based Australian Dental Association of Queensland councillor Rob Sivertsen met with Cr Antonio last night to discuss the difficulties of implementing and maintaining the fluoridation plants. Dr Sivertsen said a debate based around tablets was academic.
“They're simply not available,” he said. “I would be disappointed if the council spends time tossing up possibilities before throwing its hands up.”
Mr Franklin, from Scott Street Pharmacy, said fluoride tablets had not been available since before Christmas.
“I would have thought the council would have checked it out before suggesting it as an option,” he said.
Deputy Premier Paul Lucas told The Chronicle yesterday said he would speak to the council about its concerns about the cost of maintaining the infrastructure needed to add fluoride to the water.
“I'm not prepared to have a situation where people on the Darling Downs have rotten teeth,” he said.
“The State Government has not received any formal correspondence from the Toowoomba Regional Council regarding its concerns and no other councils have applied for an exemption.”
Dr Sivertsen said children needed to be exposed to massive concentrations of fluoride before it damaged tooth enamel.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
on 21 January, 2009 at 2:10 p.m.
Tasmania has high incidence of cancer, arthritis-osteoporosis, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, coronary heart disease, obesity, high blood cholesterol, high suicide rates, ovarian cancer, reduced kidney function, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease- hypertension, highest percentage of toothless ness and they have poor dental decay statistics.
Tasmania has 41 fluoridation plants. One plant uses the fluoride chemical Sodium Silicofluoride Na2SiF6, eighteen plants use the fluoride chemical Fluosilicic acid H2SiF6 which are both industrial grade waist products of the phosphate fertilizer manufacture, that can contain small residues of toxic heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury. Twenty two plants use Sodium fluoride NaF a chemical that is a waist product of Aluminium smelting. This has been in use for the longer than any other state. I thought I would just mention this I am sure it’s just a coincidence, but then who would know!
Recently the first adult survey in 18 yrs was released; Individual state reports Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health from data collected during the 2004-2006 National Adult Oral Health survey. If fluoridation was really effective at reducing tooth decay at all, clear evidence of this would exist from this, but appears there is little difference of decay statistics between states regardless of the extent of fluoridation for that state. This includes the State of Queensland which is only 5% fluoridated.
Colin Bishop a CABOOLTURE natural therapist plans to fight water fluoridation by making a complaint to the Crime and Misconduct Commission about the actions of the Premier and Health Minister.
Not only does Colin Bishop plan to target Premier Anna Bligh and Health Minister Stephen Robertson, he intends to lodge a complaint to the CMC against State MPs who spoke against fluoridation three years ago and stated that their electorate did not want it, then voted for it.
Mr Bishop, one of many readers to raise concerns about fluoridation, said fluoride was a poison and the population was being medicated without its consent.
Citing reams of articles to back his claims that fluoridation was dangerous, he said putting it in water supplies was a cunning ploy by the chemical industry to dispose of a by-product of aluminium production.
Mr Bishop, who has a Diploma of Biochemical Medicine from the International Academy of Biochemical Medicine in Germany, said governments had been duped by scientists and the media was biased to the pro-fluoride cause.
He said scientists and governments would not admit they had been wrong about fluoride.
However, a Queensland Health spokesman said a person would have to drink “something like a bathtub-full of fluoridated water in a day” for it to have any detrimental effect.
“Fluoride, like many vitamins and minerals, can be harmful if consumed in large quantities,” the spokesman said.
“The National Health and Medical Research Council has set a safe limit of fluoride consumption at 10 milligrams per day. As drinking water is to be fluoridated at 0.6 to 0.8 milligrams per litre in Queensland, one would not expect the daily consumption to be much greater than 1.6 milligrams per day (food intake would provide only a minimal amount of fluoride).”
The State Infrastructure Department, which is responsible for water supply, said the sodium silicofluoride added to water was extracted from rocks.
State Member for Glass House Carolyn Male said she had no concerns about fluoridation and had given fluoride tablets to her children before they could brush their teeth properly.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Posted 11 hours 17 minutes ago
A Darling Downs council wants to opt out of the State Government's water fluoridation scheme and instead offer residents fluoride tablets.
Fluoride is already in most south-east Queensland drinking water supplies and is due to be added to Toowoomba's water by the end of the year.
Toowoomba Deputy Mayor Paul Antonio says a report out today shows it will be logistically and financially difficult.
"As far as we're concerned we want to talk to the State Government about this because we believe there's a better way of delivering fluoride to those people who want to use fluoride," he said.
The State Government wants 90 per cent of Queensland's water supplies fluoridated by 2012 to improve dental health.
Councillor Antonio says the council will consider today whether to ask the Government if it can offer a tablet alternative.
"There are obviously a lot of people who don't want it and there are obviously people who do want it and see a benefit in it," he said.
"I think we can deliver it in a different way without forcing people to do things and make it a choice that people have."
Acting Premier Paul Lucas says Toowoomba cannot opt out and the State is meeting the capital costs of adding fluoride.
"Well I don't think that's unreasonable for councils that supply water to meet the relatively modest ongoing costs of fluoridation, they meet the ongoing costs of chlorinating the water and other treating of it as well," he said.
"It's a very modest cost but the State will meet the full cost of installation.
"I'm happy to work with the Toowoomba Council to see if there are any issues they have got."
"The demand for dental care is 'incredible,' said Julie Collett, a dental hygienist and executive director of Kids in Need of Dentistry, a local service agency working at the fair.
She said her group helped serve about 500 children and adults at another free health fair in August, also sponsored by Kaiser.
'We had to turn people away' at the August even, Collett said. She expects to treat hundreds of children and adults today."
Denver Colorado is fluoridated:NYSCOF
Monday, January 19, 2009
January 17, 2009 11:00pm
JUNK-food advertising faces restrictions as steps are taken to make Queensland the first state to rein it in during kids' television programs.
Queensland Health has begun compiling community and industry feedback on the issue and has prepared a set of recommendations to be considered by Premier Anna Bligh and her Cabinet.
The recommendations are expected to lead to new laws governing the advertising of junk food during children's television programs.
The issue is expected to be one of the first items considered by the Government at the first Cabinet meeting of the year early next month. A spokeswoman for Ms Bligh, who is on holiday, said it was hoped the issue could be debated in State Parliament in the first half of the year.
Any moves to tighten laws on target advertising are likely to be opposed by some manufacturers and their ad agencies.
Many principals involved in the children's food industry argue the term "junk food" is derogatory and that all food is essentially healthy.
They point out that few other food products are subject to any advertising restrictions.
The Australian Association of National Advertisers has advised the Australian Communications and Media Authority that there is "overwhelming evidence that food and beverages advertising to children is neither the primary, nor a significant, contributor to childhood obesity".
They said a ban on television advertising for certain foods and drinks during children's viewing times was also likely to have only a "limited effect" on reducing childhood obesity.
The advertisers' association warned a national inquiry into obesity that any ban on children's food advertising could backfire and increase the consumption of unhealthy foods.
Executive director Colin Segelov said food manufacturers who were unable to advertise would be forced to promote their products through lowering their prices.
And he said there was evidence to show lower prices were more likely to increase sales of those foods than allowing them to be promoted through advertising.
But there has been a lot of research linking television advertisements with obesity and poor diet.
Last year, a University of Liverpool study in England claimed food advertisements at least doubled a child's dietary intake.
In short, the study suggested food advertisements make children eat more; and the fatter the child, the more effective the advertisement.
Monday, January 19, 2009, 08:07
MORE than 12,000 children aged between six months and five years old will be sent free high-strength toothpaste and brushes through the post in a blitz on tooth decay.
Some of the pre-school youngsters will also be supervised in cleaning their teeth every day at their nurseries, playgroups and special schools.
The £170,000-a-year initiative aims to slash tooth decay among under-fives by a fifth over the next five years, to help bring it down to national levels.
It has been funded by North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) which is targeting the most deprived wards in the Staffordshire Moorlands and Newcastle.
Stoke-on-Trent which is served by a different trust will see similar measures introduced but at a later date.
The scheme is aimed at tackling the numbers of children, some as young as three, who are so wracked by pain they need their decayed milk teeth removed under a risky general anaesthetic.
New figures show five-year-olds in the North Staffordshire PCT area have an average of 1.3 decayed, missing or filled teeth, compared to just one in the West Midlands Region.
But that masks variations from 0.36 in the Biddulph North ward to 3.2 teeth in Silverdale and Parksite.
The new scheme will focus on the 19 wards where youngsters have the poorest teeth including Kidsgrove, with an average of 2.4 bad teeth per child, Wolstanton (1.9), Forsbrook and Biddulph East (both 1.8), the Westlands and Leek South (both 1.7) and Bradwell, Loggerheads and Whitmore (all 1.5).
PCT chairman George Wiskin said: "Tackling health inequalities between areas is a top priority, particularly as the more deprived wards face being worse hit in the economic downturn, and this commendable scheme intends to do that."
Three dental health improvement experts will be appointed, who will seek consent from parents to aid 3,000 children aged three to five in 60 pre-school settings.
They will then tour the educational establishments to help staff introduce and supervise daily brushing regimes with paste and brushes supplied by the PCT.
In addition, 9,400 tots between six months and three in the targeted wards will be sent high-fluoride toothpaste and brushes twice yearly. All the youngers will be regularly checked.
Dental health consultant Kate Taylor-Weetman said: "We have already done work to significantly improve the teeth of 12-year-olds, but now we need to make more of an impact among the pre-school group. We need to get fluoride paste on to teeth as soon as they appear, both to save them from decay and to get children into good habits lasting their lifetime.
"The pain and time off school at such a young age are unacceptable when decay is preventable."
She added that the scheme would have more impact on oral health than employing an extra dentist and support at a cost of £180,000 a year.
PCT chief executive Tony Bruce said: "In 30 years in the NHS I have rarely seen a scheme which so clearly targets improvements over a given time-scale."
Private dentists take over former NHS surgery: Page 14
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Tooth decay is something you normally associate with adults, but it's happening more and more in young children, even toddlers.
Hundreds of local children are ending up in the operation room because of cavities that could have been prevented. Experts say its what can happen when parents don't take precautions.
A three year old is in the operating room at Strong Memorial Hospital, the result of tooth decay. Dr. Robert Berkowitz says, "It's unlikely we'll be able to fix them and we'll have to extract them."
Under anesthesia, a child is having 6 teeth pulled, four stainless steel crowns put in the lower jaw and three fillings in the upper jaw. The culprit, bacteria from sugar.
Dr. Berkowitz says, "Through baby bottles with Hawaiian Punch apple juice in sippy cups."
The Eastman Dental Center sees more than 300 of these kinds of cases a year. In Buffalo, 700 plus cases, and thousands state wide.
While decay is going down among school age children who have permanent teeth, that's not the case of younger children. Parents relying on sugary drinks over a long period of time create baby bottle tooth decay that usually isn't caught in time.
Dr. Robert Berkowitz says most parents don't know the Academy of Pediatrics recommends babies to see a dentist my age one, even before all their baby teeth are in. He says, "The decay process can be ongoing and do a risk assessment to pick out those kids that have that going on and intervene with aggressive preventive techniques so they don't end up on my doorstep like the child in the operating room."
5-year-old Maddy McManus has soft teeth. She had a tooth pulled at the Eastman Dental Clinic last week and has cavities. Her mom Danielle didn't know she was supposed to see a dentist early.
Danielle says, "I thought by 4 her teeth would be in I guess we were supposed to bring her in even before her teeth are all in."
Maddy is just happy her mouth is feeling better, and she's on her way to better oral health that will hopefully prevent her from a lifetime of dental problems.
Dentists say many parents think baby teeth aren't important because they fall out, so taking care of them isn't important. That's not the case. Baby teeth play an important role as place holders for permanent teeth and when removed too early, can lead to braces when permanent teeth do come in.
New York State is 73% fluoridated: NYSCOF
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009, 08:06
An investigation is being launched into the cost of adding flouride to the Bath area’s water supply.
Health chiefs in the city have agreed with their counterparts across the former Avon that Bristol Water should be asked to carry out a feasibility study into the potentially controversial move.
The firm supplies about half of Bath and north east Somerset and it is possible that Wessex Water, which serves the city and the rest of the district, will also be approached.
Last year, Health Secretary Alan Johnson backed the idea of adding fluoride to the water supply in areas where tooth decay is high to improve the dental health of poorer children.
He said the measure was needed to cut health inequalities between children in affluent families whose tooth brushing is supervised and those in households where they may not even own a toothbrush.
previously known as the local primary care trust - has already started the ball rolling in conjunction with health chiefs in Bristol, north Somerset and south Gloucestershire.
The capital costs of adding flouride would be met by the Department of Health and the strategic health authority for the region, but running costs would fall to local trusts.
Bristol Water has been approached first because it serves the biggest population in the former Avon - including Keynsham, Peasedown St John and Midsomer Norton.
Initial estimates suggest that adding flouride at Bristol Water’s three treatment plants would cost around £2 million.
The situation will be discussed by B&NES councillors at a meeting on Tuesday.
A report to the council’s healthier communities overview and scrutiny committee says that flouridation could reduce tooth decay by around 30 per cent in children, and increase the proportion of the population without decayed teeth by 20 per cent.
Politicians will consider a 30-page report from Professor Martin Downer of the University of Manchester, looking at the logistics and implications of adding fluoride to water in B&NES.
His report says there are nine areas of B&NES with “exceptionally high” levels of tooth decay among five and six-year-olds.
These include Peasedown, Odd Down, Twerton, Southdown, Keynsham and the city centre.
He argues that flouridation is safe and does not - as opponents claim - breach basic human rights.
Prof Downer says, however, that the cost of adding the mineral to the areas of B&NES covered by Wessex Water would be between £6 million and £8 million.
A separate report to councillors in the name of B&NES director of public health Dr Kieran Morgan suggests that this might be a sticking point.
“Flouridation may be considered desirable for the city of Bath and surrounding areas but capital costs are high and it seems that neighbouring Wiltshire, part of which would also have to be flouridated, has no plans to pursue this course.”
There are four Wessex Water treatment works which serve Bath, but some also send water to Wiltshire too.
Last year Mr Johnson said: “Fluoridation is an effective and relatively easy way to help address health inequalities - giving children from poorer backgrounds a dental health boost that can last a lifetime, reducing tooth decay and thereby cutting down on the amount of dental work they need in the future.
“We have a duty to help the areas with the worst records on tooth decay to discuss this issue and take the necessary steps to improve their dental health.”
However, any blanket fluoridation programme would be opposed by campaigners who say the entire population will be forced to take “medication” because a minority fail to brush their teeth.
In the Irish Republic and the USA more than 70 per cent of water is fluoridated, compared to a figure of 10 per cent in Britain.
I've been asked to attribute this link to the original article but it is already just click title heading to go to www.thisisbath.co.uk
After over 60 years of water fluoridation, "In the United States alone, dental problems account for 164 million hours of missed work, 51 million hours of missed school, and 41 million days of work. Although dental caries is largely preventable, it remains the most common chronic disease of children aged 5 to 17 years - 5-times more common than asthma (59 percent versus 11 percent)."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Published: 15 January 2009 01:00 Author: Rebecca Evans More by this Author Last Updated: 14 January 2009 16:14 Reader Responses
The consultation over putting fluoride in water supplies on the south coast is proving a 'totemic argument between state and individual'. Other areas will be watching the outcome closely, reports Rebecca Evans
Next month, the board of NHS South Central will decide whether to fluoridate the water in parts of Southampton and south west Hampshire.
The decision will be significant, not just for the 195,000 people it will affect directly, but because the whole process of consultation, decision making and any subsequent fallout is being watched keenly by other strategic health authorities and primary care trusts that might want to follow suit.
Fluoridation is a contentious issue. NHS South Central is the first region to consult on water fluoridation since the legislation changed in 2005.
"This is public health in the raw, being debated and discussed in local communities. It's what we are on the pitch to do"
At that point, the government made it clear that it supported fluoridation to improve dental health where the local population was consulted and left the decision up to strategic health authorities.
Only a small minority of people in the UK - around five million - live in places with artificially fluoridated water, mostly in the West Midlands and Tyneside. Many of these areas have drunk fluoridated water for decades.
But introducing it in a new area is a different matter, bringing forth passionate and strongly held views for and against. These are not just about the dental health benefits or cost-efficiency, but also debates over public health interventions versus personal choice or, as NHS South Central chief executive Jim Easton puts it, "a totemic argument between the state and the individual".
Unsurprisingly, this makes the consultation difficult and fraught. It also makes the process extremely important.
As the first region to attempt to introduce fluoridation since the law changed, it must be fair, transparent and follow the rules to the letter, and be seen to be. If the SHA does decide to introduce fluoridation, neither it, nor the government, would want to see it face a judicial review.
Chief dental officer for England Barry Cockcroft says: "It's very important with this first one that it's properly done; in many ways it tests the legislation that we have got it right."
The SHA has put a lot of effort into ensuring it hears everyone's opinion (see box, below). The issue attracts national and even international lobbying groups. These should have their say, Mr Easton says, but must be balanced with the often "quieter voices" of local groups.
There is also the question of how to tackle what he calls "the battle for truth in an information age" - that is, people forming views based on information they have largely found on the internet.
Mr Cockcroft, one of the pro-fluoridation panellists at all three of South Central's Question Time-style public debates (see box below), says this is what he found most challenging. "The most difficult arguments to cope with are the ones that sound like they are scientific but are not, but people who are not scientifically based themselves are very easily influenced by that kind of thing."
Mr Cockcroft says it is for these kinds of reasons that the legislation says the SHA must assess the cogency of the competing arguments. To enable it to do this, it went out to tender for an independent scientific adviser who will weigh up the evidence and advise the board.
Southampton City PCT is free to openly commend the proposal to fluoridate the water. It is the PCT that requested the consultation based on its concern that dental health in the area is among the worst in the country and its belief that raising the level of fluoride in the water supply would significantly improve the dental health of local people, particularly children.
Nothing to smile about
PCT director of public health Andrew Mortimore says the PCT reviewed the area's oral health needs and found that dental health had not improved in five years - in fact, the figures were worse in 2006 than they had been in 2002. More than four in 10 children had tooth decay by the time they started school.
Dr Mortimore says the problem tends to be worst in areas with the greatest social disadvantage.
"We spent a lot of time, a lot of money on schemes, got a lot of very good people working on oral health promotion, dietary improvements, dental hygiene, supporting parents and families, but at the end of the day it was not making the difference. We came to the conclusion we needed to re-look at water fluoridation and whether it could be introduced."
He compares Southampton's situation enviously with the West Midlands, where the water has been fluoridated for around 40 years and with the best dental health in the country - certainly much better than the socioeconomic demographics would suggest.
"We understand that this is an issue where you cannot get a yes from everyone and choice is an important issue, but so is the choice to have fluoridated water. It is the most vulnerable in our communities who can't make the decision for themselves, particularly the children."
SHA vs PCT
Southampton city council has come out in favour of the fluoridation proposals - but Hampshire county council, which covers some smaller areas that would also be affected, is against. Anna McNair Scott, chair of the council's health overview and scrutiny committee, says fluoridation seems to her to address a symptom of health inequalities - poor dental health - rather than its causes, such as bad diet, which will still lead to other health problems and inequalities.
What the general public will make of the proposal remains to be seen. Dr Mortimore says the opinion survey conducted before the consultation began would suggest there is a good measure of public support. "I don't think there's anything else that public consultation on a health issue is quite like this in terms of the firm views and passion it attracts in those who are opposed to something that the NHS is consulting on that is for the benefit of a population."
It is also difficult to convey to the lay person that the PCT and the SHA have different roles, he says. The PCT is the key proponent, while the SHA is the decision maker and the organisation responsible for the consultation. "We can't be seen to be joined up in ways that feel very different from most other things we do as an NHS," he says.
The PCT's responsibility for tackling health inequalities does not, on this issue, always resonate with the public. At the debate, several members of the public argue that fluoridation should not be imposed on everyone to improve the dental health of a feckless minority.
The suggestion by the independent chair of the panel, Radio 4 broadcaster Peter White, that part of the objective of a public health system is "to reach people who cannot be reached by other methods" seems, among that particular audience at least, to fall on deaf ears.
NHS South Central deputy director of public health James Mapstone believes views on the greater good have changed.
"What [the drop-in events] made clear to me is how much individual choice is really precious to some people now and I do think that's probably a shift from where we were 20 years ago, even 10 years ago.
"They used to take more of a 'I will do this for society as a whole' [position] and I'm starting to feel that there's a change and public health has to respond to that."
But Mr Easton says he is "really pleased about the level of discussion and debate, even though some of it is vigorous and difficult".
"This is public health in the raw, being debated and discussed in local communities. It's what we are on the pitch to do."
The SHA board will make its decision, in public, on 26 February.
By Makeisha Lee, Health and Nutritional Advisor
Thyroid problems are on the rise. Sadly, while Oprah’s bout with thyroid imbalance makes global news, the other 5 million people in this country that suffer from hypothyroidism go virtually ignored. There are 50,000 new cases of thyroid imbalances that arise each year – 90% are women. One expert, Dr. Christiane Northrup, whom Oprah turns to for advice, gave some great insight on dealing with thyroid imbalances while on her show. However, many wonder if it has helped Oprah much.
If not, perhaps secret culprits behind thyroid imbalances like hypothyroidism may have been overlooked, and possibly not addressed. Here are the top three:
1) Environmental toxins like fluoride:
Did you know that the fluoridated water that we are drinking, bathing in, and ingesting through certain food products are damaging to the thyroid along with other vital organs? According to Health Investigator, Daniel Stockin, MPH of The Lillie Center Inc., the chemical fluoride blocks uptake of Iodine into the thyroid, especially in people with Iodine-deficient diets. The body furnace temperature drops a degree, you burn less energy, and experience impaired emotional functions and gain weight.
2) Stressed adrenal glands:
Long term stress affecting adrenal glands-which are vital for weight control, sleep, immunity and more directly affects the thyroid. Experts agree that stressed adrenal glands and a poor diet contribute immensely to thyroid imbalances. The thyroid glands themselves are overloaded beyond their capacity to create required hormones, when there is a build-up of poisons and body wastes that flood into the body.
3) Nutritional deficiencies:
When the body is not being nourished properly with the right nutritional supplementation, combined with the mental and physical stresses of environmental toxins; it has been proven that certain anti-bodies from the immune system will attack the thyroid and disrupt proper hormone production.
If you, like Oprah have experienced weight gain and exhibit any symptoms associated with thyroid imbalance, you should immediately get screened and tested for such by an appropriate health practitioner. There are several safe, natural alternatives to drugs and surgery. By not overlooking any possible culprits, and by making the effort to satisfy all imbalances within the body, you can regain control over your thyroid and overall health!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Pat Thomas 13/01/2009
A little mouthwash to make your tongue and gums feel fresh and clean? Beware, you may be swilling a mouthful of chemicals that will give you more to worry about than bad breath. Pat Thomas reports
We all know that brushing and flossing keep teeth and gums healthy. Nevertheless, in the pursuit of the perfect smile consumers are currently being encouraged ‘to develop a repertoire of oral care purchases’ – in other words, buy more stuff.
Traditionally a mouthwash is an antiseptic gargle that helps remove the bacteria that cause bad breath. But today mouthwashes claim to fight plaque, strengthen teeth, prevent tooth decay and provide all-day freshness as well. Potential mouthwash users are apparently one of the great untapped markets and strategies to exploit this market, particularly in the UK, have paid off. Last year Brits bought 34 million bottles of mouthwash. According to Pfizer Ltd, owners of the Listerine brand, more than 900,000 people in the UK started using outhwash for the first time last year and over half these were purchasing Listerine, the UK’s number one brand. In the US, 147 million bottles of mouthwash fl ew off the shelves, with Listerine accounting for 53 per cent of these sales.
Occasionally, however, marketeers push too far. Earlier this year print ads for Listerine featured a bottle balanced on a scale opposite a floss container, and said: ‘Listerine antiseptic is clinically proven to be as effective as floss at reducing plaque and gingivitis between the teeth.’ A US federal judge ruled this was false, misleading and constituted a public health risk.
Although mostly water, today’s magic bullet mouthwashes are also full of harsh chemicals.
Long-term use of alcohol-containing mouthwashes dries and changes the pH of the mouth and throat and is associated with an increased risk of mouth and throat cancers. If a mouthwash contains a harsh detergent like cocamidopropyl betaine, this compounds the damage. Listerine contains a slightly milder detergent, Poloxamer 407, but its unique qualities – being soluble in liquids at low temperature, but turning into a gel at higher temperatures (ie body temperature) – makes it a film former, keeping other toxic ingredients on the surface of the mouth for longer.
Mouthwashes also commonly contain fluoride, a systemic poison, and this product is no exception. It contains both sorbitol and more worryingly saccharin, which causes bladder cancer in animals.
Finally there are synthetic colours, aromas and flavourings. Flavourings and aromas are basically perfumes. At best they mask odour temporarily; and since they are composed of volatile solvents, they can also alter the basic fl ora of the mouth in the same way as alcohol and may cause dermatitis around the mouth. Combinations of several strong flavourings may be particularly irritating, and methyl salicylate (oil of wintergreen), eucalyptol (oil of eucalyptus) and thymol – even if they are naturally derived – are also highly toxic. Just 10ml of methyl salicylate can poison a child; 30ml can poison an adult.
In addition, bright colours and nice smells mean that children find mouthwashes so intriguing that each year hundreds accidentally get smashed on as little as two ounces. So do adults; earlier this year an American woman was arrested for drunk driving after drinking three glasses of Listerine.
Toronto fluoridates its water, medicating residents without their permission and often without their knowledge
By Canadian Assoc. of Physicians for the Environment
The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) does not support fluoridation of drinking water for the following reasons.
1) The decline in caries in communities that are fluoridated has been highly significant -- but so has the decline that has occurred in non-fluoridated communities. There has, in fact, been a general decline in dental caries throughout the Western world, and the decline in fluoridated cities has not exceeded that in non-fluoridated communities. For example, BC drinking water is 95% non- fluoridated, whereas drinking water in Alberta is 75% fluoridated; yet the two provinces have similar rates of caries. Furthermore, Europe is 98% non-fluoridated, but global European dental health is generally equivalent to or better than that in North America. Whatever the reason for the decline in dental caries, it can not be concluded that it is the result of drinking water fluoridation.
2) The incidence of toxic effects in humans from fluoridation may well have been underestimated.
The most serious potential association is with osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in boys, which appears to have been loosely associated with age of exposure to fluoride. It is true that the CDC has (as has the original researcher) acknowledged that current data are tentative, but a further larger-scale study is pending from the Harvard School of Dentistry. At the very least, such data are grounds for caution.
3) Animal studies have shown a wide range of adverse effects associated with fluoride. It has been shown to be a potential immunotoxin, embryotoxin, neurotoxin and harmful to bony tissues, including both dental and ordinary bone. In addition, it can damage (inhibit) thyroid function in several species, including humans. Its effect on ecosystem balance has been little researched, but is unlikely to be positive.
4) The intake of fluoride from drinking water is uncontrolled, and can lead to dental fluorosis in children who are inclined to drink large amounts of water. Both natural and artificially flouridated water can cause this effect, which is, of course, simply a visible representation of an effect on the entire bony skeleton. The cost of repairing teeth damaged by fluorosis is not trivial; moderate to severe effects can require $15,000 or more in dental fees.
It seems clear that a) fluoridation is unlikely to be the cause of the decline in caries in Europe and North America b) the potential for adverse effects is real, and c) current evidence points in the direction of caution. Over the last decade, recommendations with respect to acceptable fluoride exposure have steadily declined, and cautions have increased. Any dental benefit that may accrue from fluoride exposure is fully achieved by controlled topical application of fluoride compounds by trained dental professionals, not by fluoride ingestion. [The analysis of Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head, Preventive Dentistry, at the University of Toronto, further clarifies these points.] On the basis of this "weight of evidence" we believe that fluoridation of drinking water is scientifically untenable, and should not be part of a public health initiative or program.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More Americans are burdened by chronic illnesses such as diabetes and high blood pressure, often having more than three at a time, and this has helped fuel a big rise in out-of-pocket medical expenses, a study released on Tuesday showed.
With prescription drugs playing a key role, average annual out-of-pocket medical costs -- those not covered by health insurance -- rose from $427 per American in 1996to $741 in 2005, researchers wrote in the journal Health Affairs.
Adjusting for inflation, that translated to 39 percent more in out-of-pocket spending per person over that time, according to Kathryn Paez of Maryland-based health research organization Social & Scientific Systems Inc. and colleagues.
The figures were much higher among the elderly. For example, a person insured through the Medicare program for those 65 and older who had three or more chronic conditions paid an average of $2,588 of out-of-pocket medical expenses.
A separate report published in the journal on Tuesday showed U.S. health care spending rose to $2.2 trillion in 2007, or $7,421 per person.
Based on government survey data, 44 percent of Americans in 2005 had at least one chronic medical condition, which could include diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, cancer, arthritis, heart failure and others. That compares to 41 percent in 1996.
The study did not look directly at the causes of the increases, but there appear to be several factors.
The rise in Americans with multiple chronic illnesses comes as obesity and sedentary lifestyles have grown more common. Obesity contributes to many chronic ailments including diabetes. U.S. health officials say the rate of new cases of diabetes soared by about 90 percent in the past decade.
But the percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses rose even more sharply.
It jumped from 13 percent in 1996 to 22 percent in 2005 for ages 45 to 64, to 45 percent for ages 65 to 79, and rose from 38 percent to 54 percent for those 80 and older. Among all ages, it went from 7 percent in 1996 to 13 percent in 2005.
"The burden of chronic conditions is becoming heavier. People who already have chronic conditions no longer just have one. Now they might have three," Paez said in a telephone interview.
Chronic disease accounts for three-fourths of the more than $2 trillion spent on health care yearly in the United States.
The chronic disease increase was seen not just among the very oldest age groups but also in middle age and early old age -- regardless of sex, race, ethnicity and income level.
Why - fluoride?
Jan 12 2009 by Our Correspondent, Huddersfield Daily Examiner
HAS anyone on the Examiner or Kirklees Council considered the possibility that there could be a connection between the 2008/9 resurgence of the “push” for fluoridation, the article in the Examiner, December 16 featuring Dr Peter Clemenson of Huddersfield University and the brief UK Press announcement stating that Britain has sold off its stake in the Aldermaston Weapons Establishment, relinquishing control of nuclear war head production in the UK?
Do any of the Kirklees councillors realise that the fluoride tank washings from several major industries including the nuclear industry and the hazards of their disposal could be at the root of the Government’s persistence in attempting to delude populations throughout the country into accepting the totally false propaganda, that fluoride is essential to the prevention of tooth decay.
Peter Emerson on December 16 used exactly the same commercial “psycho-terminology” as the American fluoride pushers used in an attempt to convince residents and farmers affected by airborne fluoride emission from the production of the first nuclear weapons, that fluoride is so safe that people can brush their teeth with it and can also drink it with their tap water.
Peter Emerson is correct in stating that there is a small amount of fluoride in tea and various food stuffs but he omits to inform that fluoride is an accumulative poison and that it is more toxic than lead. Sooner or later it will reach an intolerable level and manifest itself in a wide spectrum of disease.
Have Kirklees never wondered why it is that children are now developing leukaemia, brain tumours, osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, at such an early age.
The American Dental Association and the British Fluoridation Society have at last caught on to the havoc they have been wreaking with the health and lives of children. No longer do they advise that fluoride drops and tablets should be given to infants and children but are unlikely to explain to the press and bereaved parents why.
D J Edmondson
Secretary, Calderdale Citizens Protest Against Fluoridation
by Jared Reed
Never mind the Polypill, simple tap water can expose drinkers to a cocktail of pharmaceuticals and hormonally active chemicals, a new report shows.
This week’s New Scientist reports a study in which US scientists found that tap water contains significant levels of many pharmaceutically active chemicals, reflecting the widespread prescribing of lipid lowering drugs, NSAIDs and beta blockers.
The findings are similar to those of a 2004 Australian water study, which found that 20 drugs were present in drinking water in levels above 1 ug per litre (Chemosphere 54:355–367).
While compounds in the US study were found at extremely low levels, posing no public health threat, experts say that contamination surveys help people realise how interconnected they are with their environment.
“The occurrence of pharmaceuticals in the environment also serves to make us acutely aware of the chemical sea that surrounds us,” says Christian Daughton from the US Environmental Protection Agency.
A Sydney Water spokesperson said that water in Sydney was tested for up to 70 different health-related and aesthetic characteristics, disinfected using chlorination and chloramination, and contained fluoride.
13 January 2009
"Last year, 2,700 people on the state’s Medicaid plan were treated at this dental clinic in a former bank building on Main Street in Pawtucket where Fernandez showed up with an infected gum.
Here, dentistry is about survival. Decayed teeth, diseased gums and the legacy of poor dental hygiene are the norm. Many patients suffer from a lifetime of poor dental care, or none at all. Gum pain or tooth loss can make it difficult to eat. And infections in the mouth, left untreated, can kill.
In one exam room, a 56-year-old factory worker’s gums are so decayed that two of her teeth are loose. Across the hall, a 3-year-old girl’s first trip to the dentist reveals a mouth full of cavities."
Rhode Island is 85% fluoridated:NYSCOF
Monday, January 12, 2009
Anne-Louise Brown | 11th January 2009
Ann Morris describes water fluoridation as “an appalling waste of public money”.
A fierce opponent of the introduction to the local water supply when she was a member of the Maryborough council, Ms Morris (pictured) was initially in favour of fluoridation.
“I was very pro-fluoride and when the Maryborough City Council was investigating whether to add it to the water I did my own research. It was eye opening.
“Many European countries have taken it out of their water for health reasons. Studies show it increases allergies and other problems.
“In my opinion it's a waste of money. The cash should be put towards public education programs or training more dentists.”
Ms Morris believes poor dental health has more to do with diet than a lack of fluoride in water, especially in the case of children.
“Kids get too much sugar. They drink lots of soft drink and juice and this leads to tooth decay.
“I've had a water filter for years so when the fluoride is added it won't affect me. Others should consider getting a filter fitted if they don't want to drink fluoridated water.”
Good advice if you can afford it
USA - Pottstown decision to end fluoride in public water a wise one
The Dec. 26 Mercury article revealed Pottstown Water Authority members Aram Ecker and Tom Carroll blindly support deceptive dental association spin related to adding fluoride to Pottstown's water. I thank Don Read and others who voted to stop fluoridation.
Many independent studies show the alleged benefits of fluoride are topical and that ingesting fluoride does not help fight cavities. Swallowing fluoride to prevent tooth decay makes as much sense as swallowing suntan lotion to prevent sunburns.
It's one thing for dentists to apply fluoride to teeth of willing patients, but it's unethical to dump fluoride into everyone's drinking water. That violates our right to choose and discriminates against low income families who can't afford costly fluoride filtration.
Fluoridation health effects can include arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, dental fluorosis, learning disabilities, effects on kidneys and effects on thyroid function. Anyone believing it's beneficial to intentionally poison public water with fluoride should visit www.FluorideAction.net.
A large body of peer-reviewed science has raised concerns that fluoride may present unreasonable health risks, particularly among children, at levels routinely added to public water. No one can accurately claim any level of fluoride in water is safe, especially for children who could develop learning disabilities, and the vast numbers of people with cancer, arthritis, kidney problems, thyroid problems and more.
Dentists who use biased "Science for Sale" studies to defend fluoridation of public water should be ashamed. Water fluoridation chemicals are largely toxic waste byproducts of Florida's phosphate industry, containing chemicals regulated as hazardous wastes, which can't be dumped into oceans or streams, but can illogically be sold to water treatment plants to add to public water.
Mr. Carroll, you're not "taking care of society" by adding fluoride (a poison more toxic than lead), to Pottstown's water. Instead, you further jeopardize the health of a population already overexposed to toxic pollution.
I urge Ecker and Carroll to review and consider the body of independent scientific information showing fluoridation of public water is not good for teeth, but actually bad for teeth and health. Please vote to stop fluoridation the next time.