Fluoride in water decision put on hold by Cumbria council until results of expert study known
Colin Cox
Members of Cumbria County Council’s cabinet say they need “sufficient local evidence” before determining further consideration of treatment to the area’s water.
A petition, presented to Allerdale Local Committee in September, called for the council to debate the removal of artificial fluoride from water in Allerdale and Copeland, a source of a long-running health debate.
The committee referred to cabinet that the fluoridation process in west Cumbria be investigated.
But following the recommendation of the director of public health, members agreed to wait until the Cumbrian Assessment of Teeth, a Fluoride Intervention Study for Health (known as Catfish) is complete.
Catfish aims to analyse the impact on the dental health of children of a recent break in the fluoridation of west Cumbrian water supplies.
Campaigners argue, however, that it is not robust because it only deals with children who were in their first year of school in September 2013.
Responding to a number of concerns raised by Fluoride Free Cumbria, Ian Stewart, the councillor responsible for public health, said: “There is no credible scientific evidence that water fluoridisation is a cause of ill health.
"What I am very comfortable with is to wait until we’ve got that significant local evidence. I believe that the Catfish study will provide that.”
Among those who put questions to the cabinet was Dianne Standen, secretary of Fluoride Free Cumbria.
She highlighted how breast-fed infants receive 0.0006mg of fluoride per litre whereas those fed with baby formula made up with fluoridated water are “potentially receiving chronically damaging levels of fluoride” of 1mg per litre. She asked if the county council would communicate this to parents in west Cumbria.
Mr Stewart said: “There is no need to communicate such information. There is no credible scientific evidence that fluoride at levels of 1ppm is damaging to infants.”
Public health director Colin Cox said: “On the question of safety I am satisfied that there is no robust evidence of harm arising from fluoridation at the levels we fluorate.”
Mr Cox drew on the 2014 monitoring report from Public Health England which looked at the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. He said it found no evidence that there is damage to health in fluoridated areas.
Comment
A petition, presented to Allerdale Local Committee in September, called for the council to debate the removal of artificial fluoride from water in Allerdale and Copeland, a source of a long-running health debate.
The committee referred to cabinet that the fluoridation process in west Cumbria be investigated.
But following the recommendation of the director of public health, members agreed to wait until the Cumbrian Assessment of Teeth, a Fluoride Intervention Study for Health (known as Catfish) is complete.
Catfish aims to analyse the impact on the dental health of children of a recent break in the fluoridation of west Cumbrian water supplies.
Campaigners argue, however, that it is not robust because it only deals with children who were in their first year of school in September 2013.
Responding to a number of concerns raised by Fluoride Free Cumbria, Ian Stewart, the councillor responsible for public health, said: “There is no credible scientific evidence that water fluoridisation is a cause of ill health.
"What I am very comfortable with is to wait until we’ve got that significant local evidence. I believe that the Catfish study will provide that.”
Among those who put questions to the cabinet was Dianne Standen, secretary of Fluoride Free Cumbria.
She highlighted how breast-fed infants receive 0.0006mg of fluoride per litre whereas those fed with baby formula made up with fluoridated water are “potentially receiving chronically damaging levels of fluoride” of 1mg per litre. She asked if the county council would communicate this to parents in west Cumbria.
Mr Stewart said: “There is no need to communicate such information. There is no credible scientific evidence that fluoride at levels of 1ppm is damaging to infants.”
Public health director Colin Cox said: “On the question of safety I am satisfied that there is no robust evidence of harm arising from fluoridation at the levels we fluorate.”
Mr Cox drew on the 2014 monitoring report from Public Health England which looked at the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. He said it found no evidence that there is damage to health in fluoridated areas.
Comment
Dan Germouse , Tuesday, 20 December, 2016 at 3:31PM
Dental fluorosis is fluoride poisoning, and is very common in populations subjected to forced-fluoridation. Saying it's only a cosmetic effect, as the forced-fluoridation fanatics do, is like saying the blue line around the gums from lead poisoning is only a cosmetic effect. Here's some quotes from the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. p 27 "Moderate and severe dental fluorosis have been reported in diabetes insipidus patients in other countries with drinking water containing fluoride at 0.5 mg/L (Klein 1975) or 1 mg/L (Seow and Thomsett 1994). Greenberg et al. (1974) recommended that children with any disorder that gives rise to polydipsia and polyuria be supplied a portion of their water from a nonfluoridated source." p 85 "Excessive intake of fluoride during enamel development can lead to enamel [i.e. dental] fluorosis, a condition of the dental hard tissues in which the enamel covering of the teeth fails to crystallize properly, leading to defects that range from barely discernible markings to brown stains and surface pitting." p 86 "The improper mineralization that occurs with enamel fluorosis is thought to be due to inhibition of the matrix proteinases responsible for removing amelogenin fragments. The delay in removal impairs crystal growth and makes the enamel more porous.… Fluoride apparently interferes with protease activities by decreasing free Ca2+ [calcium ion] concentration in the mineralising milieu." p 87 "There appears to be general acceptance in today's dental literature that enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect of fluoride intake"
posted by Bill at
10:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home