.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, March 22, 2008

USA - Ashland: Is flouride in water too much to swallow?

Ashland: Is flouride in water too much to swallow?
By David Riley/Daily News staff
Posted Mar 21, 2008 @ 10:00 AM
ASHLAND — Is adding fluoride to drinking water a harmless and proven way to strengthen growing teeth and curb dental decay, or is it forced on the public despite shaky science and links to diseases like bone cancer?
For about two dozen residents at a Board of Health forum last night, the answer depended on which of two panels seemed more credible.
On one side was Natick chemist and fluoride researcher Myron Coplan, who cited studies saying fluoridated water has little or no effect on oral health. At his side, retired nurse Shirley Brown said she connected the chemical to a neighbor's death after it was added to Natick's water, and she believes it also was responsible for her son's diagnosis with Asperger's Syndrome.
"Fluoridation is an unreasonable risk," Brown said. "It is an invasion of your home, which you cannot keep out."
On the other side was Myron Allukian, Boston's former oral health director, who said no credible study has connected fluoridation with any harm, and it's a cheap measure supported by every major public health organization in the U.S.
"We are not going to support or promote something that is going to hurt the population," he said.
Allukian was joined by M. Joseph Geary, whose firm runs Ashland's water system, and Joseph Nelson, a local dentist. "In many communities, it's the children that suffer from not having fluoridated water," Nelson said.
Board of Health Chairman Malcolm Smart said his group called the forum to inform the public and help decide whether to add fluoride to the town's water supply. The board will vote at a later date.
If the board chooses fluoridation, state law allows residents to call for a ballot question on the measure if they can gather signatures from 10 percent of the town's population, Health Director Mark Oram said.
Several residents spoke against fluoridation, saying there is too much debate about it among scientists. "There is no clear consensus, as evidenced by the fact that we're here tonight," Howard Axelrod said.
"I respectfully believe it is my right to have the choice whether or not to get fluoride treatments," resident Diane Ring said.
Coplan sometimes directly challenged Allukian's credentials last night, drawing a rebuke from the audience from Selectman Arthur Shapiro.
"This is a debate about fluoride, not somebody's personal reputation, sir," he said.
Allukian said in the '50s, the average 17-year-old had 17 spots on their teeth affected by decay. Today, 170 million Americans live in communities with fluoridated water, Allukian said, including 139 in the Bay State. The practice returns $38 in avoided dental problems for every dollar spent, he said.
Allukian challenged anti-fluoride studies. He cited an Australian project that examined 5,400 fluoride studies over a 10-year period - only 77 met rigorous scientific standards, he said.
"They essentially showed that it is safe, it is effective, that it prevents tooth decay and it prevents pain and infection," Allukian said.
Nelson said he can see a visible difference in dental health in communities that have fluoridation.
Coplan said he dealt with fluoride as a dangerous byproduct from his work as a chemist. He also cited studies that found little difference in dental health in communities with and without fluoridated water.
That information was concealed from the public in the past, he said. Using fluoride only makes sense when it is topically applied to teeth, he said.
"I'm not against fluoride," Coplan said. "I'm against drinking fluoride of any kind because the fluoride doesn't do your bloodstream any good."
Brown said people can be overexposed to fluoride because it also exists in food and other sources. The chemical can be tied to health risks like rhabdomyolysis, a rare disease that affects ligaments, she said.
"Her bones just melted away," she said of a neighbor with the disease.
Residents at the forum seemed unswayed by the pro-fluoride panel.
"If you ask us if we're concerned, we sure as hell are," resident Jim Hanna said.
(David Riley can be reached at 508-626-3919 or driley@cnc.com.)

Comments (8)
Thank you for the abuse report. We will review the report and take appropriate action.
Loading comments, please wait...
Report Abuse
YES! It IS too much to swallow. Perhaps Allukian, Geary, and Nelson, can put their money where their mouth is and answer these questions - no one else will. They're not that hard to answer, are they???

The amount of fluoride which is added to the water is controlled, but what control is there on the amount every individual consumes on a daily basis, given that people's diet and liquid consumption varies?
What is considered a 'safe' daily intake of fluoride taking into consideration the amount of fluoride in food, beverages, toothpaste and air?
What is the unsafe daily dose of fluoride and how will anyone know when they reach that dosage?
What is the fluoride that will be used, and where does it come from?

There are 5 people that I know of living in my un-fluoridated city, all with very high blood fluoride levels,
[pathology proven several times] all suffering with the symptoms of fluoride poisoning. Their high levels didn't come from fluoridated water, they came from other sources. All 5 suffer with debilitating bone and teeth problems, which indicates that ingested fluoride certainly did not do them any good at all. These 5 people are the only ones ever to be tested for blood fluoride levels in this City, and the 5 Doctors who ordered the tests had never done so before. If our population of over 100,000 people were all to be tested, how many others would there be with theses high levels and the illnesses that go with them?

The only 'remedy' for fluoride toxicity is to reduce fluoride intake and then it will take years [if ever] for the fluoride to slowly leach out of their bodies. How can they reduce their intake when fluoride is found in nearly everything you eat and drink these days? When our State is fluoridated [Government Mandate] over the next 2 years, there will be no foods/beverages at all grown/manufactured in Australia that do not contain fluoride, so what are these people going to do then - starve ? or die from fluoride poisoning???
Report Abuse
Several questions that I haven't seen the answer to in this debate:

1) What is the effect of filters on fluoridation? Does our Britta pitcher make this debate moot for our home?

2) What is the effect of fluoride on the environment? Does it have any impact when watering lawns or in other situations?
LaneW2008-03-21T19:44:31 http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/a/removefluoride.htm

2. A large release in to the Mississippi 500,000 gal 3/18/08

And a study on the effects it has on fish

P.S. Please Keep asking until you get an answerer

" />
Report Abuse
1. Britta will do nothing to remove "Fluoride"

2. A large release in to the Mississippi 500,000 gal 3/18/08

And a study on the effects it has on fish

P.S. Please Keep asking until you get an answerer

Report Abuse
That woman attritubes flouride to the dealth of a neighbor and her sons problems. What evidence does she have.

Also, when that crackpot wrote his paper on the Natick Study he actually used a website as a reference that also states that Aliens live amoung us.

I would rather belive my Doctor and Dentist

Report Abuse
If you need flouride, get it from your doctor or dentist like any other medication. We don't need the goverment feeding us drugs through the water supply. You don't need to shower in flouride or wash your dishes and clothes in flouride. Whether you consume flouride and how much you consume should be your decision, not the goverment's.
Report Abuse
Thanks LaneW!

The study on salmon near the John Day dam showed problems for the salmon when the fluoride levels were in the 0.3-0.5 mg/L range. Wikipedia says that fluoridated drinking water is in the 0.7-1.2 mg/L range. (Note that ppm and mg/L are equivalent.) So drinking water has roughly double the fluoride levels that caused 50% mortality in salmon, provided the study was sound. At the very least, you wouldn't want to use fluoridated water in a fish tank.

I'm still of a mixed mind on this.
David McRae2008-03-21T22:40:11
Report Abuse
I am with consumer group Water Quality Australia. I have been in community and public health all of my my career. There is no such study in this country that looked at 5400 studies on fluoride safety. There havent been any studies on safety in this country. There have been a few reviews of overseas evidence, and those reviews have been of poor quality.
In Australia no authority is looking at:
*The levels of fluoride in citizens' bones,
*what is happening to thyroid gland function in fluoridated communities,
*the large numbers of people who report classical fluoride chemical sensitivity symptoms (allergy-like, but not strictly allergy),
*the fact that fluoridated cities outside the big capital cities have no difference in tooth decay than the non-fluoridated cities (of course the big capital cities, with higher socioeconomic standard than rural cites, have lower tooth decay rates, but it has nothing to do with fluoride).
How dare a pseudo expert in Ashland falsely beguile an audience with a claim that Australian authorities have done rigorous study of fluoride safety. They have done zero work on the problem, and our authorities simply appeal to USA experts when asked to defend dumping fluoride into water supplies. I can be contacted at vicfin_info@yahoo.com.au


Post a Comment

<< Home