1) Fluoride in Water Does Not Prevent Tooth
Decay.
Current research shows that ingested fluoride
does not prevent cavities. Only topical application works — brushing with
fluoride toothpaste or having fluoride applied by a dentist. Drinking
fluoridated water is ineffective.
"Fluoride, the key agent in battling caries, works primarily via
topical mechanisms," according to the July 2000 cover story in the
Journal of the American Dental Association ("The Science and
Practice of Caries Prevention" by John D. B. Featherstone, M.SC.,
Ph.D.)
This peer-reviewed report reminded every dentist in
America that ingestion of fluoride does not provide any significant
reduction in tooth decay.
In his earlier report, Dr. Featherstone (a proponent of fluoridation)
concluded: "The level of fluoride incorporated into dental mineral by
systemic ingestion is insufficient to play a significant role in caries
prevention. . . . The systemic benefits of fluoride are minimal."
("Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride,"
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:31-40)
Dental authorities who once supported water fluoridation are now
saying it is unnecessary.
• Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSC, Ph.D., DDS, Head of Preventative Dentistry
at the University of Toronto, says, "There is no point in swallowing
fluoridated water. The only benefit comes with direct contact with
the teeth." (The Toronto Star, April 25, 1999) In his extensively
documented April
2000 report, "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to
drinking water," he explains:
"The major reasons for the general decline of tooth decay
worldwide, both in non-fluoridated and fluoridated areas, is the
widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste, improved diets, and overall
improved general and dental health (antibiotics, preservatives,
hygiene, etc.)."
• The Principal Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand also opposes
water fluoridation. "I now realize that what my colleagues and I were
doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when
their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend
over backwards to explain away the new evidence." Read why John Colquhoun changed
his mind about water fluoridation.
A good example of this mentality of denial recently occurred in
England, where the British Medical and Dental Associations blatantly misrepresented
the findings in a major review of fluoridation
research.
• The rate of dental caries is similar in both fluoridated and
non-fluoridated areas. In 1986-87, the National Institute of Dental
Health collected dental data of 39,207 school children, aged 5-17, in 84
areas throughout the United States. Analysis showed no significant
differences were found in the decay rates of permanent teeth or the
percentages of decay-free children living in fluoridated vs.
non-fluoridated or partially fluoridated communities.
What's more — as Andreas Schuld, head of Parents of Fluoride Poisoned
Children, points out — this study did show that cities with high rates
of decay "have 9.34 % more decay in the children who drink fluoridated
water. Furthermore, a 5.4 % increase in students with decay was
observed when 1 ppm (part per million) fluoride was added to the water
supply. Nine fluoridated cities with high decay had 10 percent more decay
than nine equivalent non-fluoridated cities."
Yiamouyiannis, JA "Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from
the 1986-87 national
survey of U.S. school children
,"
2) Water
Fluoridation Does Not Save Money.
In his push to
fluoridate the state, the Oregon Health Division's dental director Dr.
Whitney Payne proclaims: "For every dollar spent, you save $80 in dental
treatment rendered." (The Bulletin, Jan. 31, 2001) Payne got this
"statistic" from Dr. Michael Easley, America's number one fluoridation
salesman. He got it from a 1992 report by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), which said: "Based on a national average cost per
restoration of $40 and a mean national weighted cost of 51 cents per
person per year to fluoridate drinking water, each $1 expenditure for
water fluoridation could result in a savings of $80 in dental treatment
costs."
In their 1999
report, the CDC no longer makes this speculative conclusion. Instead,
it says, "One economic analysis estimated that prevention of dental
caries, largely attributed to fluoridation and fluoride-containing
products, saved $39 billion (1990 dollars) in dental-care expenditures
in the United States during 1979-1989."
What fluoride promoters fail to mention is that it's the
"fluoride-containing products" — not fluoridated water — that
prevent dental caries. As mentioned in Reason #1 above, dental decay
rates in non-fluoridated areas have declined at about the same rates as
in fluoridated areas.
• In reality, there are no significant savings in dental costs in
fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas. An analysis of 1994-95
California State Department of Health dental statistics in 55 counties
compared the average annual Medi-Cal costs for dental work per eligible
recipient. It turned out that the costs were only a few dollars apart,
and the non-fluoridated areas were often lower. (Yiamouyiannis JA,
"Dental Costs Not Affected by Fluoridation — Large-Scale Tooth Decay
Studies Show Lack of 'Beneficial' Effects," Fluoride: Quarterly Journal
of the International Society for Fluoride Research, Vol. 31 No. 3,
Aug. 1998, pp 129-174)
• "Comparing the State of California 1994 non-weighted dental costs for
the 14 largest counties reveals that counties 90% fluoridated spent on
average $121.93 per eligible recipient for treatment of tooth decay, and
counties with less than 10% fluoridation spent only $118.33 per eligible
recipient." (David C. Kennedy, DDS, the past president of the
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology)
• In fact, research suggests that teeth damaged by excess fluoride
become more susceptible to tooth decay. Andreas Schuld cites several
studies showing that fluoridated water caused more cavities! One
was the world's largest study on dental caries. It looked at 400,000
students and found that decay increased 27% with a 1 ppm fluoride increase
in drinking water. ("Fluoride —
Worse Than We Thought," Wise Traditions, Vol. 1:3 Fall,
2000)
|
Nor do Easley and Payne take into account the increased costs
associated with dental fluorosis, tooth damage caused by excess
fluoride; white opaque spots, brown stains, mottling and
fracture-prone teeth. (For more on "fluorosis," see Reason #7
below). Dr. Kennedy explains:
"All of the organizations promoting water fluoridation agree
that dental fluorosis, which is the first visible sign of systemic
poisoning, increases with water fluoride levels. The Legislative
Office of Budget Management acknowledges that drinking water
fluoridation would increase disfiguring dental fluorosis, but
since treatment of this disease is not covered for children on
welfare, calculated that there would be no additional cost to the
state.
"The correction of this permanent disfigurement involves
crowns, laminates, bonding, and bleaching. The physical,
psychological, emotional, and financial costs of the repeated
trauma necessary to correct this condition far exceeds any
projected benefit that fluoridation can possibly produce. This is
truly a case where the treatment is worse than the problem."
|
• The real operating costs that taxpayers will pay for fluoridation are
not clear, but California provides a good example. In 1995, their original
estimate was about $40 million to fluoridate 167 communities in the state
(with annual operating costs of $15 million). In 1999, that initial
amount jumped to $200 million. (San Jose Mercury News, March
18, 1999)
Because fluoride compounds are so corrosive, water treatment plants
must replace their equipment more often, as well as buy and add large
amounts of anti-corrosive chemicals. Fluoride also alters the pH of the
water, which requires the purchase and addition of even more chemicals
to correct the pH.
Also, there have been many costly accidents
involving fluoridation chemicals.
• Even if ingested fluoride were effective in reducing tooth decay,
adding it to the water supply is a grossly inefficient way to deliver
any medication. Think about it: most of a household's water goes to
the lawn and garden, to cloths and dishes, showers and baths. Only a
minuscule amount of the fluoride added to a community's water supply is
actually consumed by people. Fluoridation is a foolish waste of
taxpayer money.
• Read the Fluoride Action Network's "Deconstructing Michael
Easley.
• Get a revealing look at
the Oregon Health Division's motivation to fluoridate vs. their knowledge
of the process.
Read
more about the push to fluoridate at any cost — including "statistical
fraud" — or read on. . .
contents
3) Congress is Now Investigating the Chemicals Used to
Fluoridate Water.
The U.S. Senate Energy and
Environment Subcommittee on Science has learned that the following
government agencies have no studies on the safety to humans of the
actual fluorine-bearing substances used in 90% of the nation's
fluoridation programs.
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Centers for Disease Control
• Food and Drug
Administration
• National Academy of Science
they have no
scientific studies on the
• Questions
and answers to and from the government agencies involved
• Complete written
testimony by panelists submitted prior to the hearing
The most common substances now used in 90% of fluoridation systems are
hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, which are waste products
captured in scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. When
injured workers at a phosphate plant asked investigative writer George
Glasser for help, he learned where the chemicals used to fluoridate
drinking water originate:
"'Pollution Scrubber Liquor' is a cocktail of hazardous pollutants
which have been washed down and collected to prevent them from being
emitted to the air. This toxic mix contains about 19% fluorine, but
the rest of it contains arsenic, lead, beryllium, cadmium, vanadium,
silica and sometimes mercury and radionuclides. Arsenic and
beryllium are classified as Group 1 'known human carcinogens.' There is
no 'safe level' for arsenic — it's an a cumulative poison. Yet all the
public health officials say it's as safe as mothers'
milk!"
This hazardous waste has never been tested, either alone in
distilled water, or in combination with other chemicals and contaminants
found in tap water. Jeff Green, Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking
Water, explains:
The resulting toxic waste cannot be diluted by a million to one (or
even 10 million to one) and then dumped into the ocean or a river, into
a landfill or allowed to escape into the air, because it would kill all
the nearby flora and fauna.
And, it can't be given away because it would still be classified
as a Class I toxic waste, and have to be neutralized at the
highest-rated hazardous waste facility — at a cost of $1.40 per gallon
or more, depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium, and arsenic are
also present.
But, if destined for a water district that will pay $0.35 to $0.45
per gallon for transportation, the fluoride solution in industrial
waste water is magically pronounced benign and shipped, untreated, to be
mixed into our drinking water.
If it were not a hazardous waste, it could have been added to salt
more than fifty years ago (like iodine has been), or to some other
universally accessible food source. Each of us would then be free to
choose for ourselves.
If taxpayers weren't paying for this toxic waste, it would cost the
fertilizer industry hundreds of millions of dollars to properly dispose of
it. Hence, the reason why money is what perpetuates the myth of
fluoridation. But it also takes ignorance to accept it. Thankfully, people
are speaking out.
Read
more about the untested chemicals used to fluoridate your drinking
water, or read on. . .
contents
4) EPA
Scientists Want a National Moratorium on Water
Fluoridation.
Since 1997, Chapter 280 of the
National Treasury Employees Union has opposed the fluoridation of drinking
water supplies. This union is comprised of and represents approximately
1,500 scientists, lawyers, engineers, and other professional employees at
EPA Headquarters in Washington DC.
On June 29, 2000, the union's Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy,
Ph.D., testified at the Congressional investigation on behalf of the
toxicologists, biologists, chemists, and physicians who work at EPA
headquarters. He rendered a clear record of EPA activities that depart
from the agency's own professional standards to arrive at a Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCL) for fluoride that is at least 8-times less
protective than current science supports.
Hirzy explained that applying risk assessment methodology — routinely
used by EPA to peer-reviewed science — would result in scientific
computation of a protective MCL that would not allow fluoridation of
the public water supplies. He indicated that the largest dental
study performed in the U.S. confirms that 66% of children in fluoridated
communities now display the visible signs of fluoride over-exposure on
at least one tooth.
He cited the existence of numerous studies linking fluoride to
neurological impairment, and the findings that fluoride at the level
found in fluoridated water did indeed cause adverse health effects,
including cancer. As final comment, he reiterated evidence of increased levels of lead
in children's blood in areas fluoridated with the untested hazardous
wastes from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
• Read "Why
EPA Scientists Oppose Fluoridation."
• Dr. Hirzy's
testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Drinking Water on June 29, 2000
• The vast difference in the protection provided the public for
fluoride exposure is demonstrated by comparing the Maximum Contaminant
Levels for lead, fluoride, and arsenic. While fluoride is slightly less
toxic than arsenic — and more toxic than lead — the MCL for lead is 15 ppb
(parts per billion) and for arsenic it's (now) 10 ppb. Yet, fluoride's
MCL has been established by at 4,000 ppb!
Dr. Payne (Oregon Health Division dental director) suggests that
fluoridation is safe because any chemical is dangerous when doses are
too high. He makes a comparison: "Caffeine and vinegar are also listed
as hazardous chemicals yet we use them with complete safety." (The
Bulletin, Jan. 31, 2001)
This is very misleading. Fluoride's toxicity lies between arsenic and
lead, not caffeine and vinegar!
Fluoride, like arsenic and lead, is a cumulative poison. Only
50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys.
The remainder accumulates in our bones and other tissues. High
concentrations (300 parts per million) of fluoride have been found in
human pineal
glands. If the kidneys are damaged, fluoride accumulation will
increase.
Fluoride is quite biologically active even at low concentrations. It
interferes with hydrogen bonding which is central to the structure and
function of proteins and nucleic acids. Thus, fluoride has the potential
to disrupt events at the very heart of living things.
• In their May 2000 report, "In Harm's Way: Toxic Threats
to Child Development," the Greater Boston Physicians for Social
Responsibility concluded: "Studies in animals and human populations
suggest that fluoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a
significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is
fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain."
Read
more about the neurotoxic effects of fluoride,
or read on. . .
contents
References continue on the next page:
- 5. Fluoride
Supplements are Not Approved by the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration.
- The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug and requires
toothpaste labels to warn that fluoride is poisonous.
- 6. Water
Fluoridation Goals Conflict with Fluoride Prescription Limits.
- Children under six years old will be overdosed with fluoride if it's
added to drinking water.
- 7. Too Much Fluoride
is Already in Our Diets and is Causing Widespread Fluorosis.
- We now consume well over the 1 mg of fluoride that fluoridated water
was originally intended to deliver — creating serious health
consequences.
- 8. Fluoride Pollutes
Rivers and Threatens Salmon Populations
- The U.S. government's own study shows that fluoride increases salmon
mortality — even at one-eighth the level of fluoride allowed by
fluoridation.
