FAN-Australia Drops a Bombshell on Fluoridation

Media Release: Brisbane, Australia 4 April  2011

Merilyn Haines, the director of the newly formed group FAN-Australia (Fluoride Action Network Australia), has found some startling statistics buried deep in official research material by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School) that could scuttle the water fluoridation program once and for all.

Haines has found in the ARCPOH statistics that the permanent teeth of children in largely unfluoridated  (<5% before 2009) Queensland were erupting on average two years earlier than the children in the rest of Australia, which is largely fluoridated (see the figure below). A two-year delay would negate all the small reductions in tooth decay claimed by dental researchers since 1990. In other words fluoridation doesn’t work. Any difference in tooth decay claimed to be due to fluoride is simply an artifact of the delayed eruption caused by fluoride.

According to Professor Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, who is currently on a fluoride-tour of New Zealand, “Critics of fluoridation, like Dr. Hardy Limeback in Toronto, have long pointed out that any reduced tooth decay touted by promoters could easily be accounted for by the delayed eruption of the teeth. Even when this argument received strong experimental support from Komarek et al. in 2005, this has still has been ignored by those promoting fluoridation. But they cannot ignore it any longer: the figures of the dental department research team most associated with the promotion of fluoridation in Australia (and beyond) demonstrate that this delay is real.”

Less teeth erupted for any given age would mean less surfaces available for tooth decay to have taken place. A delayed eruption of one – two years would account for the small reductions claimed in ALL the US and Australian studies published since 1990 (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Slade et al., 1996; Spencer et al., 1996; Armfield et al., 2009; Armfield, 2010). These studies have found reductions ranging from 0.12 of one permanent tooth surfaces saved in Western Australia (Spencer et al., 1996) to 0.6 permanent tooth surface saved in the largest survey ever conducted in the US (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This is not very much when you consider that there are five surfaces to the chewing teeth and four to the cutting teeth, and by the time all the child’s teeth have erupted there are a total of 128 tooth surfaces. One tooth surface saved amounts to less than 1% of all the surfaces in a child’s mouth. Now even this small benefit has evaporated.

More on the history

In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia’s peak Medical Research body, stated that, “evidence exists that tooth eruption is delayed in fluoridated areas. It has been suggested that a proper comparison of caries rates should involve children one year older in fluoridated areas than in non- fluoridated areas.”

In 2000, the York Review pointed out that none of the studies that they had reviewed had controlled for “the number of erupted teeth per child” (McDonagh et al., 2000, p.24).  

In 2005, Komarek et al.  did control for eruption of teeth and reported no difference in decay between children living in Belgium receiving fluoride supplements (and those who weren’t) that was relatable to fluoride exposure (as measured by the severity of dental fluorosis).  

In 2009, Peiris et al. reported that children in largely fluoridated Australia had a delay in “dental age” of 0.82 years compared to children in largely unfluoridated UK. However, the authors did not discuss the possible reasons for this delay and the number of children involved in the study (about 80 in each country) was not very large. 

2011. Now the bombshell – the delay has been found and it is in the official statistics.   ARCPOH has failed to respond to several inquiries on this matter.  According to Haines, “Surely, this must end water fluoridation. If it doesn’t work what’s the point of putting this toxic substance into the drinking water and what reason can they possibly have for forcing it on people who don’t want it?”

However, this isn’t just about teeth. The finding could be even more significant than that. If fluoride causes a delayed eruption of the teeth then the most likely mechanism for doing so is fluoride’s ability to lower thyroid function (see chapter 8 in the 2006 National Research Council review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water.” According to Connett,   “Lowered thyroid function in infants would mean slower growth of their tissues and could explain the 24 studies that have found an association between lowered IQ in children and exposure to moderate levels of fluoride in China, India, Iran and Mexico.”

It also raises the possibility that millions of people in fluoridated countries suffering from hypothyroidism have had this condition caused, or exacerbated, by exposure to fluoridated water.  Haines’ asks “If ingesting fluoride delays tooth eruption for 1 to 2 years what other effects is it having on our bodies?”

Meanwhile, if swallowing fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, why would any reasonable person, decision maker or regulatory official continue to sanction adding fluoride to the public water supply? 

 Source – Published and unpublished data from 2003- 2004 Australian Child Dental Health Surveys

Media Release sent by Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc.

Fox News Expert: Fluoride Has Been a Big Experiment

Interesting video from a Fox News segment recently. They had their guest expert on who was a dentist to discuss fluoride. This dentist calls fluoride a “big experiment” and talks about how many unfluoridated communities have LESS decay than fluoridated communities.

Take it for what it’s worth, but it’s yet another sign that dentistry is slowly (and begrudgingly) coming to realize that much of what the industry has supported for the past 50 to 100 years has simply been flat out wrong.

It’s time to stand up and admit to mistakes in order to protect the population — instead of protecting the special interest groups.

Why the HHS and EPA Decision on Fluoride is Bad

Today’s news from The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding fluoride is making national news. In essence, they will be recommending a lower “safe” level of fluoride consumption. Great news, right? Not really.

This decision is an In an obvious attempt to placate those who rightfully stand behind the research that denounces the benefits of fluoride by “changing” what they deem to be safe levels. In actuality, they aren’t changing anything. The previous recommendation was for 0.7-1.2 milligrams per liter.  Now, to “reduce the likelihood of dental fluorosis,” they are recommending a strict 0.7 milligrams per liter.  This bears no resemblance to normal margin-of-safety practice, in the light of the 2006 National Research Council report that cast doubt on the EPA’s maximum safe limit of 4.0 milligrams per liter.

This is yet another attempt to “hang on to the myth that water fluoridation is safe and effective” (The IAOMT || http://www.IAOMT.org).

You can read the press release for yourself, below.

Whether you believe that fluoride is good or not, most Americans exceed the recommended limit of fluoride through their daily intake of food… without ever drinking fluoridated water. On top of that, fluoride is a prescription drug. Putting it into the water (something San Diego has now opted to do) is forced medication of the masses. Add that to the fact that removing fluoride is very difficult and very expensive (this is a topic we will be getting into shortly, but your options are limited in both availability and effectiveness. In short order, you can try a whole-house fluoride filter — most of which use activated alumina as a medium — or a reverse osmosis system if you prefer point of use), and what you have is a government that has imposed it’s (lobbied) will on the masses with no form of backing out… and in this case it affects our health.

This decision will be posted shortly in the Federal Register to allow the public to comment for 30 days. As it is not yet available to comment on, you may do so my sending your thoughts directly to CWFcomments@cdc.gov.

Here is the press release from the HHS:

News Release

HHS and EPA announce new scientific assessments and actions on fluoride

Agencies working together to maintain benefits of preventing tooth decay
while preventing excessive exposure

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today are announcing important steps to ensure that standards and guidelines on fluoride in drinking water continue to provide the maximum protection to the American people to support good dental health, especially in children. HHS is proposing that the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water can be set at the lowest end of the current optimal range to prevent tooth decay, and EPA is initiating review of the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water.

These actions will maximize the health benefits of water fluoridation, an important tool in the prevention of tooth decay while reducing the possibility of children receiving too much fluoride. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named the fluoridation of drinking water one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.

“One of water fluoridation’s biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a community—at home, work, school, or play,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH. “Today’s announcement is part of our ongoing support of appropriate fluoridation for community water systems, and its effectiveness in preventing tooth decay throughout one’s lifetime.”

“Today both HHS and EPA are making announcements on fluoride based on the most up to date scientific data,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, Peter Silva. “EPA’s new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride.”

HHS and EPA reached an understanding of the latest science on fluoride and its effect on tooth decay prevention and the development of dental fluorosis that may occur with excess fluoride consumption during the tooth forming years, age 8 and younger. Dental fluorosis in the United States appears mostly in the very mild or mild form – as barely visible lacy white markings or spots on the enamel. The severe form of dental fluorosis, with staining and pitting of the tooth surface, is rare in the United States.

There are several reasons for the changes seen over time, including that Americans have access to more sources of fluoride than they did when water fluoridation was first introduced in the United States in the 1940s. Water is now one of several sources of fluoride. Other common sources include dental products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, prescription fluoride supplements, and fluoride applied by dental professionals. Water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste are largely responsible for the significant decline in tooth decay in the U.S. over the past several decades.

HHS’ proposed recommendation of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water replaces the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. This updated recommendation is based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects. These scientific assessments will also guide EPA in making a determination of whether to lower the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which is set to prevent adverse health effects.

The new EPA assessments of fluoride were undertaken in response to findings of the National Academies of Science (NAS).  At EPA’s request, in 2006 NAS reviewed new data on fluoride and issued a report recommending that EPA update its health and exposure assessments to take into account bone and dental effects and to consider all sources of fluoride. In addition to EPA’s new assessments and the NAS report, HHS also considered current levels of tooth decay and dental fluorosis and fluid consumption across the United States.

The notice of the proposed recommendation will be published in the Federal Register soon and HHS will accept comments from the public and stakeholders on the proposed recommendation for 30 days at CWFcomments@cdc.gov.  HHS is expecting to publish final guidance for community water fluoridation by spring 2011. You may view a prepublication version of the proposed recommendation at ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html.  Comments regarding the EPA documents, Fluoride: Dose-Response Analysis For Non-cancer Effects and Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis should be sent to EPA at FluorideScience@epa.gov.  The documents can be found at http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/fluoride_index.cfm

For more information about community water fluoridation, as well as information for health care providers and individuals on how to prevent tooth decay and reduce the chance of children developing dental fluorosis, visit http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation. For information about the national drinking water regulations for fluoride, visit: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm

###

What’s in Your Water? Should You Be Concerned?

Episode 14 of Dangers in Dentistry, originally aired on KPRZ in San Diego.

Fluoride. It’s a medication, and you may be forced to take it without even being aware of it.

For years cities have been adding fluoride into public water supplies in an effort to improve dental health. Sounds good right? But there’s a problem: while topical fluoride can indeed help prevent cavities when applied directly to your teeth, ingesting fluoride has never been proven to be beneficial. In fact, many studies suggest connections between fluoride and bone cancer, among other things.

Find out why you may be forced to ingest a medication against your will, what you can do about it, and if you should be concerned at all in this week’s episode of Dangers in Dentistry, with America’s Holistic Dentist, Dr. Marvin.

Enjoy!
Dr. Marvin
San Diego, Encinitas Holistic and Natural Dentist

Example of Fluorosis – Symptoms, Treatments, and Causes

A large percentage of America’s public water supplies are fluoridated. The reason most commonly given is because fluoride helps strengthen teeth. In fact, there is very little evidence suggesting that ingested fluoride has any benefit whatsoever. Instead, there are mounds of evidence proving the negative effects of fluoridated water.

The pictures below (taken in our office) show a 30-year-old male who has been stricken with fluorosis. In the pictures you can clearly see the unsightly white spots and the soft spots caused by fluoride. Ultimately, any attempts to fix the problems caused by fluoride result in very expensive cosmetic dentistry.

Of course, white spots and soft spots are not the only problems linked to fluoride. The most common symptoms of fluorosis are cosmetic:

• Chalky white teeth patches
• Yellow stained teeth
• Brown stained teeth
• Discolored teeth
• Soft Spots (or weak teeth)

For cosmetic problems caused by excessive fluoride intake, the treatment options include teeth bleaching, sand blasting or microderm abrasion, and veneers.

In some cases, drinking fluoridated water can also lead to more serious problems, including Skeletal Fluorosis. According to the Fluoride Action Network “Crippling skeletal fluorosis might occur in people who have ingested 10-20 mg of fluoride per day for 10-20 years.”

So what are the symptoms of Skeletal Fluorosis?

Skeletal fluorosis, a complicated illness caused by the accumulation of too much fluoride in the bones, has a number of stages. The first two stages are preclinical-that is, the patient feels no symptoms but changes have taken place in the body. In the first preclinical stage, biochemical abnormalities occur in the blood and in bone composition; in the second, histological changes can be observed in the bone in biopsies. Some experts call these changes harmful because they are precursors of more serious conditions. Others say they are harmless.

In the early clinical stage of skeletal fluorosis, symptoms include pains in the bones and joints; sensations of burning, pricking, and tingling in the limbs; muscle weakness; chronic fatigue; and gastrointestinal disorders and reduced appetite. During this phase, changes in the pelvis and spinal column can be detected on x-rays. The bone has both a more prominent and more blurred structure.

In the second clinical stage, pains in the bones become constant and some of the ligaments begin to calcify. Osteoporosis may occur in the long bones, and early symptoms of osteosclerosis (a condition in which the bones become more dense and have abnormal crystalline structure) are present. Bony spurs may also appear on the limb bones, especially around the knee, the elbow, and on the surface of tibia and ulna.

In advanced skeletal fluorosis, called crippling skeletal fluorosis, the extremities become weak and moving the joints is difficult. The vertebrae partially fuse together, crippling the patient.

Fluoride Action Network

http://www.fluoridealert.org/s-fluorosis.htm

The fluoridation of public water supplies amounts to forced medication of our citizens. In theory, the practice is bad enough, but when coupled with the cosmetic and physical problems fluoride is known to cause, the practice is irresponsible and negligent.

30-year-old male with white spots and soft spots caused by Fluorosis

Taken in our office in Encinitas, CA, this image shows a close-up of the cosmetic affects of Fluorosis