|
Time and the Anti-Fluoride Cause
By Marvin Schissel, D.D.S.
In the words of Carl Sagan: "We've arranged a global civilization in which most critical elements depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster."
The combination of a scientifically unsophisticated public and the profusion of easily accessible crackpot information on the Internet is indeed a prescription for disaster. Bogus issues ignite the paranoia of some people searching for a "meaningful" cause, and the results can be medical disaster. (As an example, the groundless hysteria about mercury in vaccines may put us all at risk of epidemics: already diseases that had been long under control are beginning to resurface.)
And now another old quack cause is being recharged: the anti-fluoridation movement. An article in Time (Oct. 24) sympathetically describes this burgeoning new/old crusade and, by getting many things wrong, adds fuel to the fire.
Historically, anti-fluoride activists have claimed, with no evidence, that fluoridation causes everything from cancer to mental disease. It was even called a Communist plot to poison our wells -- until the Russians fluoridated their own water. Typical of quack tactics, when one phony claim was disproved they came up with another. Activists claim their activity is based on "research." But looking up blogs on Google is not research: the Internet is too often a source of hysteria and paranoia rather than sound science.
The facts are clear: fluoride, one of Earth's most abundant elements, is a mineral found naturally in many water supplies. Low dosages of ingested fluoride will cause developing teeth to greatly increase their resistance to decay. Fluoridation of community water supplies is the most extensively investigated public health measure in history. Entire populations have been studied, and there is not a shred of bona fide evidence that anyone has been harmed by proper fluoridation of community water supplies. Fluoridation is widely considered one of the century's great public health achievements. The American Dental Association lists 114 prominent national and international health organizations that support fluoridation.
The poorly-informed Time article suggests that fluoride in the water is not necessary because we get it in toothpaste. Toothpaste is "a more efficient way to get the decay-fighting ingredient where it is needed and nowhere else" says Time. But while fluoride in toothpaste is indeed effective, fluoride in the water supply provides a considerable additional anti-caries effect.
Time says "with the spread of fluoride toothpastes and the use of plastic sealants by dentists, decay has plummeted even in regions where there is little or no fluoride in the water." When water fluoridation was introduced in 1945, the demonstrated reduction in caries over the control population was in the area of 65%. Today, the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas is "only" around 25%. But the decay rate has "plummeted" mostly because of the ubiquity of fluoride in the country's water supply. Sealants don't protect against common between-teeth decay, and since most of the country is fluoridated, a person in a non-fluoridated area eating a canned peach or drinking a soda will likely receive some fluoride. Just a small amount of fluoride will enhance resistance to decay.
Time says, "The most recent -- and controversial -- charge links fluoridation with bone cancer." This "most recent" allegation goes back to the unauthorized release of preliminary data from a 1990 study, data that was subsequently discredited by the U.S. Public Health Service. More recent studies do not demonstrate a cancer-fluoride connection.
Time cites the Environmental Working Group (EWG) as a "watchdog organization." This lends credence to EWG's anti-fluoride stance. But EWG has been criticized as an outfit that promotes propaganda rather than science and ignores the principle that "only the dose makes the poison." The ACSH publication Good Stories, Bad Science gives two recent examples of EWG's wrong-headed conclusions: the issues of pressure-treated wood and farmed salmon; the latest example is anti-fluoridation.
Time quotes an activist: "Why would I want to put a toxic industrial chemical in my children's bodies?" The public would have been better served had the reporter noted that only the dose makes the poison and that fluoride in community water supplies is not at all toxic. Of course, in high dosage fluoride is toxic, as is most everything. But in low dosage fluoride is an essential element for the developing individual.
Time cites a thesis from a doctoral student that shows a sevenfold increase in osteosarcoma from fluoridated water. But this is a lone student-researcher's study that has never been published or subject to peer review. Indeed, the student notes in her thesis that there are several limitations to her study and recommends that the findings be confirmed using data from other studies. For example, she notes that the study may not accurately reflect the actual amount of fluoride consumed by study subjects. Time should have mentioned this.
Time talks about the cosmetic hazard of "mottled" teeth caused by fluoride and claims that 32% of American children have some form of mottling. To me, this is puzzling: New York City fluoridated its water in the 1960s and since then, as a practicing dentist with hundreds of New York children as patients, I almost never noticed any youngsters with mottled teeth. I suspect that the 32% figure mostly represents slight mottling that is not visible.
Early in my dental career I saw many children with "bombed out" mouths, mouths with heavy decay in most every tooth. But once the fluoridation program was established, I rarely saw decay at all in children. One disturbing exception: a woman brought in a child ridden with decay. I explored the usual suspects: bottle with milk or juice at night, excess candy consumption, poor diet, poor oral hygiene, did she come from a non-fluoridated area? She answered no to all. "I can’t understand it," she said. "We are very health conscious and only use bottled water!"
Time says "the risks of water fluoridation are hotly debated." I say, science is to be preferred to heat. Consumer's Union put it well some years ago: "The survival of this fake controversy represents one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation."
Dr. Marvin J. Schissel is a dentist and an advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, the National Council Against Health Fraud, and the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
nyscof (October 31, 2005)
It seems New York's Dr. Schissel is always trotted out to defend fluoridation even though his science is outdated and usually just wrong.
Schissel's critique of the internet will come back to bite him. Because of the internet, we can point people to valid science in respected peer-reveiwed journals showing that fluoride can be harmful to the health AND teeth, quickly disproving Schissel's false allegations that the evidence doesn't exist.
See Fluoride Health Effects Database here:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/
Schissel says, "Low dosages of ingested fluoride will cause developing teeth to greatly increase their resistance to decay."
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Controls (CDC) reports fluoride's beneficial effects are topical. Ingesting fluoride will only lead to adverse effects such as discolored teeth which, according to the CDC, is occuring in over 42% of U.S children (from questionable to severe fluorosis) at the same time that an oral health epidemic is happening in the same groups with the fluoride-discolored teeth. What little fluoride emerges in the saliva to bathe the teeth is too small to have any therapeutic effect, reports the CDC.
Schissel writes, "Entire populations have been studied, and there is not a shred of bona fide evidence that anyone has been harmed by proper fluoridation of community water supplies."
Bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation occur more often in children dosed with sodium fluoride-laced drinking water, according to the unprecedented human cavity-prevention experiment conducted upon the population of Newburgh, New York, and reported in the March 1956 Journal of the American Dental Association.
We wonder if Schissel even knows that the fluoride chemicals used by over 91% of U.S. fluoridating communities are silicofluorides - impure waste products of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing. Silicofluoride have never been tested in animals or humans and have just been nominated for evaluation by the National Toxicology Program.
Studies, including one by CDC scientists, show silicofluorides enhance children's lead absorption when lead is already in their enviornment.
Schissel writes, "New York City fluoridated its water in the 1960s and since then, as a practicing dentist with hundreds of New York children as patients, I almost never noticed any youngsters with mottled teeth."
Any scientist knows anecdotal information is uselss when cited as scientific proof.
Actually, in New York City, more children required cavity-related hospitalizations, proportionately, than two of New York State's largest non-fluoridated counties, Suffolk and Nassau (Long island) whether payment was made by Medicaid or privately, according to "Early Childhood Caries-related Visits to Hospitals for Ambulatory Surgery in New York State," in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Winter 2003
This is how Jonathan Kozol explains recent life in the South Bronx (a NYC borough) in his book, Savage Inequalities, “Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are routine matters for children..... Children live for months with pain that grown-ups would find unendurable. …I have seen children with teeth that look like brownish, broken sticks. I have seen teenagers who were missing half their teeth....”
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, New York 11804
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
Fluoridation News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu
Fluoride Action Network
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
Charles Gridley (October 31, 2005)
Dr. Schissel is an asshole. Among the problems he fails to address is that with fluoride added to the water, it is impossible to know how much a person ingests because of the other sources of it, among other things. It's a matter of leaving it to individuals to decide what to put into their bodies.
Doug Cragoe (October 31, 2005)
Dr. Schissel writes "But in low dosage fluoride is an essential element for the developing individual." I'd like to know what scientific or government organization considers fluoride an essential element. Dr. Schissel, what happens if a developing individual ingests no fluoride at all? Would this person be guaranteed to suffer from some sort of disease such as rampant tooth decay?
Dr. Shissel writes "Low dosages of ingested fluoride will cause developing teeth to greatly increase their resistance to decay." Dr. Shissel, have you ever recommended fluoride pills for pregnant women? Some doctors still do that. Is it a good idea to make baby formula with fluoridated tap water? Is the increased risk of fluorosis in toothless infants an acceptable trade off for increasing their resistance to decay when their teeth erupt? Is it ok to dose an infant with fluoride at a higher level than the "safe" levels set by fluoridation promoting health agencies?
Dr. Shissel writes "Entire populations have been studied, and there is not a shred of bona fide evidence that anyone has been harmed by proper fluoridation of community water supplies." Apparently Dr. Shissel does not consider fluorosis to be harm. A young person with spots on their teeth could be considered harmed since it might affect their self image. Dental insurance companies and government agencies do not help children with fluorosis - probably because it might bring negative attention this public health policy. H. Trendly Dean, the father of fluoridation, considered fluorosis to be a low grade toxic effect. We know fluoridation increases fluorosis; H. Trendly Dean and others said so in their studies. I think Dean would be dismayed by the current levels of fluorosis and fluoride ingestion in the United States. But out current fluoridation promoters don't seem to care about that as they push state bills mandating fluoridation and eliminating the right of citizens to vote on this issue.
Arnold Gore (November 1, 2005)
Dr.Schissel, is indeed living in a time warp in regard to fluoridation. In the recent past no new hard statistics from NEWLY conducted studies are cited or relied on. Only old studies and repeated handouts of "literature reviews" by dutiful recipients of grant money to parrot the mistake made 60 years ago, when nutritional science was non existent.
Dr.Schissel alludes to internet searches not being real science. But when internet access to the established peer review journals in the National Library of Medicine's database includes articles linking fluoride to cancer in the Journal of Epidemiology, "Rgression Analysis of Cancer Incidence Rates and water Fluoride in USA..."July 2001;11(4):170-9 the argument fails to have any legitimacy. The Journal of the American Medical Association of March 8,1955 contained an article confirming significantly greater rates of hip fracture in elderly citizens residing in highly fluoridated areas.
Dr.Schissel canot keep repeating the same arguments without liiking at more recent peer rviewed medical and scientific research. His anecdotal testimony about his practice in New York City seeing fewer cavities is not scientifically valid. This issue has to be approached with an open mind to come to any valid conclusions.
Sincerely,
Arnold Gore
Consumers Health Freedom Coalition
Dr. Paul Connett (November 1, 2005)
I agree wholeheartedly with Carol Kopf's (from NYSCOF) comments on this article and I would like to add a few comments of my own.
I have studied the science of this issue for over 9 years. Marvin Schissel, D.D.S, wears the mantel of science but his whole article is unscientific. He cites not one single reference from the peer-reviewed scientific literature to support his case. Instead, he uses the standard tactic of those promoting or defending fluoridation of simply citing the list of "authorities" which endorse fluoridation. The job of scientists is to question "authority" and check the literature for themselves. Marvin Schissel has not done this.
Schissel dismisses all health concerns by stressing that they only occur at high doses. He does little more than to remind us what the father of toxicology (Paracelsus) told us in the sixteenth century that all
substances are toxic at high doses. However, in modern toxicology the critical issue is the margin of safety: the lowest toxic dose divided by the therapeutic dose. Usually, and especially for a substance to which the whole population is exposed, a toxicologist would want a margin of safety of 100.
So with this in mind let us examine Schissel's claim of low and high doses. A low dose he suggests is the level added to water in fluoridation schemes - 1 ppm. Is this low? It is actually over 100 times the level found in mothers' milk (0.005 - 0.011 ppm). Thus by nature's own standards 1 ppm is very high.
Turning to the scientific literature we find no adequate margin of safety between the so-called beneficial dose and the toxic dose for several important end points. These include increased hip fractures in the elderly at 1.5 ppm (Li, 2001); lowered IQ in children at 1.8 ppm (Xiang, 2003); lowered thyroid function at 2.3 ppm (Bachinskii, 1985); lowered fertility at 3 ppm (Freni, 1994) and now of course we have to add the possibility of osteosarcoma in young boys at 0.3 ppm (Bassin, PhD thesis, 2001)
Over 30 animal studies indicate that fluoride damages the brain. In one study rats, given drinking water containing 1 ppm fluoride, were found to have beta amyloid deposits in their brains which are characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease (Varner, 1998). Luke (1997, 2001) has also shown that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland.
None of these studies offers anything approaching a safety margin of 100. We don't even get a safety factor of 10, which is critical to protect across the whole range of sensitivities in a human population. So why don't our "authorities" find some of these effects. Basically they are either not looking or not looking very well. For example there has never been an attempt to collect on a systematic basis the levels of fluoride in the urine, plasma or bones of the American people. Without such a biometric all epidemiological studies are going to be seriously limited. What we do know of course is that millions of Americans suffer from arthritis (the symptoms of which are identical to first symptoms of fluoride's poisoning of the bone and connecting tissue); millions suffer from hypothyroidism; far too many children have to have their behavior in schools regulated by drugs and many elderly Americans have their lives shortened by hip fractures.
And why would Schisell support the continued imposition of these risks on the American people? According to the largest survey conducted in America -which cost the US taxpayers over $3 million - NIDR scientists reported a miniscule difference in tooth decay between theose children who lived all their lives in a fluoridated communities compared to a non-fluoridated ones. This saving amounted to 0.6 of one permanent tooth surface out of over 100 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). While the authors used this finding to extol the virtues of fluoridation any rational person would have to conclude that the risks of this practice far outweigh these very slight benefits. This, indeed, is what the vast proportion of European countries have concluded. They do not fluoridate their water (some fluoridate their salt) and yet their children's teeth, according to WHO figures available online, are just as good if not better than ours.
Unfortunately, many well-meaning dentists get sucked into supporting water fluoridation by the American Dental Association, which tells them that they do not need to research the primary literature to be effective promoters! While dentists know a lot about teeth, most are not qualified to address fluoride's toxic effects on other parts of the body. For this they have to rely on what they are told by agencies which have promoted fluoridation for years.
It is abundantly clear from non-fluoridated Europe that children can have excellent teeth without ingesting fluoride. It is time we pursued other ways of addressing the key cause of tooth decay: poverty. Poverty goes hand in hand with poor nutrition. Sadly America, one of the wealthiest countries in the world has one of the worst systems for treating tooth decay in poor children. Indeed, 80% of dentists in America will not treat children on Medicaid. That together with all the sugar laced junk food is the nub of the issue.
We need to give our poor children better education, better nutrition and better dental care not a daily dose of poison! Dentists should be treating our kids not our water.
Paul Connett, PhD,
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University,
Canton, NY 13617
315-379-9200
paul@fluoridealert.org
All the referecences cited can be found at http://www.fluorideaction.net/health
Wayne Logbeck (November 1, 2005)
Dr. Marvin J. Schissel needs to read some dental journals and look at what they really show.
From Second Look:
The 2001-2002 National Oral Health Report Card shows that the states that had overall higher grades for fluoridating their communities, had lower grades for oral health indices.
For example, the states that were awarded A's for having the highest percentage of their population on fluoridated water had the lowest grades for the percentage of people who still had their teeth.
States that had higher percentages of the population on fluoridated water had lower oral health grades in terms of oral cancer deaths in men (which means more men died of oral and throat cancers in the states where more communities were fluoridated).
The averages calculated from the Report show that states that had nearly their entire populations on fluoridated water (grade A) had about 2.6 to 4.0 (average of 3.3) deaths per 100,000 from mouth and throat cancers. The states with less than 50% of their population on fluoridated water (grade F) had mouth and throat cancer rates of only 0 to 2.5 (average of 1.25) per 100,000.
One can conclude from this that doubling the population exposure to fluoridated water from 50% to nearly 100% is associated with an INCREASE in the mortality rate from mouth and throat cancer by more than double (about 2.6 times). With more than 150,000,000 people in Canada and the US on fluoridated water, these estimates of increasing risk for mouth and throat cancers suggest that about 3000 EXTRA mouth and throat cancer deaths occur in the US and Canada from the exposure to fluoridated water...
http://www.slweb.org/oralhealth.america.html
******************************
It is true that caries rates have gone down as much as 60% in fluoridated cities.
It is ALSO true that caries rates have gone down just as much or more in non-fluoridated cities that are closely matched.
From the February 1998 The New York State Dental Journal:
Newburg, NY was fluoridated in 1945 and has been ever since.
Kingston, NY was chosen as the control city and has never been fluoridated.
7 to 14 year old life long residents teeth were checked in 1945, 55, 86, and 1995
The results are published in the February 1998 New York State Dental Journal.
Figure 1 shows that after 50 years the Decayed Filled Missing Teeth numbersamong 7-14 year old life long residents are:
In fluoridated Newburg are 2.6
In un-fluoridated Kingston 1.7
Gee, that shows 53% less decay with out fluoride!
Also another table (2) shows fluorosis rates, 13-14 year olds
in Newburg in 1955 was 0.0% in 1995 21.6%
In Kingston in 1955 was 0% in 1995 11.5%
I wonder what it is now, 10 years later.
*****************************
The dentists must think that any research done outside the borders of the USA are junk science.
Go to http://slweb.org/bibliography.html, or
http://www.fluoridealert.org/, or
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/, or
http://www.iaomt.org/, there are dozens of published studies that show harm.
Maureen Jones (November 1, 2005)
Aside from the obvious wisdom of NOT using public drinking water as a vehicle to deliver highly cumulative people-treatment substances, consider the following:
1) 90% of tooth decay occurs where fluoridation was never claimed to be effective; the pits and fissures of teeth, i.e., the chewing surfaces of the molars. This is why dentists have been applying plastic sealants to these surfaces for decades. A 1929 study by McKay showed that 95% of tooth decay occurred in the pits and fissures of molars.
2) In 1993, the Journal of Public Health Dentistry reported, "50% of US Head Start children have had Baby Bottle Tooth Decay". Fluoridation does not work here either. And nowadays the Sippy Cup is extending this devastating decay of poor children to epidemic levels. The Denver Post, 4/13/04, illustrates this point; Denver has been fluoridated since 1954 and one dentist reports 300 cases a year of this rampant decay. See www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org (Effectiveness - # 7, #9, #10,and #12)
3) Fluoride’s effect is now claimed to be topical (such as toothpaste) rather than by ingestion: “Fluoride incorporated during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant role in caries (cavities) protection.” J Am. Dent. Asso. July 2000. The CDC concurs: see MMWR Oct. 1999.
4) In establishing the lethal dose for test animals (LD50), it takes 20 times MORE natural-occurring calcium fluoride to kill adult guinea pigs than it takes for any of the three water fluoridation chemicals.
5) The Aug. 12, 1992, Journal of the American Medical Association, Utah hip fracture study shows that hip fractures were doubled for women at age 75 (Figure 1) if they drank fluoridated tap water for a 20 year span prior to their menopause when bone turnover is still rapidly depositing the embrittleing fluoride into new bone. The men's increase in hip fracture was 41% (Figure 2). These figures only reflect the 50% accumulation into adult bone. Imagine what this figure would have been had these women been raised on fluoridated water since infancy wherein fluoride accumulation is 87%!
A book published in 2004, The Fluoride Deception, reveals the details of this 1950's public health blunder. www.fluoridealert.org posts over a dozen reviews of this long-overdue investigative report. Also, clicking “Take Action” will bring up the on-line petition in support of the eleven EPA unions who are calling for a nationwide moratorium on fluoridation.
Sincerely,
Maureen Jones, Archivist
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
1205 Sierra Ave.
San Jose, CA 95126
408-297-8487
Hesh Goldstein (November 2, 2005)
Dr. Schissel says that fluoride is toxic in high doeses but in small quantities it's ok. Maybe Dr. Schissel should start to ingest arsenic in small quantities to prove his theory.
Aloha!
Hesh Goldstein
"Health Talk" Moderator
K-108 Radio Honolului
Dr. Marvin Schissel (November 3, 2005)
I enjoyed Charles Gridley’s comment: he called me an “asshole”. I admire clear, direct, simple language. The rest of the outpouring of negative commentary responding to my article is neither clear nor direct, but might indeed qualify as simple, consisting largely of a torrent of confusing assertions and alleged references. As an example, the oft-circulated statement that fluoridation is not used in Europe is absolutely false; no European country has banned it. And the suggestion that fluoride and arsenic are analogous is simply silly. But it would take a lifetime to reply to each item in turn; perhaps in my next life I’ll give it a try.
This outpouring of impassioned disapproval gives me a sense of déjà vu. For over half a century a variety of negative accusations have been made against the fluoridation program, virtually none of which have turned out to be valid. I suspect the same will happen with the latest potpourri of allegation. However, science is not writ in stone, and should any of these charges turn out to be true we of course must act accordingly, perhaps even altering the fluoridation public health program. But I won’t hold my breath: right now I think it’s wise to rely on the consensus of reputable scientific opinion. The CDC has called fluoridation of drinking water one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. Every major national and international scientific organization supports fluoridation. Here follows a list of some of them (the ADA lists these and 100 others). I doubt that all these distinguished and authoritative organizations are being duped.
World Health Organization
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Institute of Medicine
American Medical Association
U.S. Public Health Service
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
March of Dimes
Canadian Public Health Association
American College of Physicians
American Public Health Association
American School Health Association
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Cancer Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Academy of Family Physicians
Glenn Sanford (November 3, 2005)
I live in Bellingham Washington where we are in the middle of a referendum on fluoride which has led to my researching as best I can the fluoridation debate...
The long and short is that the online communications that I have witnessed for the most part have been, so and so endorces fluoride and so and so is against fluoride. Some doctor's, some dentists ect.. on both sides... It is a land mine of conjecture...
Even the fact that political and lobbiest groups are quoted as being for or against is supposed to sway me as a Bellingham voter as to what side to vote on...
The fact is there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that have made it on to the internet that point out significant problems with fluoridation like:
Fluoridated Water - Not the Same as the fluoride you get from the dentist
You may want to look at "blood lead levels" in fluoridated communities vs. non-fluoridated communities.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11233755&dopt=Abstract
These data contradict the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the toxic effects of SiF and sodium fluoride, pointing to the need for chemical studies and comprehensive animal testing of water treated with commercial grade silicofluorides.
(1) Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol 63, Supplement 1, 2003 (page 536) “Water Fluoridation and Blood Lead Levels in US Children,” Mark Macek, DDS, DrPH, University of Maryland Dental School, Baltimore, MD; Thomas Matte, MD, PHD and Thomas Sinks PhD, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC, Dolores Malvitz, Dr.PH, Division of Oral Health, CDC, Atlanta, GA...
Which is even more interesting in that with increased "blood lead levels" there are higher dental carries.
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10386553&dopt=Abstract
Ironically when these two studies were posted to a bulletin board in Bellingham, they were never commented on from the Pro-fluoridationists. Unlike most posts where the accusations were that your expert isn't as good as my expert, posts like the one above never received any commentary against them.
I only point this out, because the claim was made in the original article that there are no studies that show harmful effects from fluoridation...
Here are two
KMP (November 6, 2005)
Please just gimme fluoride. I don't like dental problems. If you won't put it in my town water, tell me how to get enough of this nutrient - because that's what I understand it to be - that will give me stronger teeth and fewer cavities. I think it may have already. Where I used to live and grew up most of my life, the water district doesn't fluoridate, but says there is naturally occurring fluoride in the source water. I'm now in my early forties with happy verdict visit after visit at the dentist, "You're teeth look great! Goodbye, see you in sixth months!" I have enough grasp of science to know about fluoride - and Vitamin A, selenium, sodium, even water - that the Dose Makes the Poison. Nobody's convinced me yet that risks from fluoridated drinking water, real or imagined, compare to hearing, "You've Got No Cavities!" Don't take that away from me by calling fluoride "an industrial poison!"
Jean MacBride (November 27, 2007)
I have also been overwhelmed by the amount of information for and against fluoride. Some concern set in when I realised I will be prescribed a toxic and cumulative chemical as a medication required or not, and my individual dose I recieve from Human Services Health Department will be uncertain. (near enough is good enough apparently).
My opinion was made up after reading information contained in two Material Safety Data Sheets. They stated Sodium Fluoride, rating - seriuos hazard, Hazard identification: EXTENDED EFFECTS: Extended low systemic absorption of fluoride may cause fluorosis, an abnormal calcification pattern of the skeletal system. Prolonged repeated exposure may cause changes in the bone and chronic respiratory irritation, congestion, and impairment.
The other one stated: Sodium Fluoride - classification poisonous material, MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells, Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
I am not an educated person at all but I do understand the point they are trying to make.
I also found that a common thread with pro-fluoridationists is to try to discredit and marginalize any individual who shares genuine concerns regarding this practise. I note there are signitures of 1,128 health proffessionals as of the 16th Nov 2007, who have called for the end to water fluoridation on the Fluoride Action Network Site, 170 are dentists. There would be no personal gain for questioning the authorities, I applaud them and Mr Paul connett for his selfless efforts in trying to educate the public and stop what in my opinion appears to be dreadfully irrisponsible behaviour by the powers that be, and lets hope they wake up to themselves sooner rather than later. We now no Asbestos is a natural mineral which was better left in the ground and DDT wasn't so good for me.
|
