Pres Obama's Science Czar on Fluoridation

John P Holdren is now President Obama's Science Adviser or "Science Czar"

The following is from a book Holdren co-wrote in 1977, "Eco Science" with Paul R Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich:

(page 575 "Direct Assaults on Well-Being")

Fluorides

Fluoridation of public water supplies for partial protection against tooth decay is an emotion-charged subject. The scientific evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of mass fluoridation at the generally recommended level of 1 milligram per liter of water (1 ppm) is not as good as it ought to be, but neither is there convincing evidence that it is harmful. although there are certainly some cranks in the antifluoridation school, there are also some serious and competent scientists and responsible laymen who have been unmercifully abused because of the position they have taken on this controversial issue. Perhaps the strongest argument against mass fluoridation of drinking water is that individual treatment with fluoride is simple and can be supplied cheaply on public funds for those wishing to use it.

There is no question that fluoride is toxic in high concentrations, and fluoride pollution from a variety of industrial activities is a significant problem. Fluorides are discharged into the air from steel, aluminum, phosphate, pottery, glass, and brick works. These sources together emit perhaps 150,000 tons of hydrogen fluoride annually, and the same activities emit some tens of thousands of tons of fluorides annually into waterways. Intentional addition of fluorides in fluoridation programs makes a modest but not negligible contribution of perhaps 20,000 tons per year to the human-caused fluoride inputs to the environment.

The main problems encountered in trying to evaluate health threats from fluoride pollution are familiar ones: the boundary between safe and unsafe levels is a fuzzy one; some individuals are more sensitive than others; and fluorides may act in combination with other pollutants to do damage at concentrations where the fluorides alone would not be harmful.

Fluorides have been shown to concentrate in food chains, and evidence suggesting a potential for significant ecological effects is accumulating. Harm to terrestrial plants and algae at concentrations encountered in polluted environments has been documented, and the ability of certain plants and microorganisms to synthesize particularly toxic organic fluorides has been demonstrated. The toxicity of inorganic and organic fluorides to soil organisms is essentially unexplored and is a potential danger point.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18564724/Eco-Science-One

Dentists Continue to Ignore Low-Income Children

Children in America are dying from untreated tooth decay. And dentists are resisting any change that might alleviate the problem. Sixty-six percent of Medicaid eligible children (12.6 million) are not receiving any dental care. And the number of dentists has gone down in recent years and the number of dentist-shortage areas has gone up.

At least 50 percent of the average dentist's income now comes from elective cosmetic procedures. If dentists spent less time giving wealthier Americans artificially whitened grins, they would have more time to treat the serious oral disease that plagues millions of poorer Americans.

In 2000, the US Surgeon General revealed the ugly truth - that the low-incomed and minorities aren't getting the dental care wealthier Americans take for granted.

Many reports, meetings, symposiums, studies, conferences and years later, nothing has changed. Representative Dennis Kucinich held his fourth hearing on this issue on October 9, 2009 as chairman of the Domestic policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In his opening statement, Kucinich said:

"On February 25, 2007 Deamonte Driver, a twelve-year-old boy from Prince George's County, Maryland died from a brain infection caused by untreated tooth decay. Deamonte's tragic death could have been easily prevented by access to dental care - dental care he was entitled to.”

About two dozen dentists contacted refused to treat Deamonte Driver because he was on Medicaid.

"At our first hearing in May 2007, we learned that Deamonte Driver was not the only Maryland youth who wasn't receiving dental care to which he was entitled by Medicaid, said Kucinich. His investigation found that approximately 11,000 Maryland children on Medicaid had not seen a dentist in at least four years.

Representative Elijah Cummings, a member of the committee, said he grew up without dental care and believed his constant tooth decay pain was normal. He doesn't want any kids to have to endure that, especially when it's easily treated, he said.

Cummings said he has lots of kids from fluoridated Baltimore going to the University of Maryland for dental care, partially because of Deamonte Driver's death because "I want them to grow up," he said. Many of them have such bad tooth infections that traveled to and infected their eyes - which happens before the infections reaches the brain which killed Deamonte Driver, said Cummings.

Kucinich said, “A GAO report (2007), the first of its kind since 2000, revealed that millions of Medicaid-enrolled children suffer from tooth decay - almost one-third of the total Medicaid population. Medicaid children are roughly twice as likely as privately-insured chidren to suffer from tooth decay. Moreover, this pattern has persisted for years; very little had been done to improve access to and utilization of dental services. In a sense, the problem of tooth decay is getting worse because the rate of decay in the teeth of children aged two through five has increased in recent years."

Today, there are millions of children just like Deamonte Driver - entitled to dental care but not getting it, said Kucinich

Fluoride as a factor in premature aging

Abstract from: Annales Academiae Medicae Stetinensis (article in Polish)
Volume 50 Suppl 1, 2004, Pages 9-13 by Machoy-Mokrzyńska, et al.


The use of fluorine compounds in various areas of medicine, particularly in dentistry, as well as in agriculture and industry became very popular in the second half of the 20th century.

Fluorine owed this widespread acceptance to observations that its compounds stimulate ossification processes and reduce the prevalence of caries. Unfortunately, growing expectations overshadowed the truth regarding interactions of fluoride on the molecular level.

The fact was often ignored that fluoride is toxic, even though laboratory data stood for a careful approach to the benefits of usage. Excessive exposure to fluoride may lead to acute poisoning, hyperemia, cerebral edema, and degeneration of the liver and kidneys. Acute intoxication through the airways produces coughing, choking, and chills, followed by fever and pulmonary edema. Concentrated solutions of fluorine compounds produce difficult to heal necrotic lesions.

In spite of these dramatic symptoms, acute intoxications are relatively rare; the more common finding is chronic intoxication attributable to the universal presence of fluorine compounds in the environment.

The first noticeable signs of excessive exposure to fluoride in contaminated water, air, and food products include discolorations of the enamel. Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds. Abnormalities in mineralization processes affect by and large the osteoarticular system and are associated with changes in the density and structure of the bone presenting as irregular mineralization of the osteoid.

Fluorine compounds also act on the organic part of supporting tissues, including collagen and other proteins, and on cells of the connective tissue. These interactions reduce the content of collagen proteins, modify the structure and regularity of collagen fibers, and induce mineralization of collagen.

Interactions with cells produce transient activation of osteoblasts, stimulate fibroblasts to produce collagenase, and trigger toxic reactions in osteocytes and chondrocytes of trabecular bone.

Growing deformations of the skeleton reduce mobility and result in permanent crippling of the patient. Fluoride increases the mass of non-collagen proteins such as proteoglycans and glucosaminoglycans, accelerating skin aging even though protein biosynthesis is generally suppressed. The final outcome includes progressive vascular lesions and disorders of energy metabolism in muscles.

In conclusions, the use of fluoride, particularly by dentists and pediatricians, must be controlled and adapted to individual needs. It is worth remembering that fluoride: is the cause of disability due to bone deformations and abnormalities in the musculoskeletal system; reduces the incidence of caries but do not protect against tooth loss; exerts an adverse effect of metabolic processes in the skin; accelerates calcification of vessels and thus reduces their elasticity; inhibits bioenergetic reactions, in particular oxidative phosphorylation, reducing physical activity of muscles. These findings suggest that fluorine may be yet another factor in accelerated aging and revive the dispute started more than two and half thousand years ago whether aging is a physiologic or pathologic process. The understanding of factors modifying the process of aging is the basis for preventive measures aimed at extending life and maintaining full psychosocial activity.

http://www.scopus.com.ezproxy.uvm.edu/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-33750590946&view=basic&origin=inward&txGid=-2NCY6kDRHKLEbS0zrxGxel%3a6

Still Waiting for Promised NIH Cancer Study

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK BULLETIN 1078
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org

Still waiting for Chester "Godot" Douglass

June 18, 2009 -- It has now been over three years since Professor Chester Douglass of the Harvard Dental School trashed Bassin's (his own student!)[published and peer-reviewed] study associating fluoride exposure to osteosarcoma [bone cancer], with the promise that his paper (to be co-authored by Robert Hoover and Gary Whitford) - to be published in the Summer of 2006 - would refute her findings. We've been waiting and waiting, but still no paper has appeared. Meanwhile, proponents of fluoridation such as

1) Dr. Peter Cooney, chief dental officer of Canada
2) the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2007) and
3) the South Central Strategic Health Authority in the UK,

continue to cite Douglass' letter as if it were a fully fledged research article scientifically rebutting Bassin's findings. So much for authorities who insist upon "peer-reviewed and published" science!

For those new to the Chester Douglass scandal, here is a short time line.

1977. In the wake of the furor generated over the research by Drs. Dean Burke and John Yiamiouyannis showing cancer rates had increased in 10 American cities after fluoridation had begun in the 1950's, the US Congress ordered the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to do animal studies investigating a possible connection between fluoride and cancer.

1990. After a delay of 13 years the NTP finally reported back on the animal-cancer study. They found a number of cancers - all but the osteosarcomas were subjectively downgraded by a government review body, much to the disgust of Dr. William Marcus, who was the chief toxicologist for EPA's Office of Drinking Water. Marcus was fired by the EPA for being too noisy about the matter. Even so, the finding of a dose related increase in osteosarcomas in the male rats, created quite a stir in the media and in dental circles.

1991. Very quickly an article was published in the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) co-authored by Douglass. In this study by McGuire et al., the authors reported that they had found no evidence of an association between fluoridation and osteosarcoma and even suggested the opposite: that fluoridation was actually protective against osteosarcoma. This article was given lavish treatment by JADA. The beautiful cover, featuring a huge glass of water with a lake and mountain in the background, carried the statement: "Fluoride and Cancer. Study points to protection."

McGuire et al. made it clear in the text of this article that a positive finding of a relationship between fluoridation with osteosarcoma would have serious consequences for the fluoridation program, a possibility they were clearly worried about, as the following quotes make clear:

"An incorrect inference implicating systemic fluoride carcinogenicity and its removal from our water systems would be detrimental to the oral health of most Americans, particularly those who cannot afford to pay for increasingly expensive restorative dental care" (p.39)

"Because of its strengthening action, fluoride has been widely accepted as the responsible agent for the dramatic declines in the tooth decay rates of U.S. children and adolescents." ( pp.39-40)

"A disruption in the delivery of fluoride through municipal water systems would increase decay rates over time." (p.40) (The authors cited the dubious Antigo study to support this claim, PC)

"Linking of fluoride ingestion and cancer initiation could result in a large-scale defluoridation of municipal water systems under the Delaney clause." (p.40)

The authors concluded, based on this small study, that there was no relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma, and even suggested that:

"fluoridation at recommended levels may provide a protective effect against the formation of osteosarcoma" (p.44)

This allowed Douglass and his co-authors to reach the final conclusion that they clearly wanted out of this study:

"Given present knowledge, every effort should be made to continue the practice of fluoridating community water supplies." (p. 45)

1992. The NIEHS chose Chester Douglass to undertake further research to investigate the possible relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. It is incredible, that such a sensitive research effort should have been given to a dental professor, let alone one who had clearly articulated how serious it would be for the fluoridation program should a positive finding be found.

Over the next 10 years (or more), this funding from NIEHS kept on being renewed, despite the fact that, apart from one abstract, Douglass had published nothing on this research. A total of over a million dollars flowed into Douglass' Harvard coffers for this work. These are really patient people at NIEHS!

2001. Then in 2001, Elise Bassin (Douglass' graduate student) successfully defended her PhD thesis. In this, she reported, in what she herself called a robust study, that young boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th, 7th and 8th years had a 5-7 fold increased risk of succumbing to osteosarcoma by the age of 20.

2002. In a presentation that Douglass gave to the British Fluoridation Society (BFS), he assured the members of the BFS that his work had found no linkage between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. He somehow failed to mention that his graduate student had found the very opposite to be the case. The BFS reported Douglass' claim in their pamphlet, and used it in their continued promotion of fluoridation. There was no mention of Bassin. The BFS pamphlet went unchanged, long after the existence of Bassin's study had been revealed.

2004. Douglass sent a letter to the National Research Council (NRC) fluoride review panel talking about his research (NRC, 2006). Again he claimed that his work had found no relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. Again he made no mention of Bassin's work, but this time he gave her thesis as a footnote. Any casual reader would have reasonably assumed that Bassin's thesis supported Douglass' claim. Douglass sent a similar letter to his funders at NIH.

2005. In January, acting on a tip-off from Myron Coplan, Michael Connett visited one of the libraries at Harvard and located Bassin's thesis in the rare books section. He was able to photocopy the chapter dealing with osteosarcoma. FAN sent this chapter both to the NRC review panel and to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in Washington, DC. EWG called for an NIH enquiry into Douglass' behavior and released the story to the media claiming that Douglass was covering-up this important finding. They also mentioned that Douglass was a consultant for Colgate (he edited their monthly bulletin, "Colgate Oral Care Report'). This triggered wide coverage in the media including an important article in the Wall Street Journal (Begley 2005). However, the NIEHS meekly handed over the investigation to Harvard.

2006. One year later, Harvard exonerated Douglass of "deliberately" covering-up Bassin's work. A video clip from Fox News showing Douglass holding up the Harvard "get out of jail free" card, can be accessed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xR47jUqX9g&feature=channel_page

In March, the National Research Council fluoride report was released and stated:

"A relatively large hospital-based case-control study of osteosarcoma and fluoride exposure is under way (Douglass 2004) and is expected to be reported in the summer of 2006 (C. Douglass, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, personal communication, January 3, 2006)."
Ref: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030910128X&page=329

In May, Bassin, with three other Harvard researchers, published her findings in the Journal Cancer Causes and Control (Bassin et al., 2006). In the same issue, the editors published Douglass' effort to discount Bassin's findings and his promise that his "larger" study would show that Bassin's thesis didn't hold (Douglass & Joshipura, 2006).

The summer of 2006 comes and goes. No published paper from Douglass.

2007. The summer of 2007 comes and goes. Still no published paper from Douglass.

2008. The summer of 2008 comes and goes. Still no published paper from Douglass.

2009. June 18. The first day of summer is just three days away and still no published paper from Douglass.

Meanwhile, those who have examined Douglass' proposed methodology have concluded that there is no way that it can actually disprove Bassin's thesis because the measure of exposure they are using is bone fluoride levels - and there is no way that this can test Bassin's thesis since this is based on which year the young boys are exposed to fluoride. The bone level will only give the cumulative exposure after 20 years . Moreover, another extraordinary weakness of this matched case and control study, is that the controls are young men with other forms of bone cancer (other than osteosarcoma). Clearly, if fluoride was to also cause any these cancers - as it well might - that would completely eliminate any significance of this study!

With such huge weaknesses to this study it is quite conceivable that no reputable journal will touch it. So standby for another cover issue of JADA!

Meanwhile, some believe that Douglass was a "stooge" in all this, and that the person really pulling the strings was Dr. Robert Hoover at the National Cancer Institute. It was Hoover who had done battle with Burke and Yiamiouyiannis in the 1970s. It was also Hoover who conveniently found a reason to discount his own findings of an increase in osteosarcoma in young men living in fluoridated counties covered by the SEER registry (Hoover et al., 1991). Hoover was also the co-author of the paper delivered by Douglass to the BFS in 2002. Hoover was aware of Bassin's findings but apparently went along with Douglass in not revealing them in this paper. Moreover, Hoover has been a part of the Douglass study from the very beginning. Currently, he is listed as the Principle Investigator of the Douglass study, and the current funding appears to all be coming directly from "intramural" funding at NCI. NIEHS funding ran out several years ago.

Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director Fluoride Action Network
http://www.FluorideAction.Net


References

Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8.

Begley S. 2005. Fluoridation, cancer: did researchers ask the right questions? Wall Street Journal. July 22. p B1. Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/media/2005h.html

Hoover RN, et al. 1991. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: DHHS (1991) Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs US Public Health Service. Appendices E & F.

Douglass CW, Joshipura K . 2006. Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes & Control 17:481-2.

McGuire SM, Vanable ED, McGuire MH, Buckwalter JA, Douglass CW. 1991. Is there a link between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma? J Am Dent Assoc 122:39-45.

National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in drinking water: a scientific review of EPA's standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. Report available to read and search at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

###

Dentists Neglect Poor Kids 364 Days a Year

Most dentists neglect low-income Americans all year, except for one “Give-Kids-A-Smile” day, filled with media events, feel-good stories,corporate sponsorship, costly T-shirts, but little drilling and filling. When the media spotlight goes out, so do the dentists. At the same time, organized dentistry fights hard against any viable group willing to alleviate the US dental health epidemic year-round.

Theoretically, government sponsored dental care, under Medicaid, is free for children living in poverty. Sadly, “nationally, only about 10% of all dentists accept Medicaid patients,” according to a report by the Children’s Defense Fund. And over 108 million Americans lack dental insurance, according to the American Dental Association (ADA).

According to American Family Physician, more than three out of four dentists do not treat the uninsured.

Dentists’ income is derived mostly from private insurance and patient’s pockets, says the ADA. Dentists aren’t hurting. Rated among the highest-paying jobs by bizjounrnals.com, the top ten money-making cities for dentists range from Charlotte ($195,540) to Omaha ($176,830).

Meanwhile, 6.5 million children aged 2 through 18 in Medicaid have untreated tooth decay, according to the Government Accounting Office, often forcing them to get expensive hospital emergency care when the decay spreads, the pain is unbearable, costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars to treat. Some have died from untreated tooth decay.

The logical solution is to require dentists to treat more low-income Americans – either for free, for what Medicaid offers, or on a sliding scale. But dentists don't like mandates – well for themselves anyway. They do like fluoridation mandates, though. Dentists prefer to treat the water rather than the individual.

Dentists didn’t make it on their own. Government subsidizes dental tuition and dental schools and regulates their licenses. Dentists need to give back or allow other viable groups to fill the void.

Dental Health Aide Therapists are currently repairing and pulling teeth in rural Alaska where no dentist would live or work. The American Dental Association and the Alaska Dental Society spent $1 million on a lawsuit trying unsuccessfully to stop them.

Organized dentistry now lobbies against solo-practicing dental hygienists, denturists (false teeth makers) from working directly with the public and Dental Therapists in any other state.

Organized dentistry uses its credentials, political clout and deep pockets filled up with corporate cash to lobby our legislators to pass laws that benefit themselves while an oral health epidemic occurs on their watch. See: http://tinyurl.com/PoliticalClout

Unfortunately, organized dentistry uses GKAS day to convince legislators to give them more money to treat Medicaid patients and to promote water fluoridation - a tax-wasting scientfically failed method of reducing tooth decay.

Although the District of Columbia is 100% fluoridated and has the nation’s highest density of dentists, 44% of children in a typical elementary school have cavities in primary teeth – 34% is unfilled. Just 30 dentists (2.5 percent) are Medicaid billing dentists with at least one paid claim, according to “Issue Brief: Oral Health Is Critical to the School Readiness of Children in Washington, DC.”

The Raleigh News & Observer reports, that the ability of patients to pay and the lack of dentists have negatively affected access to dental care and the problem likely will get worse in North Carolina, which is 88% fluoridated About 200 emergency department dental cases occur daily throughout the state, they report.

“Nearly half of [60% fluoridated] Massachusetts children experience tooth decay before third grade…’We struggled over the last several years, particularly in part of the district I represent, which is Cape Cod, to even get any dentists to accept Medicaid patients,’" reports the State House News Service on February 2000.

Rochester, NY, is fluoridated: "Hundreds of local children are ending up in the operation room because of cavities that could have been prevented...The Eastman Dental Center sees more than 300 of these kinds of cases a year. In [fluoridated] Buffalo, 700 plus cases, and thousands state wide [NYS is 73% fluoridated],” according to NBC News

Although Kentucky is 99.8% fluoridated, “Last year, four area hospitals had 1,500 visits from patients seeking help with tooth pain…About a third of those cases involved children and teens, reported the Messenger-Inquirer on March 8, 2008 .

“State officials have found that 4,500 Kentucky 3-year-olds have dental pain each day, McKee said. Nearly half of preschoolers have untreated tooth decay,” they report.

Minnesota is 98% fluoridated: "Last year, there were 22,000 emergency-room visits for dental problems." reported the Star Tribune on January 22, 2009.

In West Virginia, 92% fluoridated, "It's especially difficult to find an oral surgeon who accepts Medicaid patients in Southern West Virginia where dental health problems are rampant,” reports the Charleston Gazette on January 11, 2009.

New York State Department of Health statistics illustrate fluoridation’s inability to equalize cavity rates between low and high socio-economic-status groups, and that fluoridation and tooth decay rates are not inversely related See chart: http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/chart.htm

Connecticut mandates fluoridation. Yet 48% of 4-year-olds suffer
untreated cavities partially because 85% of dentists won’t or can’t treat
patients with low-paying government-sponsored insurance, according to Elements of effective action to improve oral health & access to dental care for Connecticut’s children & families.

More evidence of dental needs despite fluoridation http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com

What is needed is to train Dental Therapists in this country. The ones working in Alaska were trained for two or three years in New Zealand. They drill, fill and pull teeth as effectively as dentists and have been working for decades in developed countries. As a result, children in New Zealand have no unfilled cavities because they are seen in school by Dental Therapists every year and rural Alaskans aren't pulling their own teeth. Organized dentistry is at odds with public health dentists on this. The former doesn't like any groups infringing upon its lucrative monopoly - even if it means Americans must suffer from dental neglect 364 days a year.

Another Embarrassing Fluoridation Birthday

Sixty-four years ago, on January 25, sodium fluoride was slowly poured into Grand Rapids, Michigan’s public water supply to prove that fluoridation reduces children’s tooth decay. Five years into the experiment, things weren’t going as expected. Cavities declined equally in the non-fluoridated control city of Muskegon, too. So to blur the truth or prove their expectation, Muskegon was fluoridated also.

So what’s happening today?

Ingested fluoride is not stopping cavities and is causing dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth.

For example, according to data presented at the 2006 American Association for Dental Research’s annual meeting:

-- Researchers following children from birth found almost twice the amount of dental fluorosis in children drinking fluoridated water but no less decay than children drinking non-fluoridated water. (1)

-- No significant relationship was found between fluoride exposure and cavities in permanent teeth of 6 to 9-year-old's in Campeche, Mexico(2). Previously, it was reported that 56% of this group has dental fluorosis.(3)

-- A U.S. national study reports cavity prevalence increased by 15% in 2 to 5-year-olds, in surveys taken between 1988-1994 and 1999-2002,(4) The Centers for Disease Control report that 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. schoolchildren display dental fluorosis.(4a)

-- Breastfed US children have less cavities than non-breastfed.(5) even though breast milk has 250 times less fluoride than dentists claim is optimal to reduce cavities. Breastfeeding is also protective against fluorosis.(5a)

-- Although New York City fluoridated in 1965, NYC children of Chinese descent suffer a much higher prevalence and severity of tooth decay than the national average (63% vs 38%). (6)

-- About half of 7 to14-year-old children from fluoridated Rochester, NY, have cavities. Latino children had significantly higher caries experience than African-American and Caucasian children, thus indicating that disparities exist among different ethnic groups even when the water is fluoridated.(7)

Grand Rapids children are showing high rates of tooth decay and dental fluorosis. According to the Grand Rapids Press, one pediatric dentist said in 2007 “…we see children under the age of 2 with active decay…Rather than just a few cavities, we're seeing a lot of cavities. It's not unusual to see a child with 8 to 10 cavities."

Detroit Michigan is also fluoridated.

A study shows that, although fluoridated tap water is the most consumed item, 83% of low-income Detroit African-American adults, 14-years-old and over, have severe tooth decay. Almost all Detroit’s African-American 5-year-olds have cavities, most of them go unfilled.

In fact, there are cavity crises in all fluoridated cities and states (See: http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com ) because 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients and over 108 million Americans lack dental insurance.

Our food supply has become fluoride-polluted. The USDA had to create a database of fluoride content of some foods to help Americans tally their daily fluoride intake to avoid dental fluorosis and the National Institutes of Health just granted $3 million to a researcher to find out why children are getting dental fluorosis.

It makes better fiscal sense to stop adding fluoride chemicals into the public water supply instead of feeding the research community millions of dollars to tell us we are over-fluoridating our children.

These studies add to a growing body of evidence pointing to fluoride's ineffectiveness and lack of safety: See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/fluoridation.html#top

Take action to end fluoridation here: http://congress.FluorideAction.net


References:

(1) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0153 - Dental caries and fluorosis in relation to water fluoride levels, I Hong, SM Levy, J Warren, B Broffitt http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_73811.htm

(2) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 1995 - Cross-Sectional analysis of dental caries in children with mixed dentition, AA Vallejos-Sanchez, CE Mendina-Solis, JF Casanova-Rosado, G Maupome, AJ Casanova-Rosado, M Minaya-Sanchez http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_73452.htm

(3) Prevalence of dental fluorosis and additional sources of exposure to fluoride as risk factors to dental fluorosis in schoolchildren of Campeche, Mexico, PR Beltran-Valladares, H Cocom-Tun, JF Casanova-Rosado, AA Vallejos-Sanchez, CE Medina-Solis, G Maupome, Rev Invest Clin. 2005 Uly-Aug;57(4):532-9

(4) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0458 - Trends in Dental Caries of Primary Teeth, United States, 1988-2002, F Jaramillo, E Beltran, L Barker, S Griffin, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_76323.htm

(4a) Beltrán-Aguilar et al. Surveillance for Dental Caries, Dental Sealants, Tooth Retention, Edentulism and Enamel Fluorosis – United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2002. MMWR. CDC August 26, 2005
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm


(5) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0881 - No association between breastfeeding and early childhood caries: NHANES 1999-2002, H Iida, P Auinger, M Weitzman, RJ Billings http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_75842.htm

(5a) Breastfeeding is Protective Against Dental Fluorosis in a Nonfluoridated Rural Area of Ontario, Canada, D Brothwell, H Limeback, Journal of Human Lactation, Vol. 19, No. 4, 386-390 (2003) http://jhl.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/386
(6) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0l50 - Caries Experience among Chinese-American Children and Adolescents in Lower Manhattan, CH Chinn http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_74008.htm

(7) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 0478 - Dental Caries in Latino Elementary School Children, S Gajendra http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_74009.htm

(8) AADR 35th Annual Meeting in Orlando:
Abstract # 1992 - Severity of Dental Caries Among African American Children in Detroit, AI Ismail, M Tellez http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2006Orld/techprogram/abstract_73168.htm

Fluoride in Tap Water a Health Hazard

Even small amounts of fluoride consumed from tap water can damage your bones, teeth, brain, disrupt your thyroid function, lower IQ and/or cause cancer, according to evidence revealed in a groundbreaking 2006 National Research Council (NRC) fluoride report produced by a panel of experts who reviewed hundreds of published fluoride studies.

Fluoridation cheerleaders such as the American Dental Association (ADA) and the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) claim this report has nothing to do with fluoridation (the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies). However, because of the NRC report, both the ADA and CDC now recommend that infant formula NOT be mixed with fluoridated water.

Citing the NRC report, the National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of fluoridation and replaced it with this warning: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.”

A January 2008 Scientific American article reported that after 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, the NRC expert panel “concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid – the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism,” reports its author Dan Fagin.

Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC expert panel: “The thyroid changes do worry me.”

“Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with iodine deficiency,” said Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, co-author of the government-sponsored NRC report. “The recent decline in iodine intake in the U.S could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals,” says Thiessen. She and at least two other panel members publicly call for an end to water fluoridation.

“A low level of thyroid hormone can increase the risk of cardiac disease, high cholesterol, depression and, in pregnant woman, decreased intelligence of offspring,” said Thiessen.

An analysis of published fluoride/IQ studies e-published 8/10/08 “found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ (published in Biological Trace Element Research el al.).

An Institute for Children’s Environmental Health report published February 2008 and revised July 2008 said "The primary question remains as to whether exposures to fluoride via multiple routes of exposure, from drinking water, food and dental-care products, may result in a high enough cumulative exposure to contribute to developmental effects…(E)merging science suggests we need to further study the dose at which fluoridation may increase risks of neurodevelopment disorders, cancer and skeletal or dental fluorosis, particularly for sensitive individuals."

Over 1,840 professionals signed a statement urging Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted.. See: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on the Fluoride Action Network's web site, http://congress.fluorideaction.net

Organized dentistry and many individual dentists in government and in private practice continue to ignore and/or lie about this extremely scientific NRC report in favor of promoting fluoride. This is beneficial to corporations who financially support dental union groups such as the American Dental Association and its state constituent groups. They have made the American Dental Association into one of the richest and politically powerful lobbying groups in the country which continually legislates for laws that benefits dentists.

Because of the ADA’s money and power, most dentists make three times as much as physicians while working fewer hours and days doing less critical work. They are the rich "guys" contributing to political coffers. However, 80% of dentists refuse to treat Medicaid patients and 108 million Americans don't have dental insurance. People in America are dying from untreated tooth decay.

Fluoridation gives legislators a false fact to fall back upon when asked why they support water fluoridation. The truth is they support the American Dental Association and the fluoride producing corporations who shore up political campaigns to get re-elected. In return, they pass laws favorable to dentists.

The New York Times reported how the NY Dental Society, in effect, buys laws that benefit themselves. (July 16, 2008 editorial “Dental Decay in Albany”)

Health Canada Cuts Fluoride to Protect Kids Teeth

To avoid fluoride-induced yellow and tan discolored teeth (moderate dental fluorosis), fluoride chemicals injected into Canadian water supplies should be lowered, says an expert panel, including two American dentists, convened by Health Canada. Less fluoride in children’s toothpaste and infant formula is also recommended.

Because scientific evidence shows that even low amounts of ingested fluoride poses dental and health risks, many environmental groups, eleven US Environmental Protection Agency Unions and over 1,790 professionals
urge that fluoridation be stopped worldwide. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals.statement.html

"The best way to lower children’s fluoride intake, as Health Canada suggests, is to stop fluoridation," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network (FAN). "It makes no sense to prescribe fluoride drugs to children via the water supply at levels which are between 150 and 250 times higher than the level in mothers’ milk,” says Connett.

Despite breast milk’s extremely low fluoride content, it’s both protective against dental fluorosis and tooth decay, studies show.
Canadian water fluoride levels, now between 0.8 and 1.0 milligrams fluoride per liter of water (mg/L), should be lowered to 0.7 mg/L, says Health Canada’s fluoride panel

The level of fluoride in Toronto, Canada’s water was reduced from 1.2 to 0.8 mg/L in 1999 and to 0.6 mg/L in 2005. In 2000, moderate dental fluorosis was reported in 14% of 7-year-olds and 12% of 13-year-olds.

Toronto-based Citizens for a Safe Environment (CSE) wants fluoridation stopped entirely in Toronto and will co-host two public fluoride meetings with FAN in downtown Toronto on Monday August 11.

“These meetings will give the public information they don’t get from our government or dental organizations,” says CSE director Karen Buck. “In the afternoon, a panel will address the question of whether Toronto should stop fluoridating its water. In the evening, experts will explain fluoride’s dangers to health.”

After receiving an invitation to attend, the Ontario Dental Association (ODA) sent out a news release urging legislators and communities to stand up in support of fluoridation; but the ODA will not do so, themselves.

"The best way that the ODA can get communities and politicians to stand up for water fluoridation is to provide, in person, a cogent and scientifically-referenced defense of fluoridation at the afternoon forum," says Buck

For more info on the conferences: http://fluoridealert.org/august.11.html

Dentists who promote fluoridation often dismiss mild dental fluorosis (white spots) as “not a problem.” However, Dincer reports in the NYS Dental Journal that even white-spotted teeth can damage children’s self-esteem. Cosmetic dentists happily cover up any dental fluorosis, mild, moderate or severe, often for very high out-of-pocket fees.

American children consume much more fluoride than Canadian children evidence shows.
The six-member Health Canada panel included American dentist, Jayanth Kumar of the New York State Department of Health which still recommends water fluoride levels between 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L

Unlike American authorities, Health Canada does not recommend fluoride drops or tablets for children under age three who live in non-fluoridated communities.
The US EPA also allows high amounts of (sulfuryl) fluoride pesticide residues to remain on foods which is not so in Canada, according to Health Canada.
In the US, up to 48% of children have fluorosis, with 4% moderate/severe, according to the CDC.

While dental Fluorosis is an obvious sign of fluoride toxicity, unseen is fluoride’s toxic bodily effects.

A March 2006 National Research Council (NRC) fluoride report reveals science showing how fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, bones, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers, infants, and others and can severely damage children's teeth. At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water and Panel Chairman, toxicologist John Doull, is worried about the thyroid effects.

Because of the NRC report, the National Kidney Foundation withdrew its fluoridation support and both the ADA and CDC advise that infant formula should not be mixed with fluoridated water.

The NRC found plausible studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ.

The Health Canada fluoride panel claims that “the weight of evidence does not support a link between fluoride and intelligence quotient deficit.”

However, “It is hard to believe that any "weight of evidence" analysis could possibly dismiss fluoride's neurological impacts. There have now been over 40 animal studies which show that fluoride can damage the brain, and no less than 18 studies which show that fluoride lowers IQ in children, and only 2 that don't,” says Connett

The latest issue of the journal, Fluoride http://www.FluorideResearch.Org , published 12 newly-translated Chinese studies, which report fluoride’s effects on the brain, including the lowering of IQ in children. These and other brain studies will be reviewed at both conferences.

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, an infant and fetal pathologist, and president of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, will be presenting a major review of studies on fluoride’s brain effects, including the translated Chinese studies.

END

Dentists Admit Fluoride a Risk to Kidney Patients

On June 19, 2008 the American Dental Association updated its website indicating that fluoride is a concern to all kidney patients, not just those on dialysis.

Along with false assurances of safety, fluoride chemicals are added to some public and bottled water in the unscientific belief it reduces cavities.

Fluoride-induced bone damage could occur in kidney patients who consume even "optimally" fluoridated water because malfunctioning kidneys do not properly sift fluoride from the blood and out of the body. Fluoride builds up in bones making them brittle and fracture.

For this reason, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) withdrew its fluoridation endorsement in October 2007, which they made public in a fluoride paper dated April 15, 2008 with advice that “individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.”

After the 2006 National Research Council's (NRC) fluoride toxicology report was brought to their attention, the NKF withdrew its fluoridation endorsement.

The NRC fluoride report 12-member panel was created to review current fluoride toxicology data at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether the maximum contaminant level goal (4 mg/L) of fluoride in public water supplies is safe. The NRC says that level must be lowered. But neither the NRC nor the EPA has determined how low it should go.

At least three NRC panel members conclude that water fluoride levels should be close to zero, not only to protect kidney patients, but also thyroid patients, infants and high water drinkers.

This would effectively shut down fluoridation in the U.S. But organized dentistry isn't going to let go of its pet project and diminish its political viability by admitting fluoridation is a failed experiment. So they downplay anything negative about fluoride and in this case they want you to know that fluoride is only a secondary concern. And, of course, I want you to know that secondary doesn't mean no concern.

However, even the ADA seems to be covering their legal assets with this statement in their Fluoridation Facts booklet, “decreased fluoride removal may occur among persons with severely impaired kidney function who may not be on kidney dialysis.”

Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director who states the CDC is "America’s health protection leader" has yet to post any of this information on its website. They usually follow the lead of the ADA concerning fluoride and fluoridation.

The CDC’s website still erroneously claims, ““The findings of the NRC report are consistent with CDC’s assessment that water is safe and healthy at the levels used for water fluoridation (0.7–1.2 mg/L)”

The NRC reports “Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal [kidney] function...Several investigators have shown that patients with impaired renal function, or on hemodialysis, tend to accumulate fluoride much more quickly than normal."

New York State Department of Health employee, Dr. J. Kumar received the ADA’s fluoridation award. With money and support from the CDC Kumar is promoting fluoridation in New York State by conducting fluoridation spokesperson training among other activies.

Kumar is ignoring his own 1990 health department report published in Oral biology and Medicine which concluded "The available data suggest that some individuals may experience hypersensitivity to fluoride-containing agents. Further studies on hypersensitivity are required" and "Studies on the effects of fluoride in individuals with renal insufficiency are needed."

That advice wasn’t heeded. Those studies were never conducted. But Kumar and the NYS Department of Health is using our tax money to push even more fluoride into us.

According to the Fluoride Action Network,: “The bone changes commonly found among patients with advanced kidney disease closely resemble the bone changes found among individuals with the osteomalacic-type of skeletal fluorosis. This raises the possibility that some individuals with kidney disease are suffering from undiagnosed skeletal fluorosis.”

More fluoride/kidney information here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/kidney/index.html

References:

1) USDA Fluoride in Foods Database
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/fluoride.pdf

2) National Kidney Foundation, “Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease,”
April 15, 2008
http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf

3) Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
“Effects of fluoridation of community water supplies for people with
chronic kidney disease,” (2007) 22: 2763–2767, Ludlow et al.
http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/KHAFluoridation_CKD-NDT_2007.pdf

4) National Kidney Foundation, “Fluoride”
http://www.kidney.org/atoz/atozItem.cfm?id=205

5) September 18, 2007 letter, Reeves to National Kidney Foundation
http://www.fluoridealert.org/NKF_letter01.pdf

6) October , 2007 news release “Did Kidney Foundation Leave Millions at Risk by Failing to Warn about Fluorides and Fluoridated Drinking Water?” by Daniel Stockin, MPH, The Lillie Center
http://fluoridealert.org/press/nkf.htm

7) American Dental Association,
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/compendium.asp

8) Louisiana Dental Association, “Health Smiles Coalition”
http://www.healthysmileslouisiana.org/coalition.html

9) American Dental Association, “Fluoridation Facts”
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf

10) U.S. Centers for Disease Control, MMWR “Prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease and Associated Risk Factors --- United States, 1999—2004
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a2.htm

1945 Human Experiment Predicted Current Fluoride Health Woes

In 1945 dentists set out to prove that adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies safely prevented children’s tooth decay, not IF it did. The studies failed; but early fluoridationists ignored this inconvenient truth and forged ahead. Now Americans are fluoride overdosed, suffer from fluoride’s toxic effects and cavity rates climb.

In 1955, ten years into the experiment, researchers reported more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation in children purposely dosed with sodium fluoride-laced drinking water (1956. Journal of the American Dental Association). This is the first, and only, fluoridation human health experiment and it was carried out on the entire population in the city of Newburgh NY.

How did this happen?

In the early 1900’s, brown and yellow discolored, but decay resistant, teeth were prevalent in healthier, wealthier U.S. populations drinking and irrigating their crops with naturally calcium-fluoridated water.

Researchers discovered fluoride was the tooth discoloring culprit and mistakenly thought fluoride was also the cavity-fighting hero – unaware that calcium was required to grow sound dentition. And also unaware of Dentist Weston Price’s extensive research published in 1939 showing that without fluoride, healthier populations had healthier teeth because of good diets.

Public health officials, so sure sodium fluoride safely benefited children’s teeth, had no misgivings about carrying out this very unusual experiment without first doing animal studies, without informed consent and without thought or interest about how sodium fluoride could afflict adults.

Mistakenly assuming all fluorides are the same, in 1945, sodium fluoride, waste products from industries such as Alcoa Aluminum Company (not natural calcium-fluoride), was added to Newburgh NY’s water supply at about one milligram fluoride per liter of water. Kingston NY, the control city for comparison purposes, was left fluoride-free.

Kingston and Newburgh are thirty-five miles apart on the Hudson River in New York State and in 1940 had populations of 31,956 and 28,817, respectively. In Newburgh, 500 children were examined after ten years and 405 in Kingston. Adults were never tested.

Although planned to last ten years, due to political pressure, the Newburgh/Kingston study was declared a success after five years which caused many U.S. cities to start fluoridation prematurely.

Newburgh's children were given complete physicals and x-rays, over the course of the study, from birth to age nine in the first year and up to age eighteen in the final year.

“(R)outine laboratory studies were omitted in the control group during most of the study, they were included in the final examination,” according to Schlesinger and colleagues, in “Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.”

The researchers report after ten years of fluoridation in Newburgh New York:

-- “The average age at the menarche was 12 years among the girls studied in Newburgh and 12 years 5 months among the girls in Kingston.”

--Hemoglobin (iron-containing part of a red blood cell): “a few more children in the range below 12.9 grams per hundred milliliters in Newburgh”

--“…a slightly higher proportion of children in Newburgh were found to have a total erythrocyte (red blood cell) count below 4,400,000 per milliliter”

--Knee X-rays of Newburgh children reveals more cortical bone defects, and irregular mineralization of the thigh bone.

Only twenty-five Newburgh children had eye and ear exams. Two had hearing loss; eight had abnormal vision. Even though researchers discovered more adult cataracts in surveys conducted before 1944 in communities with naturally high water fluoride concentrations Newburg and Kingston adults were never checked for this defect.

Only two groups of twelve-year-old boys were tested for fluoride’s toxic kidney effects.

In a statewide survey conducted in 1954, J. A. Forst, M.D a New York public health official reported observing one-third more dental defects, including malposition of teeth, in fluoridated Newburgh, New York, than in the non-fluoridated control city of Kingston.

The 2004 book "The Fluoride Deception," by Christopher Bryson, reveals that in addition to NYS Dep't of Health examinations “the University of Rochester conducted its own studies, measuring how much fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues. Health Department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Rochester scientists,” writes Bryson. Three times as much fluoride was found in the placentas and blood samples gathered from Newburgh as from non-fluoridated Rochester, reports Bryson.

Following back the scientific references in all current fluoridation safety literature will invariably lead back to the Newburgh/Kingston study which actually failed to prove fluoridation is safe for all who drink it although public health officials and dentists tell a different story..

On January 25, 1945, Grand Rapids Michigan was actually the first U.S. city to fluoridate; without health effects measured.. Even that study is scientifically dishonest. After five years tooth decay declined equally in Grand Rapids and its control city Muskegon Michigan so Muskegon’s water was fluoridated which actually invalidated this experiment.

So it’s not surprising that a toxicological review of current fluoride science by the prestigious National Academies shows that fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid
gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth. Further studies linking fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible, they report.

In 1998, the New York Department of Health reported that fluoridated Newburgh NY children have more cavities and more fluorosis than never fluoridated Kingston NY children.(Figure 1, Page 41, "Recommendations for Fluoride Use in children"
NYS Dental Journal, February 1998 (NYS Department of Health).

References:
Fluoridation researcher, Peter Meiers, has more information about the Newburgh/Kingston study on his website:

http://www.fluoride-history.de/bartlett.htm

Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study. XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.
J Am Dent Assoc. 1956 Mar;52(3):296-306. SCHLESINGER ER, OVERTON DE, CHASE HC, CANTWELL KT.
http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2006/01/human-experiment-predicts-fluoride.html


"In making comparisonson these data it should be remembered that Muskegon started fluoridation in July 1951"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1551218&blobtype=pdf

Dentists Are Big Fat Liars

May 10, 2007

Dentists Are Big Fat Liars

By Sally Stride

Dentists have been very derelict in their duty to educate Americans about the real reason why they are getting more cavities. Poor nutrition and too much fluoride.

Sufficient intakes of protein, calcium, phosphorus, vitamins A, C, and D are required to form healthy teeth, according to the American Dental Association.

Most cavities happen in poor children. Poor children are deficient in almost all of the above nutrients, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Low Income Americans are also less likely to be able to afford nutrient dense fruits and vegetables to satisfy the 7-9 servings required daily to keep healthy.

There are zero, nada, zip, NO studies showing any American child is fluoride deficient. In fact, the opposite is true. Loads of studies show American Children get way over recommended levels of fluoride from many sources - not just drinking water. And there is NO dispute between those for and against fluoridation that too much fluoride is harmful and can actually damage teeth (dental fluorosis).

In fact, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control, recognizing this problem, both advise that infant formulas should not be mixed with fluoridated water to avoid dental fluorosis which now occurs in about 50% of U.S. schoolchildren, according to the CDC.

Fluoride is inhaled via ocean mist, cold mist humidifiers, showers, and air pollution. It's a component of cigarette smoke, coal burning, brick, fertilizer, aluminum and other industrial air emissions. Fluoride is naturally high in tea and ocean fish and, because of fluoride containing pesticide residues, in some grape juices. Fluoride is in chicken baby food in concentrations high enough to cause dental fluorosis in the child if consumed daily. Any product made with mechanically deboned chicken such as chicken nuggets, vienna sausages and baby food contains bone dust. Bones contain fluoride.

Since the EPA now allows sulfuryl fluoride to be used as a fumigant on many foods, even more foods will contain fluoride.

Unfortunately, most dentists compelling us to drink more fluoride don't know this and won't be able to discern when and how you've reach fluoride saturation.

Dentists are holding our poor children hostage and won't actually treat their dental disease unless the government gives them more money. In my opinion, they should be fined or sued for allowing this dental health crisis to occur on their watch.

Fluoridation is just a diversion to distract you from the real tragedy facing the poor - lack of dentists who really care.

If a dentist says your child requires more fluoride, he or she is either lying or fluoride-ignorant.

Authors Website: http://www.fluoridedangers.blogspot.com

Fluoride Not Reducing Cavities

Plans are underway to add unnecessary fluoride chemicals into Corning NY's Water Supply, not to purify the water, but to treat water drinkers' teeth. Modern science shows that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of tax dollars. Here's why:

New York State Department of Health statistics (2) illustrate fluoridation’s inability to equalize cavity rates between low and high socio-economic-status (SES) groups, and show that fluoridation and tooth decay rates are not inversely related (3) See chart: http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/chart.htm

For example, non-fluoridated Nassau, Suffolk and Rockland Counties’ third-graders decay rates: 50, 54 and 46, percent respectively. In slightly fluoridated Albany County 38% have cavities.

Highly fluoridated NYS Counties include Monroe, Erie, Chemung, Broome, Wayne and Jefferson. Third-graders decay rates: 56, 59, 55, 63,66 and 66, percent respectively.

There is no evidence that any Corning resident is fluoride deficient. However, 40% of Steuben County low-income third graders have unfilled cavities (3a) mirroring a national trend of dentists unwilling or unable to treat the population with the most need. Fluoridation is an illusory remedy.

Despite fluoridated water reaching about ¾ of New Yorkers, 54% of third-graders have cavities and more untreated decay than third-graders nationally (33% vs 26%). Only one-fourth of NYS dentists submitted Medicaid claims (4).However, NYS dentists income was $1.8 billion in 2005 - up from $1.7 billion in 2004. (4a)

Third-graders in 100% fluoridated New York City had more untreated cavities (38%) than their state and national counterparts (4).

Before organized dentistry became fluoride fixated, a 1950 Connecticut study, before fluoridation, clearly linked more fruit, vegetable and milk consumption to less cavities (5) Dentist Weston Price reported a similar correlation world-wide in his 1938 book, “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.”

Today Connecticut mandates fluoridation. Yet 48% of 4-year-olds suffer untreated cavities (6) partially because 85% of dentists won’t or can’t treat patients with low-paying government-sponsored insurance (7).

A very recent Illinois study (7a) shows that, despite a state-wide fluoridation mandate, 70% of Spanish-speaking-only third-graders have cavities compared to 50% of English-speaking-only third-graders. Clearly water fluoridation had no effect in reducing minority oral health disparities in Illinois just as it hasn't in New York State, Connecticut and elsewhere.

After 60 years of water fluoridation reaching 2/3 of Americans via public water supplies, virtually 100% via the food supply and fluoridated dental products a multi-billion dollar international business, up to ½ of U.S. schoolchildren sport fluoride overdose symptoms as dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow or brown, sometimes pitted teeth (8) But tooth decay is still a national epidemic, especially among low-income Americans who can't find dentists willing or able to fix their rotting teeth.

Regardless of fluoride intake, modern science continues to show that young children with fewer cavities eat more produce (9). Only 12% of US kids eat enough fruits and vegetables.(10) And, the poor are priced out of healthful eating. (10a)

Children need dental care not more fluoride. In fluoridated Arlington, Texas, 61 percent of children examined had active decay After dentists donated their services, tooth decay was cut to less than half of what it was when the program started.(13)

Nationally, up to 48% of poor children, 8-year–olds and under, have unfilled cavities, whether their water is fluoridated or not. (13a).

Unfortunately, fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data
presented in a recent National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report.

According to Dr. Robert Carton, retired Environmental Protection Agency scientist , "Scientists now believe that fluoride at low doses causes the following health effects: bone fractures, dental fluorosis (loss of tooth enamel), arthritis (inflammation in the joints), brain damage (actual destruction of cells), thyroid dysfunction, and possibly bone cancer (osteosarcoma). Besides thyroid damage, it cites other effects on the hormone system including impaired glucose tolerance (Type II diabetes) and earlier sexual maturity." Dr. Carton's full analysis of the NRC report is published in the Fluoride Journal here: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf

References:

More evidence that fluoridation fails New York State:

http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/fluoridation-fails-new-york-state.html

(1) U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, “Dental Care Improving Access and Quality”

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/dentalcare/dentria.htm#poor

And

U.S. General Accounting Organization, “Oral Health Factors Contributing to Low Use of Dental Services by Low-Income Populations,” September 2000

http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00149.pdf

(1a) "Disparities in Oral Health and Access to Care: Findings of National Surveys," by Edelstein Ambulatory Pediatrics, March-April 2002

(2) New York State Department of Health, Community Health Assessment Indicators (Oral Health) http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/chac/chai/index.htm

(3) Fluoridation rate of NYS Counties provided by Tim Cook, DDS, former NYS Dep’t of Health employee

(3a) http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/chac/chai/docs/ora_steuben.htm

(4) The Impact of Oral Disease in New York State,” New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Dental Health, December 2006, Green et al (page 8)

http://www.nyhealth.gov/prevention/dental/docs/impact_of_oral_disease.pdf )

(4a) http://www.eyeonwashington.com/agd/ (click on State)

(5) Potgieter, M., Morse, E.H., Erlenbach, F. M., and Dall, R.: The food habits and dental status of some Connecticut children. J. Dent. Res., 35:638. 1956

http://tinyurl.com/2lagfg

(6) Connecticut State Department of Public Health, “Open Wide Curriculum – Lesson 1: Dental Decay,” http://www.dph.state.ct.us/bch/oralhealth/publications_reports/openwide_curriculum/OW_Lesson_1.pdf

(7) “Elements of effective action to improve oral health & access to dental care for Connecticut’s children & families,” Commissioned by Connecticut Health Foundation and Children’s Fund of Connecticut, Prepared by James J. Crall, DDS, ScD and Burton L. Edelstein DDS, MPH (page 4)

http://www.cthealth.org/matriarch/documents/oralhealthsum.pdf

(7a)

http://www.voices4kids.org/KC07chap1.pdf (page 7)

(8) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s403a1t23.gif

(9) “The relationship between healthful eating practices and dental caries in children aged 2-5 years in the United States, 1988-94,” J. Am Dent Assoc, January 2004, by Dye et al.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14959875&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

(10) “U.S. Kids’ Health Habits Put Them at Risk,” Healthscout.com, Jan 26, 2007 http://www.healthscout.com/news/1/601319/main.html

(10a) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0129-06.htm

(11) http://www.anthc.org/cs/chs/dhs/

(12) http://www.anthc.org/cs/chs/dhs/upload/UAATheNothernLight-DentalDebateGoesToCourt_2-21-06_AFleming.pdf

(12b) http://www.adn.com/front/story/8566500p-8459175c.html

(13) http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/16566335.htm

(13a)http://drc.hhs.gov/report/dqs_tables/dqs_1_1_1.htm

(14)

http://www.colgateprofessional.com/app/ColgateProfessional/US/EN/Products/ProductItems/ColgateDuraphat.cvsp

(15) http://groups.google.com/group/Fluoridation-News-Releases/browse_thread/thread/51981fb711662057

(16) http://www.aapd.org/pediatricinformation/faq.asp

http://www.fluoridedangers.blogspot.com

Fluoride Expert: Fluoride Perilous

GUEST VIEW: The evidence that fluoride is harmful is overwhelming by Hardy Limeback PhD DDS

"In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation," writes Limeback.

Dr. Limeback was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the 2006 report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards." Dr. Limeback a dentist, researcher and an associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto.

The argument against fluoridation is strong when all the points listed below are taken together.

1. Fluoridation is no longer effective.

Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth eruption and, therefore, simply delays dental decay (Komarek et al, 2005, Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation work are over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous modern studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia (Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology. 32:283-96). Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al 2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).

Public health services will claim there is a dental decay crisis. With the national average in the U.S. of only two decayed teeth per child (World Health Organization data), down from more than 15 decayed teeth in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as much as half of all children grow up not having a single filling. This remarkable success has been achieved in other developed countries without fluoridation. The "crisis" of dental decay in the U.S. often mentioned is the result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially soda pop. A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of their daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft drinks are themselves fluoridated, the small amount of fluoride is obviously not helping.

The families of these children with rampant dental decay need professional assistance. Are they getting it? Children who grow up in low-income families make poor dietary choices, and cannot afford dental care. Untreated dental decay and lack of professional intervention result in more dental decay. The York review was unable to show that fluoridation benefited poor people.

Similarly, early dental decay in nursing infants (baby bottle syndrome) cannot be prevented with water fluoridation. The majority of dentists in the U.S. do not accept Medicaid patients because they lose money treating these patients. Dentists support fluoridation programs because it absolves them of their responsibility to provide assistance to those who cannot afford dental treatment. Even cities where water fluoridation has been in effect for years are reporting similar dental "crises."

Public health officials responsible for community programs are misleading the public by stating that ingesting fluoride "makes the teeth stronger." Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It does not make developing teeth better prepared to resist dental decay before they erupt into the oral environment. The small benefit that fluoridated water might still have on teeth (in the absence of fluoridated toothpaste use) is the result of "topical" exposure while the teeth are rebuilding from acid challenges brought on by daily sugar and starch exposure (Limeback 1999, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71), and this has now been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control.


2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis.

Fluoride doses by the end user can't be controlled when only one concentration of fluoride (1 parts per million) is available in the drinking water. Babies and toddlers get too much fluoride when tap water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback, 2003 Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily fluoride comes from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006).

We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third child with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek extensive restorative work costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).


3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for safety.

All the animal cancer studies were done on pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride. There is more than enough evidence to show that even this fluoride has the potential to promote cancer. Some communities use sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even that chemical is not the same fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities instead use hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6 is concentrated directly from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants and trickled directly into the drinking water. It is industrial grade fluoride contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium, which are harmful to humans at the levels that are being added to fluoridate the drinking water. In addition, using hydrofluorosilicic acid instead of industrial grade sodium fluoride has an added risk of increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al 2000, Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found in the pipes of old houses. This could not be ruled out by the CDC in their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134).


4. There are serious health risks from water fluoridation.

Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been identified as a risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr. Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the seven-fold increase risk of bone cancer.

Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per million increases your risk for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride accumulates in bone, the same risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day of artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per million, or in people with renal disease. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown that fluoride is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in patients who retain too much fluoride.

Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy of Sciences report (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Fluoridation should be halted on the basis that endocrine function in the U.S. has never been studied in relation to total fluoride intake.

Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. While some recent Chinese studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (NAS, 2006), we need to study this more in depth in North America.



Date of Publication: May 14, 2006 on Page B02

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-06/05-14-06/02opinion.htm

Fluoride Supplements: Don't Use Them

“Ten year old, Gradon..., got some nasty news from his dentist and it wasn’t a cavity,” reports CBC-TV. “I saw this yellow stuff and thought it was my toothpaste and kept trying to wash it off; but it wouldn’t come off,” says Gradon.

Those patches are fluorosis a condition that shocks many parents because of the cause - too much fluoride. “It was even a bigger surprise to his pediatric dentist - he’s Gradon’s father,” said the Canadian broadcaster. (1)

“We don’t really know how much fluoride it takes to cause fluorosis; and it’s not something we really knew much about ten years ago,” said the Canadian dentist in 1998.

Fluoride overdose symptoms can range from mild, white spots on teeth to moderate and severe fluorosis - yellow, brown or black and sometimes pitted and crumbling teeth.

Things haven’t changed much since 1998. Many American dentists and pediatricians still routinely prescribe fluoride supplements to babies and toddlers believing they prevent tooth decay. Never FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) approved (2), fluoride supplements do more harm than good(8.

Fluoride’s alleged beneficial effects are topical, not systemic as once believed. Scientists discovered old fluoride studies are flawed (3) and that swallowing fluoride discolors teeth but doesn’t reduce tooth decay.

This is why mainstream dental groups such as the Canadian Dental Association, the Western Australia Health Department's Dental Service and the German Scientific Dental Association stopped recommending routine fluoride supplementation. And, if dentists believe children with severe decay must be given a topical fluoride supplement,such as lozenges, dentists are urged to wait until the child is older than 7 years when fluoride will no longer discolor the permanent teeth.

Fluoride was mistakenly discovered as a decay-preventative in the early 1900’s when Americans drinking naturally calcium-fluoridated water supplies displayed cavity-free, discolored teeth. Fluoride stains teeth from the inside. So dentists assumed fluoride prevented cavities, also. But, they overlooked calcium, magnesium and other teeth building components in the water supplies.

Those early studies are dismissed as inaccurate. Still not ready to give up on fluoride, dentists claim fluoride must work topically. However, no well done studies exist comparing cavity rates between similar populations of fluoride users vs. fluoride non users.

Neither a nutrient nor essential to health, fluoride is simply used as a drug to treat tooth decay. Unlike vitamin and mineral supplements often discouraged in favor of a balanced diet, fluoride supplements are encouraged by the medical establishment even though slightly more than recommended leads to adverse effects and no American child is fluoride deficient.

Fluoride is so toxic that children have died from swallowing too much(4).

Knighted fluoride experts by the media and other physicians, dentists often are painfully ignorant about fluoride’s adverse effects and toxicity.

Dental researchers gobble up government grant money to study fluoride but fail to reveal their negative fluoride findings to the tax-paying public and, even more importantly, to the dentists who treat them.

In order to influence California legislators to vote for fluoridation, a dentist swallowed a whole vial of fluoride tablets in front of them and then said ‘Hey, guess what? I’m still alive.’”(5) A similar stunt by a child could have been lethal.

Warnings on the back of fluoridated toothpaste tubes and boxes are there because, if a small child swallowed the whole tube, he or she could die (4). Children died from swallowing too many fluoride pills. One child died after swallowing instead of expectorating his dentist’s fluoride treatment. The dentist didn’t think it was toxic. People have become sickened and died because water engineers injected too much fluoride into water supplies.

Over 65% of America is fluoridated and virtually all Americans consume fluoride in their foods, beverages and dental products. One would expect tooth decay would be obliterated by those fluoridated toothpastes, mouthrinses, supplements, dental treatments, varnishes and water supplies as predicted.

Instead tooth decay rates climb. And so do dental fluorosis rates, with more children displaying moderate and severe symptoms than ever before(6).

The only prediction of future tooth decay is present tooth decay. And the only sure thing linked to extensive tooth decay is poverty.

Prescribing fluoride supplements to toothless or cavity-free children is absolutely ludicrous. Prescribing fluoride to children with loads of cavities won't help. Fixing their diet will have better long term results with only beneficial side effects. Fluoride can't change the consequences of a poor diet.

"The notion that systemic fluorides are needed in nonfluoridated areas is an outdated one that should be abandoned altogether," says Canada's leading fluoride authority, Hardy Limeback, head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto and past president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research. “Fluoride gets into every cell of the body and can especially damage the bones and teeth." says Limeback.

END

References:
(1)http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Sci-Tech&story=/news/1998/12/29/fluoride981229

(2)http://www.citizens.org/Food_water_safety/Fluoridation/Materials/web_pages/letter%20_%20to_FDA.htm
and
Crystal Wyand, spokesperson, FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, e-mail correspondence.

(3) http://consensus.nih.gov/news/releases/115_release.htm
and British Medical Journal (B.M.J.), October 7, 2000,McDonagh, et al

(4) "The Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride," by Gary Whitford

(5) Journal of the California Dental Association, January 1997, “The Fluoride Victory,” by Joanne Boyd

(6) Journal of the American Dental Association, February 2002

(7)http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/03/08/financial1058EST0079.DTL

(8)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10682335&dopt=Abstract

Sally Stride
http://www.fluoridedangers.blogspot.com

CDC recommendations Part 2

CDC: “Two studies reported that extended consumption of infant formula beyond age 10--12 months was a risk factor for enamel fluorosis, especially when formula concentrate was mixed with fluoridated water...The Iowa study also reported that infant formula and processed baby food contained variable amounts of fluoride.”

ME: So are you asking formula and baby foods also be fluoride labeled?

CDC: silence

ME: So, if ingested fluoride doesn’t reduce tooth decay and if saliva fluoride levels aren’t high enough to prevent tooth decay, what good is fluoridation?

CDC: “ drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold.”

ME: When I do the math this works out to 0.6 ppm to 6 ppm in non-fluoridated communities and 1.6 - 16 ppm in fluoridated communities. Isn’t that high enough to cause fluorosis since all fluorides get absorbed into the bloodstream via the mucous membranes of the mouth and some fluoridated dental products get swallowed inadvertently.

CDC: The concentration returns to previous levels within 1--2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization.

ME: Assuming you haven’t brushed away the plaque. But you didn’t answer my fluorosis question.

CDC: “Some persons choose to modify this condition with elective cosmetic treatment”

ME: Is this cost factored into the cost/benefit of water fluoridation?

CDC: “most persons would be classified as low risk (for cavities) at any given time.”

ME: There you go again changing the subject. So, if the dentist isn’t sure, he/she treats my child as a low risk cavity person.

CDC: “when classification is uncertain, treating a person as high risk is prudent until further information or experience allows a more accurate assessment. This assumption increases the immediate cost of caries prevention or treatment and might increase the risk for enamel fluorosis for children aged <6 years...”

ME: So you’d rather make more money and give my kid fluorosed teeth than give less fluoride which you say doesn’t work inside the teeth or outside a clean tooth. To tell you the truth I’m doubting the necessity of fluoride at all, doc. What else should I know?

CDC: “Adherence to the recommendations in this report regarding appropriate use of fluoride for children aged <6 years will reduce the prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis”

ME: Why, is there a problem?

CDC: “The U.S. Publc Health Service (PHS) developed recommendations in the 1940s and 1950s regarding fluoride concentrations in public water supplies. At that time, public
health officials assumed that drinking water would be the major source of fluoride for most U.S. residents.”

ME: Assumed?

CDC: “...fluoride-containing products, including toothpaste (i.e., dentifrice), mouthrinse, dietary supplements, and professionally applied or prescribed gel, foam, or varnish. In addition, processed beverages, which constitute an increasing proportion of the diets of many U.S. residents and food can contain small amounts of fluoride, especially if they are processed with fluoridated water. Thus, U.S. residents have more sources of fluoride available now than 50 years ago.

ME: You forgot fluoride in medicines, inhaled and absorbed fluoride from ocean mist, fluoridated shower and bath water and cold mist humidifiers as well as fluoride air pollution from industry emissions, coal burning, electric plants, and even volcanoes. OK, so I know a little about fluoride.

CDC: “...The United States does not have comprehensive recommendations for caries prevention and control through various combinations of fluoride modalities. Adoption of such recommendations could...(reduce) the prevalence of enamel fluorosis...”

ME: What do I do in the meantime?

CDC: “...attention to fluoride intake among children aged <6 years to decrease the risk for enamel fluorosis.”

ME: I understand that dentists are taught to prescribe fluoride supplements for all children over 6 months who live in non-fluoridated or low fluoride communities.

CDC: “Fluoride supplements can be prescribed for children at high risk for dental caries and whose primary drinking water has a low fluoride concentration.”

ME: Oh so it’s only for children at high risk of cavities.

CDC: “For children aged <6 years, the dentist, physician, or other health-care provider should weigh the risk for caries without fluoride supplements, the caries prevention offered by supplements, and the potential for enamel fluorosis.”

ME: Why is that?

CDC: “A few studies have reported no association between supplement use by children aged <6 years and enamel fluorosis but most have reported a clear association.”

ME: So, no supplements for my 5 year old. But do supplements reduce tooth decay?

CDC: “The evidence for using fluoride supplements to mitigate dental caries is mixed.”

ME: Even this, you are not sure of?

CDC: “fluoride supplements also could increase the risk for enamel fluorosis at this age” (6 and under)…”

ME: What about all that science you said you had to support their use?

CDC: “Many studies of the effectiveness of fluoride supplements in preventing dental caries among children aged <6 years have been flawed in design and conduct.”

ME: Oh, so fluoride supplements are more likely to cause fluorosis than decrease tooth decay in the under six year old group. So now your supplement and fluoridation studies are flawed. I guess those anti-fluoridationists were right all along. What else?

CDC: “Consideration of the child's other sources of fluoride, especially drinking water, is essential in determining this balance. Parents and caregivers should be informed of both the benefit of protection against dental caries and the possibility of enamel fluorosis.”

ME: No dentist ever told me the risks of fluoride. So that’s a good one. What else.

CDC: “Parents and caregivers should consult a dentist or other health-care provider before introducing a child aged <2 years to fluoride toothpaste.”

ME: How about fluoride treatments at the dentist

CDC: “Whether fluoride varnish or gel would be most efficiently used in clinical programs targeting groups at high risk for dental caries or should be reserved for individual patients at high risk is unclear.”

ME: What about low risk people?

CDC: “Routine use of professionally applied fluoride gel or foam likely provides little benefit to persons not at high risk for dental caries, especially those who drink fluoridated water and brush daily with fluoride toothpaste.”

ME: Oy. What else?

CDC “Parents and caregivers should not provide additional fluoride to children aged <6 years without consulting a dentist or other health-care provider regarding the associated benefits and potential for enamel fluorosis.”

ME: Sounds reasonable to me; I just hope my dentist knows all this stuff. They say many doctors get their medical information from the media. The media told us 100 million Americans are deprived of fluoride but that’s not what you are telling me.

ME: What’s up with these school fluoridation programs?

CDC: “ a fluoride concentration of 4.5 times the optimal concentration … to compensate for the more limited consumption of fluoridated water. At the peak of this practice in the early 1980s, a total of 13 states had initiated school water fluoridation in 470 schools serving 170,000 children

ME: How many now?

CDC: “... the current extent of this practice is not known.

ME: I think that’s something you should know.

ME: What about fluoride mouthrinses.

CDC: “The National Preventive Dentistry Demonstration Program (NPDDP), a large project conducted in 10 U.S. cities during 1976-1981 to compare the cost and effective-ness of combinations of caries-prevention procedures, reported that fluoride mouthrinse had little effect among schoolchildren, either among first-grade students with high and low caries experience or among all second- and fifth-grade students”

ME: Why am I not surprised. What about school fluoride mouthrinse programs?

CDC: Throughout the 1980s, approximately 3 million children in the United States participated in school-based fluoride mouthrinsing programs

ME: What about now?

CDC: “The current extent of such programs is not known.”

ME: Again, you don’t know? What do you know.

CDC: “Use of fluoride supplements by pregnant women does not benefit their offspring”

ME: You crafty little devils conveniently left unmentioned that the fluorides used to fluoridate drinking water are mostly silicofluorides, waste products of the fertilizer industry, contaminated with arsenic, lead, and more, which have never been safety tested in humans or animals according to the EPA. (See http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/letter.jpg)

THE END


The actual CDC from which this is dervied can be found here:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm