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

UK Against Fluoridation

Monday, February 13, 2012

USA - Don't fluoridate N.J. water

By Paul Connett, James Beck and Spedding Micklem
When we wrote our book, “The Case Against Fluoride” (Chelsea Green, 2010), we hoped that it would raise the level of debate on water fluoridation. So we were disappointed that, as the New Jersey Legislature considers a bill that would require fluoride in all public water supplies, The Star-Ledger Editorial Board (editorial, Feb. 2) did not temper its acceptance of the standard pro-fluoridation arguments with some recognition that serious scientific controversy exists.
There are two fundamental scientific questions on water fluoridation: 1) Does it work? 2) Is it safe?
Does it work?
Unfortunately, promoters of fluoridation routinely exaggerate its benefits. The largest survey of tooth decay in the United States was conducted by the National Institute for Dental Research in 1986-87. The authors claimed an 18 percent to 25 percent average reduction in caries in the permanent teeth of 5- to 17-year-olds living in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. On that basis, they stated: “The results suggest that water fluoridation has played a dominant role in the decline in caries and must continue to be a major prevention methodology.”

It is difficult to agree with that conclusion when one realizes that the actual saving was just six-tenths of one tooth surface. The absolute saving was less than 1 percent of the 128 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth. A large survey in Australia yielded similar results.

Most countries, including most of Europe, do not fluoridate their water (a handful fluoridate their salt), but World Health Organization data show that tooth decay in 12-year-olds in these countries is as good if not better than in fluoridated ones.

Even promoters of fluoridation now agree that fluoride works through contact with the tooth surface, rather than by incorporation into developing enamel. So this dispute comes down to whether the government should put fluoride in everyone’s water so that it might eventually end up in the saliva to deliver this topical action, or whether people should apply it directly using fluoridated toothpaste. The first approach exposes every tissue of the body to a toxic substance and the second approach avoids that and also avoids forcing it upon people who don’t want it.
Is it safe?
So is it safe to deliver fluoride to babies at a concentration up to 250 times the low level present in mothers’ milk? The CDC reports that 41 percent of American children aged 12 to 15 have dental fluorosis, a condition caused by overexposure to fluoride before permanent teeth have erupted. For about 4 percent, it disfigures the whole surface of the enamel, which can cause distress. For more than 60 years, fluoridation promoters have taken a leap of faith that, while fluoride is causing this damage, it is not damaging other tissues in the body. Much of the fluoride we ingest accumulates in the skeleton and pineal gland, affecting their structure and probably their function.

A study conducted in New Jersey found an increased rate of osteosarcoma in young men in the fluoridated communities of three counties. In 2006, a study from Harvard indicated that exposure to fluoridated water in young boys during their 6th, 7th and 8th years was associated with a five- to seven-fold increased risk of developing this frequently fatal bone cancer. This detailed and careful study indicates that fluoridation may be killing a few young men each year. It has not been refuted. Is that a price worth paying for a small reduction or delay in tooth decay?

One of the concerns of a landmark review by the National Research Council in 2006 was fluoride’s ability to damage the brain. There have now been 25 studies showing that naturally occurring fluoride can lower the IQ of children. None of these studies is completely convincing, but they are numerous, and one well-conducted study found a threshold for this effect at 1.9 ppm.

Any risk to one’s child’s intelligence seems a poor trade-off for half a tooth surface.

Opponents argue that fluoridation policy should invoke the precautionary principle. If there is evidence of harm, even if there is no proof, don’t do it. Especially if there is little benefit and alternative strategies are available. The precautionary principle seems like common sense to many people, especially when one is dealing with something as fundamental as the public water supply. But it is like a red rag to some vocal fluorophiles, who deride opponents as “Chicken Little” storytellers, fear mongers and worse.

So, finally, what do we think, after due consideration from a scientific standpoint? That’s easy: “Fluoridate N.J.? Are you crazy?”

Paul Connett is an emeritus professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University, New York; James Beck is an emeritus professor of medical biophysics, University of Calgary; Spedding Micklem is an emeritus professor of biological sciences at the University of Edinburgh.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home