Fluoride Foes Win the Year - Scientifically & Politically

New York - January 16, 2006 - Fluoride, added to water supplies, is touted as a tooth decay preventive. Science increasingly shows fluoridation is ineffective, harmful and a waste of money. But the politics of organized dentistry keeps fluoridated water flowing.

Last year, 2005, was a very successful year for the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and their affiliated groups for getting the truth out and bringing negative fluoride science to the media’s attention.

Voters rejected fluoridation in at least nine referenda including Bellingham, Washington, where fluoridationists spent $260,000 to lose against a small group of volunteers armed with the truth and very little cash. Eight legislative bodies rebuffed fluoridation. Five state mandates were deflected. Another study linked fluoridation to bone cancer. Several others point to fluoride's harm. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) professionals ask for a fluoridation moratorium.

FAN together with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Beyond Pesticides ask the EPA to revoke their approval of fumigant sulfuryl fluoride because it adds harmful levels of fluoride residues to foods - at levels even your dentist wouldn't recommend.

We captured the media’s attention. FAN members appeared on TV, radio and in print. And there were many other highlights. Some are detailed below

1) Voters Reject Fluoridation: • Neosho, Missouri: April 5, 2005 • Hood River, Oregon: May 2005 * • Greymouth, New Zealand October 7, 2005 • Bellingham, Washington: 53-47% Against Fluoridation: November 8, 2005 (see letter in 12. below). • Tooele, Utah: 66-34% Against Fluoridation: November 8, 2005 • Springfield, Ohio: 57-43% Against Fluoridation: November 8, 2005 • Xenia, Ohio: 63-37% Against Fluoridation: November 8, 2005 • Mammoth Lakes, California: 72-28% Against : November 8, 2005 * • Golden, BC, Canada: 69-31% Against Fluoridation: November 2005

* Pure Water Initiatives - prohibits addition of industrial waste or any substance causing maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) to be exceeded. Please note the MCLG for both lead and arsenic is ZERO.

2) Legislative bodies reject fluoridation: • Snohomish, Washington: January 2005 • Pagosa Springs, Colorado March 2005 • Bonney Lake, Washington, Approves Alternative to Fluoridation • Water on Okinawa bases no longer fluoridated • North Attleboro Board of Health, Massachusetts • Battlefield, MO October 2005 • Homer, New York: November 1, 2005 • Hampton, Iowa December 13, 2005

4) FAN finds bone cancer study "buried" at Harvard and EWG touches off firestorm:

a) In January 2005, thanks to information from silicofluoride expert Myron Coplan, FAN members obtained copies of key sections of a 2001 Harvard PhD thesis strongly associating fluoride in drinking water to the incidence of osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer) in young males. Dr. Elise Bassin had successfully defended this thesis in 2001. Despite its revelations of a life threatening disease related to low fluoride exposure these findings were not shared by Bassin's thesis advisor with the scientific community, US regulators or the public. This information only came out because FAN made copies of the relevant sections avilable. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/bassin-2001.pdf

b) Based on Bassin's thesis and other studies, EWG asked the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health to list fluoride in tap water as a carcinogen. http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20050606/index.php

c) EWG also petitioned the National Institutes of Environmental Health to investigate the apparent cover-up and misrepresentation of the conclusions of the thesis by Bassin's mentor Chester W. Douglass -- a Harvard Professor and editor of a Colgate newsletter. http://www.ewg.org/issues_content/fluoride/20050627/pdf/ltr_strother_20050627.pdf

5) Eleven U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Unions call for fluoridation moratorium:

In light of the Harvard research linking fluoridation with childhood bone cancer, and in light of many previous studies, eleven U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals employed by the EPA, ask for a fluoridation moratorium and congressional hearings looking into the safety of water fluoridation. In a letter to EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, they also ask for a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for fluoride in drinking water.

The Protect Our Water Alliance (POWA) organized an online petition in support of these federal EPA professionals who are sworn to protect our health: http://www.powalliance.org/petition

The petition has over 9,000 signatures, so far, including 343 Medical, 168 Nurses, 104 Dentists, 18 Registered Dental Hygienists, 538 with higher academic degrees, 40 members of the legal profession, 1 State Senator (Hawaii), the National Toxics Campaign Director for Greenpeace, USA, as well as the officers of many other state environmental organizations.

6) More scientific studies indicate fluoride's dangers at low levels and fluoridation's ineffectiveness :

Erdal S, Buchanan SN. (2005). A quantitative look at fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and intake in children using a health risk assessment approach. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:111-7.

This study, published in Jan '05, provides an analysis of total fluoride intake in children. It finds that some children are ingesting too much fluoride. To quote:

"the findings of this health risk assessment study support concerns that a segment of the infant and child population in the United States may be exposed to amounts of fluoride greater than the optimum level for caries prevention... This raises questions about the continued need for fluoridation in the U.S. municipal water supply to protect against the risk of fluorosis."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) releases findings of a 1999-2002 national survey showing that 32% of American children now have dental fluorosis, an increase of 9% since the last national survey in 1986-87. See: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#tab2

Liu JL, et al. (2005). [The dose-effect relationship of water fluoride levels and renal damage in children] Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 34:287-8.

This Chinese study found that children drinking water with > 2 ppm fluoride are at increased risk for kidney disease. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/news/25.html

Eichmiller et al. (2005) Controlling the fluoride dosage in a patient with compromised salivary function. Journal of the American Dental Association.

"The combination of gastric problems, difficulty in swallowing, leg muscle pain, and pain in the knee and hip joints is a key indicator of fluoride toxicity, and patients using high-concentration home fluoride treatments should be monitored for these symptoms."

Whyte et al. (2005) Skeletal fluorosis and instant tea. American Journal of Medicine. Woman's bone and joint pain diagnosed as fluoride toxicity in a woman consuming excessive quantities of instant tea.

Komarek et al. (2005). A Bayesian analysis of multivariate doubly-interval-censored dental data. Biostatistics 6:145-55.

This study, from a European team, utilized a large set of dental data to investigate the impact of ingested fluoride (as reflected by the presence/absence of dental fluorosis) on cavity rates. According to the authors:

"Our analysis shows no convincing effect of fluoride-intake on caries development... This agrees with current guidelines for the use of fluoride in caries prevention, where only the topical application (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is considered to be essential."

Mullenix, P.J. (2005) Fluoride Poisoning A Puzzle with Hidden Pieces. International Journal of Environmental Health.

In this article Mullenix reveals hidden industrial studies which indicated fluoride's potential damage to workers which if known would have necessitated reduction of acceptable air concentration levels in the work place. See: http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/IJOEH_1104_Mullenix.pdf

See http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health for a comprehensive discussion of fluoride's health effects.

7) Throughout 2005, FAN has kept the NRC panel reviewing the toxicology of fluoride in water (expected to report back in eary 2006) fully informed on the latest scientific findings and revelations:

FAN's submissions have included a thorough analysis of the Bassin thesis as well a review of the other studies which have invesitgated a possible connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/fan-nrc.part1.pdf http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/fan-nrc.part2.pdf

8) FAN, EWG and Beyond Pesticides appeal EPA's approval of the use of Sulfuryl Fluoride on food:

FAN, EWG and Beyond Pesticides intervened on EPA's approval of very high fluoride residues on food as a result of approving DowAgroSciences's application for first-use of Sulfuryl Fluoride as a fumigant on food. This includes 900 ppm on powdered eggs! By comparison kids are told to spit out toothpaste containing 1000 ppm fluoride.

FAN is confident that this intervention will lead to an evidentiary hearing in 2006 and thus force fluoride apologists to testify and be cross-examined under oath. This could ahve huge ramifications for water fluroidation because the EPA's health risk is predicated on the dated and scientifically undefendable MCLG for fluroide of 4 ppm. http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/sf.press.release.12-21-05.html

• KGMI talk radio (Clear Channel Communications) hosted a 1 hour debate between San Diego dentist David Kennedy and BFFF Co-chair, pediatrician Ken Gass. It was followed by a 1 hour call-in program the next day for public discussion on the debate.

• Lynn Campbell, Executive Director, Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water debated Oregon's top fluoride promoter and dentist on Oregon Public Broadcasting.

• Paul Connett, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network debates NY dentist on the Mike Gallagher radio show

• National Public Radio, "All Things Considered," covers Bellingham, WA, story and interviews Paul Connett

• Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation debates New York State Dental Association dentist on local NYC NBC-TV news show

• Mike Connett, Project Director, FAN, debates Vermont State Dental Director on Vermont Public Radio.

• Detroit Free Press, "Toothpaste label revs up some anxiety," by Susan Ager, January 13, 2005

• News Observer, "Water treatment process called potential risk; Chemicals mix with plumbing could put lead in tap water, by Jerry Allegood May 2005

• Philadelphia Inquirer, "It's a drug - with potentially harmful side effects," by Sharon Finlayson, June 3, 2005

• New York Post, "Fluoridated Water a Bone Danger," by Andy Soltis, June 8, 2005

• U.K. Observer, "Fluoride water 'causes cancer' Boys at risk from bone tumours, shock research reveals," by Bob Woffinden, June 12, 2005

• First Magazine, " Thyroid Discovery: New research links sneaky sources of fluoride with tiredness and weight gain," June 13, 2005

• Irish Independent, "Dentists Demand End to 'Cancer Risk' Fluoride in Water," by Treacy Hogan, June 14, 2005

• Irish Times, "Call for ban on addition of fluoride to water," by Alison Healy, June 15, 2005

• Burlington Free Press, "Does fluoridated water still make sense?" by John Briggs, June 15, 2005

• Burlington Free Press, "Contradictory scientific studies raise questions about fluoride safety" by John Briggs, June 23, 2005

• Boston Herald, "Claim: Doctor fudged fluoride findings," by Jessica Heslam, June 28, 2005

• Boston Herald, "Harvard launches probe in dental research flap," by Jessica Heslam, June 29, 2005

• Harvard Crimson, "Dental school begins investigation of Prof: School probes accusations that Douglass misreported findings of cancer study," by Brendan R. Linn, July 1, 2005

• The Scientist, "School launches probe after accusations that faculty member misrepresented fluoride-cancer study," by Alison McCook, July 11, 2005

• Washington Post," Professor at Harvard Is Being Investigated Fluoride-Cancer Link May Have Been Hidden," By Juliet Eilperin, July 13, 2005;

• Associated Press "Did Harvard study downplay risk of fluoride? University to probe professor's research on water, bone cancer in boys," July 13, 2005

• Wall Street Journal, "Fluoridation, Cancer: Did Researchers Ask the Right Questions?" by Sharon Begley, July 22, 2005

• Biotech Business Week, "Fluoride in tap water linked to bone cancer," by staff, July 25, 2005

• Albany (Oregon) Democrat-Herald, "Fluoride bill left decaying in Salem," by Hasso Hering, July 25, 2005

• SL Weekly, Editorial "Bad to the Bone: Fluoride foes get help in shaking the crackpot label," August 11, 2005

• North West Indiana Times, "EPA unions call for halt to water fluoridation: Unions want review of chemical's benefits, dangers," by Phil Wieland, August 22, 2005

• Lawrence Journal-World, "Fluoride opponents' argument gains teeth", August 24, 2005

• Associated Press, "EPA unions call for moratorium on fluoride in drinking water", by Mathew Daly, August 31, 2005.

• Brattleboro Reformer, "Fluoride: How much, if any, is a good thing?" by Howard Weissman, September 15, 2005

• The Tennessean, "Some Rethink Fluoridation of Water: Debate weighs possible cancer risks vs tooth decay prevention," by Amy Green, September 19, 2005

• Harvard Crimson, "Professor's Research Reignites Fluoride-Cancer Correlation Debate With New Research", by Dan R. Rasmussen September 28, 2005

• Food Navigator, " Public health bodies slam new fluoride tolerance levels", October 3, 2005.

• TIME Magazine, "Not in My Water Supply: It hardens teeth and prevents cavities, but 60 years after it began, fluoridation is meeting new resistance," By Margot Roosevelt, Oct. 16, 2005

• New York Spirit, "Tap Water or Bottled? The Fluoride Issue," by Annemarie Colbin, Ph.D., November '05

- Associated Press, "Communities debate fluoride in water" (Vermont), November 26, 2005.

• Metro West Daily News, "The cost of no cavities: With Legislature considering fluoride mandate, health questions linger, " By Jon Brodkin November 27, 2005

• Daily Mail (Charleston WV), "Some oppose fluoride in water," by Jake Stumpp, November 28, 2005

• Metro West Daily News, "Editorial: Some second thoughts on fluoridation", November 29, 2005

• Metro West Daily News, "Fluoridation: Debate over safety is renewed," December 11, 2005

- Times Herald Record, "Fluorosis: Too Much of a Good Thing", December 28, 2005 10) Other Important Events: • Burlington, VT, Council passes resolution urging reduction of fluoride

. Burlington VT Board of Health recommends that infants should not receive fluoridated water August 31, 2005. See:

• FAN members protest the ADA/CDC Joint Fluoridation Celebration on July 13th in Chicago. See pictures:

• Dentists predicted fluoridation would put them out of business but the Wall Street Journal reports that dentists' make more money than physicians and work fewer days and fewer hours. "Dentists' pay tops doctors' Even with fewer cavities to fill, dentists' earnings are skyrocketing," MARK MAREMONT

• Many news reports show most dentists refuse Medicaid patients and that cavity rates are higher in fluoridated communities. See:

• UK Green political party "Fluoridation of our water is 'dangerous unscientific nonsense,'" November 14, 2005

• Robert Kennedy on fluoridation: “Don't trust dogma from trade groups... It is healthy to be skeptical of the American Dental Association,” The Hutchinson Collegian, November 18, 2005.

• Water Fluoridation "Obsolete" according to a FAN interview with recent Medicine/Physiology Nobel Prize Scientist Dr. Arvid Carlsson. Nations who still practice it "should feel ashamed of themselves" See:

• October 18, Horsham Rural City Council (Australia) delays vote on fluoridation despite being "ordered" by Victoria's Chief "health" Officer Dr. Robert Hall to proceed. Citizens group subsequently forms and is now fighting a major campaign there. (Getting Robert Hall out of government is as important to the health of the citizens of Victoria as getting fluoride out of the water! PC).

• European Directive comes into force on October 31 which could well make fluoridation illegal in the UK and Ireland.

11) A citizen from Bellingham, Washington sums up their victory and our continued struggle:

A small group of volunteers fought long and hard against a slick, well-funded campaign to put industrial fluoridated compounds in Bellingham's drinking water.

The pro-fluoridationists came in with a record-breaking amount of money in an attempt to sway a majority of voters. That effort and $260,000 spent, wasted.

Bellingham is a bellwether, it has been said. So with the defeat of Bellingham Initiative No. 1, the pro-fluoridationists made a huge blunder, one that will resonate across the country and even around the globe.

We exposed the misleading claims about the fraud called fluoridation. The truth was exposed under intense media scrutiny.

While some still firmly believe the fib that the product used for fluoridation is "safe and effective," I believe the reality is that the contaminated compound used in water fluoridation is a toxic stew containing fluoride.

It can also contain such toxins as lead, arsenic and mercury and has never been approved by the FDA or tested for water fluoridation.

The "better-educated voters" saw through the slick, glossy propaganda that big money provides. They said no to fluoridation and yes to safer water.

Behold, DENTISTS, the source of all evil!

Watch it sparky, I'm one of those evil dentists, and I know where you live.

(Hey, it isn't easy being omnipotent)

Anyway, I wish someone could FINALLY explain to me why dentists would conspire to put something in the water to REDUCE the number of cavities. Shouldn't it be the other way around???

One of my grand daughters had a problem with her teeth not developing the enamel properly. Fluoride treatments did help, however, the warnings on the bottle included not letting children swallow the stuff.

I question the use of fluoride in the water, simply because there is little contact time with the teeth, and significantly more with other tissues.

How can you "medicate" water with something that is found naturally in many area of the country (with absolutely no ill effects)

There are differences between naturally flouridated water and artificially flouridated water. Naturally flouridated water comes with calcium. Artificially flouridated water comes with other chemicals to keep the pipes from deteriorating.

Besides being completely inaccurate (where did you hear that???), it sounds like you have a problem with the "other chemicals", not the flouride. The two flouride ions in natural and treated water are indistinguishable.

And perhaps you could answer the question I posed in post #44?

Natural flouride is calcium flouride. The calcium itself helps fight cavities.

Cities are using sodium flouride, which comes from aluminum production hazardous waste. There are many scientists who are opposed to articial flouridation. Follow the money.

Natural flouride is calcium flouride. The calcium itself helps fight cavities.

Where do you get your information?

Here's a clue, there is no such thing as "natural" fluoride, and free fluoride ions are identical (look at the periodic table). Once a compound is put into water, a certain amount of that compound dissociates into it's component ions, for sodium fluoride, that would be sodium ions and fluoride ions. There is nothing dangerous about either the coumpound (does sodium chloride sound dangerous?) or the elemental ion.

Cities are using sodium flouride, which comes from aluminum production hazardous waste. There are many scientists who are opposed to articial flouridation. Follow the money.

Which brings up my question which you ignored, "what money?" Why in God's name would I recommend something that is going to reduce my income? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

You need to do some research. The idea for floridating cities came from research about cities where the well water had natural CALCIUM floride. But, rather than using the natural formula, they used waste products. Calcium has a positive impact in fighting cavities.

The aluminum companies make lots of money selling their hazardous waste. And they save millions buy not having to spend money disposing it.

After an admittedly cursory examination into this seemingly bizarre conspiracy theory, it has been my experience that many of the studies that the advocates of this conspiracy cite don't state that fluoridation is "bad", rather that in certain areas, it may not be necessary, because in some areas there are already naturally occurring fluoride ions. These studies conclusions about the toxic effects of overconsumption (not the mere consumption, but OVERconsumption) of fluoride (something no MD, DMD or DDS would disagree with) are then based on that fact.

That is, it's true that overconsumption of fluoride is detrimental. No one disputes that. However in areas where there is no naturally occurring fluoride, there are positive effects to adding fluoride that greatly outweigh any (diminished) negative effects.

On a more personal note, my father is a dentist and I take it as a rather personal insult that by extension, my father must be engaged in a "commie conspiracy" by advocating water fluoridation. I'm just happy that FR is so large, we actually have some other dentists that come to such threads, and debunk such myths.

It's issues like these, issues that reject science because science isn't understood by the layman, that are an embarrassment to conservatives everywhere. It's the same objection I have to the "intelligent design/creation" foolishness that's headlining in recent news. Not an attempt to hijack the thread into that debate, but rather to point out that not all science is "evil", nor, just because the average person doesn't understand it, doesn't mean it should be rejected.

I'm a dentist, I've been researching this for 20 years, and what you are writing over and over again is fantasy. The reason fluoride was discovered to have decay fighting properties was because it was the ION present in the water. If you don't understand the basic difference between a molecular compound and an ion, you're out of your league. I would also appreciate a link showing the presence of Ca in the water reduces decay.

The aluminum companies make lots of money selling their hazardous waste. And they save millions buy not having to spend money disposing it.

And where do I and every other dentist come in to this conspiracy? You are accusing me of corruption, but you cannot explain how I make any money out of it. Somehow I am making money by supporting the introduction of a substance that reduces my profits. Why would EVERY dentist (with the exception of a few wingnuts) knowingly do this.

If you are going to argue this, you'll have to do better than to continue repeating the exact same thing over and over again.

On a more personal note, my father is a dentist and I take it as a rather personal insult that by extension, my father must be engaged in a "commie conspiracy" by advocating water fluoridation.

Heh, how do you think I feel? ;)

I was told on an old thread that the ADA was in cahoots with the aluminum industry and every single one of the thousands of studies of the efficacy of fluoride from all over the world was a result of that conspiracy. And I was being "taught wrong" in dental school to the point I was brainwashed into thinking fluoride is safe and effective.

All this coming from someone who got all their info from a website. (much like the current situation)

Why would EVERY dentist (with the exception of a few wingnuts) knowingly do this.

Because of the oppression from dental societies. Your classification of "wingnuts" is a good example. I'd rather see sugar floridated than water. The problem with water is that many more chemicals have to be added, but you don't care what effect they have on people.

Because of the oppression from dental societies. Your classification of "wingnuts" is a good example.

Calling names is hardly "opression", and I'm not a member of the ADA. My father, who is also a dentist, also wasn't. So where's the money? Now PLEASE, will you finally tell me about this huge conspiracy?

The problem with water is that many more chemicals have to be added, but you don't care what effect they have on people.

Be careful. You are calling me a liar and accusing me of malpractice. I'd suggest you either back up your assertion or retract it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.