The War On Bottled Water

The Washington Times ^ | Albert | Stephen

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“Fluoridation prevents tooth decay in young children. Not in adults, but in children, when their teeth are forming. This is 1940s technology, not in dispute.”

According to the current consensus view of the dental research community, fluoride’s primary - if not sole - benefit to teeth comes from topical application to the surfaces of teeth (while in the mouth), and not from ingestion.
It is also acknowledged by dental researchers that fluoride has little effect on preventing cavities in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of teeth - where the majority of tooth decay occurs.
Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, tooth decay rates have declined at similar rates in all western countries in the latter half of the 20th century - irrespective of whether the country fluoridates its water or not. Today, tooth decay rates thoughout continental western Europe are as low as the tooth decay rates in the United States - despite a profound disparity in water fluoridation prevalence in the two regions.
Within countries that do fluoridate their water (such as the United States and Australia), recent large-scale surveys of dental health - utilizing modern scientific methods not employed in the early surveys from the 1930s-1950s - have found little difference in tooth decay, including in “baby bottle tooth decay”, between fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/teeth/caries/

Evidence Based Research on the Use of Fluoridated Water and Systemic Fluorides in the Prevention of Dental Decay...

Presented by Dr. Paul J. Ganshert BS, DDS *

There seems to be a vast amount of controversy and debate in the minds of the general population and health care providers of all types in the United States of America today regarding the use of fluoride to prevent modern dental decay. Looking at some of the compelling research results available is important in understanding the current status of what we know about artificial fluoridation, its scientific risks, and any benefit from systemic fluoridation in America.

Many important papers on fluoride and fluoridation were published in peer-reviewed scientific literature over the past 15 years. Some notable quotes from research scientists and medical organizations based on this literature:

“The American Medical association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by ingesting fluoridated municipal water” Dr. Flanagan, Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association, April 2006.

“Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population”

Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA Scientist, September 2003.

“The plain fact that fluoride is a poison that is harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts in the water supply.” Dr. Ludwig Grossse, Chief of Cancer Research, US Veterans Administration.

“Fluoride in municipal water or in pill form is a corrosive poison that will produce serious side effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use fluoride this way is deplorable.” Dr. Charles Heyd, past president of the American Medical Association.

“The evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at just 1 ppm is extremely deleterious to the human body.” Chief Justice John Flaherty, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, May 2001.

“The Environmental Protection Agency should act immediately to protect the public with regards to fluoridation, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects.” Dr William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at the EPA.

“Fluoride damages bone even at the small levels added to public drinking water.” American Journal of Epidemiology, October 1999.

“Evidence shows a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation.” Journal of the American Medical Association, August 1992.

Even though these quotes are thought provoking, nothing was more instrumental in questioning the benefit of systemic fluoride than two separate independent research studies done by Harvard University and the National Research Council that were made public in 2006.

In the wake of media scrutiny and an NIH ethics investigation, the first paper from Harvard University’s ongoing study of fluoride and bone cancer was finally published.(Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA.[2006] Age specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma in the united states. Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-428). The paper, published 14 years after the study began, reported that boys exposed to fluoridated water had a significantly higher rate of an often fatal form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma. According to the study, these findings are consistent with a 1990 government study that reported the same kind of bone cancer in fluoride treated rats.

The National Research Council’s long awaited review of fluoride, released in March of 2006, was a watershed moment in the current fluoride debate. The 500 page review, which took 12 scientists over three years to produce, describes in great detail why supposedly safe fluoridated drinking water levels need to be drastically reduced in order to protect human health. (National Research Council [2006] Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA’s Standards. National Academies press, Washington DC) The report documents myriads of data showing potential hazards from fluoride exposure in drinking water at the current levels. These hazards include damage to bones, the brain, and various glands of the endocrine system. According to EPA scientist Dr Bob Carton, this report “should be the centerpiece of every single discussion on fluoridation. It changes everything.”

After reading and interpreting the current scientific evidence based research it can be safely stated that the systemic use of fluoride in drinking water or pills may carry more risk than benefit. A paradigm shift is occurring in physicians and dentists alike that changes the way that fluoride is utilized to hypothetically prevent dental decay.

The new paradigm involves the use of topical fluorides like rinses, pastes, and gels as the vehicle for delivering fluoride to the human teeth and less or no reliance on the systemic mechanisms like pills or municipal water supplies. Organic chemistry and Biophysiology studies show that the mechanism for maximum fluoride integration into tooth structure is topical in its mechanism , and that the systemic route (which would include fluoride pills, drops, and fluoridated water) is ineffective in humans and carries little to no benefit whatsoever.

Whether or not the consensus that topical fluoride is beneficial in humans is substantiated in years to come, we have access to thousands of documents and scientific publications that the use of systemic fluorides are not advised at this time in modern medicine and dentistry.

All physicians and dentists are scientists by nature and ignoring this evidence based scientific research with regards to systemic fluoridation is irresponsible. Talk to your dentist or physician today and inquire about the real facts about the current fluoride debate and how it affects you and your family.

*Dr. Paul J. Ganshert holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Microbiology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and a Doctor of Dental Surgery degree from Marquette University. http://www.villagefamilydental.com/p.e.i..html

[quadrant]

Liberalism is not so much a mental disorder as it is puerility. In this case as demonstrated by the desire for contradictory things and the inability to realize they are contradictory.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Liberals will contiue to dictate how to live to the unwashed masses as they take over the world drip by drip.

Exactly. "Liberal" is a misnomer from the 19th century definition. People just want to be free from the fetid breath of tyranny. Unfortunately, the 60% of the population that is "independent, undecided, or wishy washy moderate" think that conservatives are all about big Gubmint and want to legislate morality.

When they came for the drinkers during Prohibition, I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.

When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.

When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be "obscene" or "offensive", I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of entertainers like Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.

When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.

When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.

When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.

When they came for the _______ (insert nominally objectionable behavior here), I did not speak out as I was not a _________ (fill in the blank).

When they came for the pornographers, I did not speak out, as I was not a pornographer.

When they came for the people who don't wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.

When they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out, as I was not a gun owner.

When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.

When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.

When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.

When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.

When they came for the bottled water drinkers, I did not speak out, because I drank from the tap.

Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

But lately some environmentalists and city officials have been saying the same thing. Only this time they're trying to prevent American consumers from drinking bottled water.

Environmentalists and city officials need to realize very quickly that their anxiety attacks don't obligate the rest of us to act in accordance with their wishes.

[Republicus2001]

Once I wanted to rent a hotel room in Beverly Hills and start filling up water bottles from the tap. Market as BH Tap.

[traviskicks]

bookmark

[DugwayDuke]

“when it was only a select few (elites in their own minds) drinking bottled water, it was OK,”

You ain’t figured it out yet? Global warming is the method used by the elites to keep the masses under control and in their place. I’m serious. All the global warming fixes don’t apply to those rich enough to buy carbon offsets. All the global warming fixes apply to the masses and are designed to keep them in their place, packed into the cities in their small apartments away from the places the elites want to live.

[samtheman]

Looks like you had this all ready to post. Are you concerned about polluting our precious bodily fluids? (Just curious.)

[dwhole2th]

Wrong. Sometimes there is way too much fluoride in well water. That’s how we discovered the fact that fluoride prevents tooth decay. Places where there was lots of natural occurring fluoride in municipal water had very low rates of decay. From there it was an easy step to figure out optimal rates of supplemental fluoridation if the water had too little fluoride.

[The Great RJ]

Think of the contribution to global warming from a single Starbucks latte.

[samtheman]

your dentist didn't say that

You can say what you want about water in any and all of its forms but I know what my dentist said because he said it to me just today and he said what I said he said and you can't say otherwise because unless you were the dental assistant (and if you claim to be, then tell me the name of the tv show we talked about), then you weren't there in the room when my dentist said what I said he said and you can't say he didn't say it.

[aruanan]

Allen Hershkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council says

Ew-scray ou-yay, you moronic twit!

[dwhole2th]

Current science suggests that the topical effect of fluoride is what matters even in water.

[R. Scott]

10 ounces is a lot of water. Drinking too much at one time can be hazardous to health. The firefighters don’t just run out from the fire, chuck a quart of water and run back in. They drink, rest with most of their gear off, when cooled off they gear up and go back to work. That is also what I used to teach when I was an instructor.

[GSWarrior]

I am working on an invention...tablets that dissolve into water when they are dropped into water.

[dwhole2th]

The dosage has been worked out really well. 1 ppm is about right and won’t cause problems. Fluoride is for sure toxic, as is water. Everything must be ingested in appropriate amounts to avoid toxicity, absolutely everything!

[R. Scott]

... or you've got two untrained civilians wandering around an active firefight getting in the way.

Guess you're not too familiar with fire fighting. All involved are not actively fighting the fire. Have you ever heard of "support personnel"?

[dwhole2th]

Fluoride does offer protection for adults. In my practice we apply and Rx lots of fluoride products for adults, especially at risk older people.

[samtheman]

Do Melita filters filter out the fluoride?

[dwhole2th]

In that part of me that is one the dark side I agree with you. If we could remove fluoride from the drinking water of the whole country us dentists would be so overwhelmed with work that the Lexus payment would change to a Bentley payment ;-)