Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 30 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Sci Tech   

End Public Water Fluoridation in the San Francisco Bay Communities

By       (Page 3 of 4 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   2 comments
Message Michael LeVesque

6.    Safe and effective. For more than 65 years, the best available scientific evidence consistently indicates that community water fluoridation is safe and effective.

No, and no studies to prove it! Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm. Fluoride is very biologically active even at low concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding (Emsley 1981) and inhibits numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978). When complexed with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals (Strunecka & Patocka 1999, Li 2003). Fluoride has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage, and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in a variety of cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993; and Mihashi 1996). Recent studies have also found a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997; and Joseph 2000). Fluoride forms complexes with a large number of metal ions, which include metals that are needed in the body (like calcium and magnesium) and metals (like lead and aluminum) that are toxic to the body. This can cause a variety of problems. For example, fluoride interferes with enzymes where magnesium is an important co-factor, and it can help facilitate the uptake of aluminum and lead into tissues where these metals wouldn't otherwise go (Mahaffey 1976; Allain 1996; Varner 1998). Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water, using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta amyloid deposits, which are characteristic of Alzheimer's disease (Varner 1998).

7.      Saves money. The average lifetime cost per person to fluoridate a water supply is less than the cost of one dental filling. For most cities, every $1 invested in water fluoridation saves $38 in dental-treatment costs.

Griffin S.O., Jones, K., Tomar, S.L. "An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation." J Public Health Dent 2001;61(2):78-86.

No. The costs to human health far greatly exceed the savings. Dental fluorosis is rampant and the dental costs to cosmetically hide its effects far outweigh the miniscule $38.00 savings. The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e., to lower dental-decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its mildest form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). A major US survey has found 30% of children in optimally fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller 1997), while smaller studies have found up to 80% of children impacted (Williams 1990; Lalumandier 1995; and Morgan 1998). The York Review estimates that up to 48% of children in optimally fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms and 12.5% with symptoms of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000). 

Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit-and-fissure tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged (Seholle 1984; Gray 1987; PHS 1993; and Pinkham 1999). This is significant because pit-and-fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987). 

8.    Recognized by more than 100 organizations. The American Dental Association (ADA) as well as the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and more than 125 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of water fluoridation.

ADA Fluoridation Facts Compendium. Available at ADA.org/4378.aspx

These organizations are basing their findings on the early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation. Those studies are now heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude." In 2000, the British government's "York Review" could give no fluoridation trial a grade A classification -- despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000).

Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists; at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation. The recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2000), was one of the leading opponents of fluoridation in Sweden, and part of the panel that recommended that the Swedish government reject the practice, which they did in 1971.  

Also, the US Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed (McClure 1970). There are many nations throughout the world that have rejected fluoridation, especially those that have high standards of education.

9.         Availability of fluoridation continues to grow. In the United States, 73.9 percent of the population on public-water systems receive fluoridated public water, or a total of 204 million people.* This is an increase of almost nine percent from 2000. The Healthy People 2020 goal is for 79.6 percent of the population on public-water systems to have access to fluoridated water.**

*CDC Reference Statistics on Water Fluoridation Status, cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/reference_stats.htm **Healthy People 2020, healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicId=32

Goals are greatly shifting as city after city fights to reject water fluoridation. Some succeeding such as Montreal, Witchita, Portland, Vancouver, Calgary, and many other small communities seek to end or reverse public-water fluoridation through organizing, educating, and empowering people to influence policymakers and provide the truth about the dangers of public-water fluoridation. Others succumb when the water boards are heavy financed by ADA grants.

10.    Endorsed by the American Dental Association. One of the most widely respected sources for information regarding fluoridation and fluoride is the American Dental Association. Learn more on the ADA's website at ADA.org/fluoride.

Really? Let's look at this in depth! Perhaps afterwards one will not share that sense of the most respected sources of fluoridation information. Consider the ten points offered by the ADA and their extreme weakness and lack of science. Consider their past information regarding water fluoridation. Consider the fact that you should not swallow more than a pea size of fluoride toothpaste which is about equal to one large glass of water, yet it's okay to drink bathe and cook with fluoridated water. Consider that 50% of that water is absorbed into your body. Consider the fact that it is impossible to get a toxicology report from your water district regarding the fluoride added or the companies or countries providing it.  Then consider the remarkable change that came over the ADA.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Michael LeVesque Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Owner of RayGuardProtect.com and past President & CEO of Vitamin Express, Inc. for 36 years. Member of Board of Governors of National Health Federation.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

End Public Water Fluoridation in the San Francisco Bay Communities

The Simple Solution -- the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Golden Egg - Fluoride

The Multivitamin Battle

Obama and the alfalfa plant

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend