For the first time ever, a federal judge has denied a motion by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to ban the fluoride additives used in community water fluoridation.
www.wateronline.com
Grant spurs fluoride debate in Bellows Falls
A grant awarded to the Bellows Falls Water Department to replace its water fluoridation equipment sparked recent debate among village trustees.
Video: A fluoride fight breaks out between 2 members of the town leadership.
www.eagletimes.com
Study deals blow to fluoridation
In October, Environmental Health Perspectives published an article titled “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years in Mexico.” The study was supported by NIH, NIEHS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Ministry of Health in Mexico.
www.rutlandherald.com
The dentist who started it all
A text copy can be read here: www.sonic.net
The cost of fluoridation of water supplies
It depends on the size of the community served, in the USA this varies from $0.12 – $0.21 per person per year in communities of over 200,000 population to $0.60 – $5.41 for smaller communities. So Chester and Cavendish have shied away from fluoridating their public water systems. Springfield fluoridates its public water supply at an annual cost of over $10,000. Most of that fluoride ends up just going down the drain-- laundering, dishwashing, bathing, etc. Fluoridation chemicals are unpurified industrial by-products that are collected in the air pollution control systems of certain industries.
Grant spurs fluoride debate in Bellows Falls | January 12, 2018 By PATRICK ADRIAN padrian@eagletimes.com BELLOWS FALLS — A grant awarded to the Bellows Falls Water Department to replace its water fluoridation equipment sparked recent debate among village trustees. On Tuesday night, trustees tentatively voted 3-2 to accept a $14,170.85 grant from the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) for its oral health fluoridation equipment. The Village Water Department was only one of 17 recipients of the grant, which is funded through support form the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brian Joslyn, chief operator of the Water Department, says the money would be used to replace several pieces of equipment used in water fluoridation, the most expensive being a $7,000 online water analyzer. Trustees were initially cautious. Given the concern surrounding fluoridating public water, they quesstioned whether the grant agreement would require the village to repay the money should the community decide at some point to stop fluoridating its water — or not appropriate the money to fluoridation at all. “I did get a copy of an agreement with another municipality that doesn’t have a kind of obligation of that sort,” Municipal Manager Shane O’Keefe told the trustees, “So, I’m pretty confident that we would not be obligated to pay them back.” Bellows Falls has fluoridated its public water for many years. O’Keefe recalled a debate about 12 years ago over stopping the pratice that ended with a decision to continue. Some trustees say they’ve received complaints from citizens opposing water fluoridation since the announement of the grant award. Trustee Stefan Golec said he was contacted by two residents who said they planned to start a petition in opposition if the grant was accepted. A brief exchange occurred between Trustees Debra Wright and James McAuliffe over the topic. While Wright understands the external application of fluoride (e.g. toothpaste, for example), many studies point to serious health risks of ingesting fluoride, particular for people with high sensitivity. McAuliffe expressed confidence in the scientific support and the work of the local water department. “[Having seen] the good [fluoridating the water] has done, particularly in a village like this, with our demographics, to add rampant tooth decay to all the other issues that we’re facing would be a severe burden,” McAuliffe said. Josyln told the audience his department has lowered the fluoridation levels from those in past years, from 1.0-1.7 parts per million (ppm) to .50-.70 (ppm). “The current fluoridation level is actually less than what I found when I tested my personal well,” he said. Golec, who voted to accept the grant, chaired the fluoride debate 12 years ago and expressed his understanding for both sides. He said the village should secure the money and welcome a debate should it occur. “[The one 12 years back] was a heated discussion but the debate was good,” Golec said, following the vote to accept the grant, “Certainly, a debate doesn’t hurt but I’m glad that we’re going for the money.” Supporting the grant acceptance were McAuliffe, Golec and Steve Adams. Mickle and Wright opposed. The village has another scheduled regular meeting before its deadline to accept the grant. Should O’Keefe find any unwanted contractual obligations, the trustees would have time to reconsider. While a petition would likely prompt a public discussion whether to end fluoridation in Bellows Falls, O’Keefe said that the decision to continue or cease the practice rests with the trustees, not a public vote. Study deals blow to fluoridation Commentary Rutland Herald | October 14, 2017 Jack CROWTHER In October, Environmental Health Perspectives published an article titled “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years in Mexico.” The study was supported by NIH, NIEHS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Ministry of Health in Mexico. The article is notable not only for its substance but also for the fact that the publication it appeared in has support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. NIEHS falls within the National Institutes of Health under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Further, the study itself was supported by NIH, NIEHS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Ministry of Health in Mexico. In a sense, the findings of the study are not new. They indicate the likelihood that exposure to fluoride above a certain level will lower the IQ of children. Numerous earlier studies have pointed in the same direction, raising warning flags for fluoride exposure through community water fluoridation and other sources. What is especially notable is that you have an arm of the U.S. government putting forth a study that challenges a central public health policy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That policy is community water fluoridation. While the NIEHS publication did not endorse the study, it saw fit to publish it. That’s significant inasmuch as promoters of fluoridation, like the American Dental Association, dismiss challenges to fluoridation as affronts to settled science. You may ask how the fluoridation policy is challenged. How is a measure deemed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be one of the “10 great public health achievements of the 20th century” undermined by this recent study? Here’s how: 1. The fluoride exposures of the pregnant women in the study corresponded to exposures found in persons living in fluoridated communities. 2. The effect found was large. At a level of 0.9 parts per million in the mothers’ urine (which would be reached by many women in fluoridated communities), the associated IQ loss was 5 to 6 points. If such a drop were to occur in the whole population, it would more than halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by more than half the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70). 3. The study demands respect. It is strong in controlling for confounding factors, that is, conditions that might affect IQ other than fluoride. Publication of the “Prenatal Fluoride” study came close on the heels of the Sixth Annual Citizens Convention of the Fluoride Action Network in Crystal City, Virginia, from Sept. 15 to 18. The convention represented a number of states, four other countries, and the Akwesasne Territory within Canada and the United States. Throughout our four-day gathering, we reviewed the developing science on fluoridation, the political fight and how it is best conducted, and the evidence that the fluoridation house of cards teeters ever closer to collapse. We took heart with the reminder that the world is not embracing fluoridation, but is rejecting it. Canada, for instance, has gone from 45 percent fluoridated to 29 percent in recent years. Worldwide, 95 percent of the population is fluoridation-free, and a number of countries that once had it no longer do. The Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland are among the defectors. Similarly, many respected organizations have either withdrawn endorsements or are neutral on fluoridation. This counters the impression fostered by the American Dental Association and public health agencies that any entity worth its salt endorses fluoridation. Outright opponents of fluoridation include the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the Environmental Working Group, Food and Water Watch, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the Organic Consumers Association. Organizations that once endorsed fluoridation but no longer do include the American Cancer Society, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumers Union (Consumer Reports), the National Kidney Foundation, the National Down Syndrome Congress and the New York Academy of Medicine. At each of our convention workshops and sessions, organizers wisely provided bottles of fluoride-free water. This allowed us to avoid the fluoridated Arlington County water supply. But we shouldn’t have had to bring our water. Our ranks included people with known fluoride sensitivity. Nor should any citizen have to spend money and lug home drinking water to opt out of mass medication imposed by government authority. Jack Crowther of Rutland is retired. He worked as a journalist and in corporate communications.
Springfield flouridates our water? I WAS wondering where that third arm coming out of my forehead came from. But seriously, I grew up drinking flouridated water. I never drank milk, rarely brushed, and consumed large quantities of various decay-causing beverages. At 54 years old, I've only had 3 small cavities, all in my 20's. Is it just a plot to get rid of toxic waste? Maybe, but my teeth look good!
ReplyDelete2:19, your testimony would be dismissed as "too anecdotal to be valid" by the tinfoil hat crowd. Betty Ward, Springfield's sole school nurse back in the Sixties and Seventies, fought John Sinclair's attempts to get Springfield water fluoridated. But he prevailed (despite the hostility of shop owner Ted Miller). A number of years later, Betty said to John that she was amazed at the difference fluoride had made. She died just last year. John is still around, and a lot of us are very happy that he carried the fight!
ReplyDeleteAlso amazing is the fact that since 1970 there has been an even larger decline in childhood tooth decay in non-fluoridated countries. Better oral hygiene and the introduction of fluoride toothpaste made the difference there. See charts here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/who_dmft02.jpg
DeleteFluoride need only be applied to the surface of the teeth, then it should be spit out. Fluoride in the body is cumulative and the accumulation actually does make bones and teeth harder but it is a brittle type of hardness.
A 450-page review conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science found that the safe drinking water standard for fluoride (4 ppm) causes significant damage to teeth, and elevates risk of bone damage including bone fracture and joint pain. Read a summary of their report here: https://www.nap.edu/read/11571/chapter/2
Unlike the fluoride compounds found in toothpaste or supplements, fluoridation chemicals are not pharmaceutical grade quality. Purified fluoride is way too expensive to purchase by the barrel. It is becoming increasingly common for U.S. water departments to purchase their fluoride chemicals from China to get them at lowest cost. While little appears to be known about the source of these chemicals, recent incidents indicate that the contents of these chemicals can vary quite dramatically. It was recently reported, for example, that a number of water plants using Chinese fluoridation chemicals were noticing a “mysterious residue” in the treated water, 40 percent of the material from new Chinese suppliers was not dissolving.
Since fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, why do we need to force it on people.
Reading in response to earlier claims about fluoridation on this blog show me that interesting data has accumulated around the world since fluoride was originally tested and deemed safe and effective, which was back in the '60's and '70's. The data is interesting because some of it casts doubt on the effectiveness of fluoride on dental health, and some of it seems to indicate long-term complications to general health. It doesn't seem conclusive yea or nay, but it does look like a new round of testing and analysis with modern techniques and medical knowledge would be a very good idea.
ReplyDeleteEasy data to collect would be the comparison of those on town water vs those on their own well water, taking into account the tooth paste etc used. That data is out there for easy picking.
ReplyDeleteIn about four more years, Brattleboro's pediatric population will have been exposed to fluoride-free water for public health researchers to do a study.
ReplyDeletethat should be "fluoride-free water long enough"
ReplyDelete