Written by Skip Miller
If you’re old enough to read this you have consumed your share of fluoride. It is in everything you eat and drink, too often in the air you breathe. Most of the country’s public water systems are treated with fluoride to help prevent and reduce instances of tooth decay and cavities. They say fluoride is especially good at preventing tooth decay in children younger than age eight.
Although it took them a few decades to get started, they are figuring out what else fluoride does to a human’s body. Too much of it causes dental fluorosis—a streaking and mottling of the teeth—in the same age group it is purported to help the most. Older folk run the risk of being crippled by skeletal fluorosis. Thyroid malfunction, kidney disease, diabetes, cancers and neurological disorders also have been linked to fluoride. They dismiss all of that as incomplete research, voodoo science.
They cannot, however, dispute the fact fluoride compounds are among the most toxic substances known to man. Adolf Hitler used the stuff in his concentration camps. Long before they said it would be good for our teeth, sodium fluoride was sold as a rat poison and a pesticide.
Wait. The practice of fluoridating water began 65 years ago—it started in Virginia cities in the early 1950s. Opponents have been protesting since day one. There is no conclusive research that proves fluoride consumption is safe. The rate of childhood tooth decay is dropping in areas that don’t fluoridate water.
Some believe big business and the Manhattan Project needed a way to dispose of fluoride waste so they bamboozled the government into the tooth fairy bit. Others believe fluoridation is a case worthy of James Bond’s attention, that it has something to do with evil forces spiking the water supply to drug people into some kind of docile stupor.
Pollutant to Additive
All fluorides come from fluorine, the 13th most common element in nature. And fluorine is a troublemaker. It refuses to live alone. It finds ways to marry other elements and compounds to create substances such as sodium fluoride or fluorocarbon or hydro fluoride. These substances are industrial darlings, used in everything from making fishing line to refining weapons-grade uranium, from anti-depressants such as Prozac to toothpaste.
American industries produce millions of tons of fluoride waste every year, huffing most of it into the atmosphere like bad breath. Internationally, industries have been huffing for years, so many years that in 1970 the U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook stated, “Air-born fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other pollutant.”
A survey conducted in 2001 reported 991 facilities released 72 million pounds of hydrogen fluoride into the atmosphere. The biggest culprits were coal-fired electrical plants, aluminum producers and phosphate fertilizer plants. The states that released the most were Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina.
What’s Downstream
In early January the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, with an endorsement from the Centers for Disease Control announced plans to propose that the amount of fluoride put into the water should not exceed 0.7 milligrams per liter. The current recommendation is a range of 0.7 and 1.2 mpl. The Eastern Virginia water systems that fluoridate follow the 0.9 mpl mandated by the state.
Why the lower concentration? Dental fluorosis now affects 31 percent of the country’s children younger than age eight. Dental flourosis is a sign of ingesting too much fluoride. Reducing the amount added to water could mean safer levels for the kids.
According to CDC statistics, 56 percent of the kids between the ages of 12 and 16 have cavities. Fluoride is in everything kids eat and drink. Critics want to know why that number is so high. How can fluoride reduce cavities by as much as 30 percent in people younger than age eight yet block cavities in less than half of the young teen population?
Although the EPA is steward of the country’s water supply, it has no regulatory power. The best it can do is make recommendations and issue warnings. This is from the agency’s 1997 fact sheet: “There are no federal safety standards that are applicable to additives, including those for use in fluoridating drinking water.” Despite that, the process of putting together a recommendation is convoluted at best.
What happened in January was the first step of a proposal, according to Joyce Donohue of the EPA’s Office of Water. “Now it has to be put out for a period of public comment. The comments are collected and the pros and cons are reviewed.”
The EPA, which does not conduct its own research, also gathers published reports and data to aid the review process. It was from this material the EPA developed the estimate that the average fluoride concentration for the country’s 57,500 water supply systems is 0.87 mpl. Recommending that be reduced to the proposed 0.7 mpl is much more complicated than it seems.
In areas such as Suffolk, Isle of Wight and Smithfield the water contains high concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride. For those areas it’s a matter of removing rather than adding.
“We have to consider the treatment technology needed to remove the fluoride,” Donohue said. “It becomes a situation of benefits versus cost.”
Smithfield recently spent $5 million on a filtering system that removes fluoride. In this era of ruptured municipal budgets and a roller-coaster national economy any expense may be too much. Donohue said the EPA is keenly aware of that. “Nobody benefits if the systems are asked to do something they cannot afford,” she said.
The amount of fluoride under discussion is mind-bogglingly minute. A liter of water weighs 33.8140226 ounces. To that the EPA wants to propose adding 0.7 milligrams, or .000024691773365 ounces.
This is where it gets touchy. Fluoride isn’t something the body takes out with the rest of the trash. As much as half of it finds refuge in the bones. Since fluoride essentially is in everything we eat and drink, we are taking in and retaining much more than is in a glass of water. The EPA concluded people younger than age seven take in 1.21 milligrams per day. The acceptable level is .72 milligrams per day. Dropping the water concentration amount will lower that second figure, Donohue said.
Or so the EPA will explain in its recommendation. Once finished and approved the recommendation is sent to state agencies such as the Virginia State Board of Health. The state agencies hammer the recommendations into regulations and guidelines that are sent to the licensed water suppliers.
When the regulations reach the local level, consumers can make some decisions of their own. They can call for a referendum that lets residents vote for whether or not they want fluoridation.
That brought about a curious situation in the western part of Virginia. The Virginia-Carolina Regional Water Authority is developing a water supply that will serve Independence, Va., and Sparta, N.C. Sparta residents convinced their town council and the Alleghany County Commissioners to vote against fluoridation. Independence and Grayson County did not vote on the issue.
That created the obvious dilemma of delivering fluoridated water one way and non-fluoridated water the other.
Why go through all of this?
“All of the work we have done definitely shows the benefits of fluoridation,” Donohue said. “Fluoride helps prevent cavities. That’s a fact.”
A fact that has been finessed and modified over the years. The current belief is fluoride coats the tooth enamel and that helps prevent cavities. To build that layer, which is 10,000 times thinner than a human hair, fluoride must be applied topically—painted onto teeth like a varnish. Swallowing fluoridated water does little more than quenching a thirst.
Take Your Medicine
Putting fluoride in the water supply, they say, is the cheapest and most convenient way to make sure everybody gets a dose—dose is the amount of water a person drinks; concentration is the amount of fluoride in the water. The toothless old man with a wrecked memory gets the same concentration as the college football player, and the football player gets the same concentration as the year-old baby.
And that ships fluoridation into a legal gray area.
When fluoride is used as an additive for health reasons, it becomes a medicine. As a medicine it requires an informed consent from the individual receiving it. The individual needs to be told what the treatment is for and how it will be conducted. Risks and benefits must be explained. The patient should be told if there are alternative treatments.
None of that is done before water is fluoridated.
The Food and Drug Administration is shepherd of the country’s medicines. It has never conducted research or issued a statement on water fluoridation. No matter. In 1979 the Toxic Substances Control Act gave the EPA the water sentry duty. Sort of. The EPA and its Office of Water does not regulate adding fluoride to water. It is, however, beat cop for contaminants and pollution.
On the one hand the EPA is figuring out how much fluoride is needed to protect your healthy smile. It is ready to lower the boom with the other hand when the fluoride concentration passes a safety margin and becomes a contaminant.
Let’s not forget the Safe Drinking Water Act. Passed in 1974, it deputizes the EPA to test for and regulate fluoride and 90 other toxic chemical substances. More than 60,000 chemicals are used every day in the United States, the New York Times reported on Dec. 17, 2009.
Some 200 million pounds of fluoride substances are added to the country’s water supply each year. In the early years sodium fluoride was used because it was a plentiful salt that was easily transported. It had to be handled as a hazardous material, something accomplished easily by a qualified staff.
For the last four decades fluorosilicic acid has been the favorite ingredient. Most of it comes from Florida where it is collected by scrubbing the fertilizer phosphate plants’ smokestacks. It is neither cleansed nor refined before being shipped to water suppliers.
The federal government has no research or risk assessment of fluorosilicic acid.
A Question of Ethics
The medical law issue at work here is, how can water be fluoridated without individual consent? Has anybody ever asked you if you want fluoride in your water? Who among you sees the inherent danger?
On Nov. 11, 1979, 65-year-old Lawrence Blake was receiving renal dialysis at the Bio-medical Applications, Inc., Center of Annapolis. In a ghoulish coincidence, an accident at the city’s water treatment facility released 1,000 gallons of fluoride into the water. Blake died of a heart attack triggered by a toxic reaction. Or, as doctors would say later, he died of “fluoride poisoning.”
Three patients were receiving dialysis treatment at the University Of Chicago Hospitals on July 16, 1993, when the equipment’s filtering devices malfunctioned. Enough fluoride made it through the filters to cause the death of all three patients.
The National Kidney Foundation has since withdrawn support of using fluoride as a water additive. Its position since 1981 said there was insufficient evidence to recommend people with kidney diseases drink fluoride-free water. Since 2007 it has been recommending kidney disease patients educate themselves about the risks of consuming fluoride.
And then there is the conclusion reached by EBSCO, a service company that provides library databases and periodical subscriptions. Its stance on fluoridation, for example, can be found at the University of Virginia Health Library. The debate is between conventional and alternative medicine groups, EBSCO concluded.
The position statement is this: “While water fluoridation in U.S. cities is a continuing source of impassioned controversy by both opponents and proponents, this emotional energy would probably be better spent elsewhere, as the practice is most likely both safe and unnecessary.”
We have spent 65 years barking up the wrong tree? Messing around with fluoride has been a fool’s errand? It cannot be that simple. Can it?
References for this article and links to additional information on fluoride:
Watch an informative collection of fluoride videos here
Virginia Department of Health
Center for Disease Control
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Environmental Protection Agency
National Cancer Institute
American Journal of Epidemiology
American Journal of Public Health
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
American Dental Hygienists’ Association
Keepers of the Well
PreventDisease.com
www.fluoridation.com
www.fluoride-history.de/index.htm
www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Water_fluoridation
A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride
Flouride Action Network
Basic Information About Fluoride from the EPA
Local Drinking Water Quality Reports
BOOKS
The Case Against Fluoride
(Chelsea Green Publishing; 2010)
By Paul Connett, James Beck, H. Spedding Micklem
The Devil’s Poison
(Trafford Publishing; 2008)
By Dean Murphy
The Fluoride Deception
(Seven Stories Press; 2006)
By Christopher Bryson
March 11, 2011 at 4:33 pm
The following response was sent to info@thehealthjournals.com.
Health Journal Editor,
I found the article on water fluoridation irresponsible and an example of “fear journalism” at it’s best. I have no problem with you presenting your argument against water fluoridation. This is an issue that deserves discussion. All you have to do is “Google” fluoride and all the conspiracy and fake science articles jump to the top of the list. What I do take issue with is the lack of presentation of references for the support of water fluoridation, so people can educate themselves on both sides and make their own conclusions. I am including an article from the American Dental Association on water fluoridation for your review. There are also many excellent scientific references available online from the US Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, to name a few. I hope you present a reference supporting fluoridation in a future issue.
Sincerely,
John E. Dulski DDS, MAGD, ABGD
http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf
March 11, 2011 at 4:40 pm
The following response was sent to info@thehealthjournals.com.
Discussions with patients about the benefits and risks associated with fluoride treatment are common in our dental practice. However, in response to a widely distributed health magazine’s front page article on public water fluoridation programs, these discussions were much more frequent over the past week. At first, I thought the article would be a wonderful resource to further educate our patients and the public about the benefits of the judicious use of fluoride in the prevention of dental disease.
Unfortunately, this was not the case. The three page article presented as fact information that is biased and contradictory to scientifically supported data and researched guidelines. The author used the Environmental Protection Agency’s newly proposed alteration to the existing fluoridation guidelines to support his own negative opinions on water fluoridation. References to Adolf Hitler, the Manhattan project and industrial smokestacks paint a grim, sensationalized picture of deceptive poisoning by big brother government, while omitting the real, research-based success of fluoridation over the past sixty years.
The bottom line is that fluoride reduces the risk and rate of dental decay. The Virginia Department of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the American Dental Association all note recent national studies that indicate that water fluoridation reduces dental decay in permanent teeth by up to 40 percent. The CDC even proclaimed community water fluoridation one of ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. This lowered rate of dental caries is obtained in the United States at an average yearly cost of $.51 per person. Given the current national economic situation, where “cost versus benefit” is highly scrutinized, how can there be any doubt as to the success public water fluoridation has had on reducing the impact and cost of dental disease within the general public?
Furthermore, the importance of fluoride in the prevention of dental decay is recognized around the world. In 2006, the World Health Organization and the International Association of Dental Research met in Geneva to discuss the use of fluoride to prevent disease. Over eighty experts from thirty countries reaffirmed the efficiency, cost effectiveness and safety of the daily use of optimal fluoride. Given the numerous, common sources of fluoride currently available, it may be appropriate that the optimal community fluoridation limit be set to 0.7 Ppm (parts per million) as recommended by the EPA.
Advancements in modern dentistry and oral health products, in combination with public water fluoridation, provide preventative treatments not available to previous generations and therefore reduce the incidence of dental disease. These advancements have led to fewer and less severe cavities, decreased pain and suffering, and ultimately fewer tooth extractions, all at a cost savings to communities.
Those of us in the dental profession take great pride in the trust that our patients give us. We have a responsibility to provide them with the most accurate information possible, based on scientific evidence and void of personal, unsupported opinions – a responsibility that unfortunately is not always upheld by writers in public health journals. Patients should consult with their dentist if they have further questions about the benefits and risks of fluoride, as well as how to determine the levels of fluoride in their personal drinking water.
http://www.vahealth.org/dental/communitywaterfluoridation/index.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/benefits.htm#3
http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx
- Ross S. Fuller DDS
March 15, 2011 at 6:00 pm
good story – be sure to read the new book by Paul Connett – see link above. In it is full documation on the dangers of fluoride. About these “dentists” commenting – before taking anything they say as fact or reality, I suggest checking this out: http://fluoridefreesacramento.org/html/dentists_etc.html .
Do your own research. Thanks
March 15, 2011 at 10:48 pm
I can’t believe how many dentists still continue to promote water fluoridation despite the research which shows how harmful it is and how ineffective it is in preventing tooth decay. Regurgitating govt. endorsements without evaluating the research is a disservice to your patients who trust you regarding issues with dental health.
Dental caries have been decreasing world wide the last 50 years all around the world, in countries that do and do not fluoridate. Unfortunately, the CDC failed to inform people the whole story when they stated the claim cavity rates decreased in areas with water fluoridation – rates dropped everywhere, so something other than water fluoridation was responsible. It could have been topically applied fluoridated toothpaste which became widely available at the time fluoridation started, or maybe improved diets, but the lack of real scientific research will leave us wondering.
Many studies since the 80’s show the effect of water fluoridation to be very small – essentially averaging only a fraction of a tooth surface. Studies also show decay rates don’t increase in areas where fluoridation is stopped. Dental caries are also rampant in many low income areas which fluoridate their water.
The CDC claims water fluoridation to be one of the greatest inventions since sliced bread on its water fluoridation page, and on another page, has a link to a 404 page document on how toxic fluoride is. They also refuse to acknowledge current research which shows how harmful ingesting fluoride is to our brains, bones, thyroid and more – as if it doesn’t exist!
Dentists, it’s time to give up the charade about fluoride, you’re beginning to look very foolish when you continue to ignore the mounting evidence of it’s danger to our bodies and environment. Why don’t you take your education and profession seriously and work on educating the public on how to prevent cavities through proper dental hygiene and nutritious diet?!
How can you continue to insist people keep taking in one more source of fluoride (water) when it’s everywhere: in our food, drink, dental products and environment, to the point we can see people are getting overdosed through the skyrocketing dental fluorosis and arthritis rates in this country?! It’s more than irresponsible; it’s borderline criminal when one considers the income generated for dentists repairing dental fluorosis with cosmetic dentistry – not normally covered by insurance.
Why don’t you look at both sides of the argument? Why don’t you try to look beyond research sponsored by the dental industry? Don’t be afraid of the unknown. There is no way to make an informed decision if you refuse to acknowledge all the evidence. It’s better to admit you’ve learned water fluoridation is a mistake after researching all the evidence, than to look like a blind fool supporting a practice that is not safe and hardly effective.
I’m a nurse who was taught the ‘benefits of fluoridation’ in nursing school. It wasn’t until I spent hours on PubMed and other scientific data bases reading research for months that I realized the education presented in nursing school was nothing more than government propaganda and endorsements.
Science continues to evolve. We have evidence based practice, but much of the medicine we continue to practice is not supported by evidence; it’s difficult for doctors to advise against procedures which support their livelihood; don’t let fluoride continue to be the area of your practice that is not based on most recent, best evidence.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp11.pdf
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.brownlee.html
March 15, 2011 at 11:27 pm
I find the people who go ahead and start fluoridating our water supply without getting the people’s consent irresponsible. Anyone who wants to do more research can easily get that info online but must be very critical of all sources for there is a lot of bad info being given by those who supposedly say fluoridation is safe to ingest without the studies to prove that it is safe. National Resource Council has conducted the only legitimate scientific studies that have all proved it to be unsafe for consumption. We need to have more choice and not be forced to have this hydrofluosilicic acid coming through our faucets without our consent. Ingesting does not make it safe for our bodies. It does not make sense to say it is good for your teeth by drinking it. It is only for topical use on the teeth in moderation. It does harm to the rest of the body particularly the thyroid replacing iodine and the pituitary gland. Don’t be fooled by those pro fluoridation supporters. Check it all out.
March 16, 2011 at 4:53 pm
This is to John E. Dulski DDS, MAGD, ABGD and anyone else reading:
The Center for Disease Control admitted that they got the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits wrong. That they thought it was systemic. They thought the baby needed to swallow fluoride before its teeth had emerged. Then they found out that not enough fluoride incorporated into the growing enamel before the tooth erupts to protect the teeth from acid attack. So in 1999 the CDC came out and admitted that the predominant method by which fluoride “protects” teeth is topical, not systemic. It works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. There’s no fake science here. Them admitting this should have been the end of water fluoridation.
It would be irresponsible for this article to condone information from sources that emphasize the benefits of fluoride, all information that is clearly taken out of context and has been around for centuries (all of it easily accessible). None of it is information that people are desperately seeking for.
Whether or not they presented sources that support water fluoridation (most of which don’t present sources presenting information from the opposing point of view anyway), I’m sure they know it would be a waste of people’s time and energy.
Is there an argument that proves that fluoride benefits anyone through a systemic method? If not, then end of discussion. I’m surprised that more people didn’t consider this in the first place. Are we really that simple?
March 17, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Yes, I meant decades when I said “centuries”:(
March 19, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Dr. Fuller’s opinion piece does not address any of the facts in the “Water Break” story. The article didn’t criticize the topical application used by dentists. Parroting propaganda from the ADA just doesn’t cut-the-mustard in today’s world. Too many of us know how to find and read the research for ourselves. We can reach conclusions on our own without the help of “experts.”
Dr. Fuller is not a toxicologist, chemist, or medical doctor. He’s not qualified to give advice on the how much fluoride we should be exposed to. The systemic effects of fluoride are outside of the purview of dentistry. He’s not looking at how fluoride effects your kidneys, bones, or your brain.
It is professionally irresponsible to dish out advice without being current with the modern research. We are all being overexposed. Water fluoridation is obsolete, and ethically questionable.
March 28, 2011 at 12:16 pm
A Note from the Publisher:
In response to concerns about the facts presented in “Water Break: Is the Truth About Fluoride a Washout?”:
Some in the dental profession have chosen to publicly express their opinion that Miller’s article was biased against water fluoridation. They did not argue the facts presented in the article.
“Water Break” did not discuss in detail the topical use of fluoride by dentists as medication to prevent tooth decay. Fluoride added to our municipal water supplies does originate from smokestack scrubbers at phosphate plants.(1, 2) Fluoride is a waste material derived from the processing of weapons-grade uranium.(3) Water municipalities are not using pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride; they are adding fluorosilicic acid, a corrosive, toxic, waste material.(4) These facts do indeed paint a grim picture of water fluoridation. The most extraordinary set of facts, however, is in the scientific literature showing how fluoride compounds affect our bodies.
It is now well recognized in the scientific community that taking fluoride systemically [swallowing] is not effective at preventing tooth decay, and exposes other body systems unnecessarily.(5, 6, 7) According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 32 percent of American children have dental fluorosis, a 23 percent increase from the 1980s.(8) Dental fluorosis and other health consequences associated with overexposure to fluoride prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to lower the current recommended upper limit of fluoride in public water from 1.2 mg/l down to 0.7 mg/l. (9)
Fluoride exposure causes skeletal fluorosis,(10, 11, 12, 13) and is linked to arthritis,(14) thyroid disorders,(15, 16) decreased fertility,(17, 18) and cancers.(19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24) Fluoride’s role as a neurotoxin is well documented.(25, 26, 27, 28, 29) Over 100 animal studies and 24 studies in humans have connected fluoride to brain damage.(30) One 2010 study described the inverse relationship between fluoride levels in children’s urine and a reduction in intelligence quotient.(31) Pharmaceutical medications have been taken off the market with less evidence.
It is The Health Journal’s responsibility to inform readers of important health issues based on facts supported by scientific research. It is my hope that the following list of references erases any lingering doubt over the credibility of facts presented in “Water Break.”
REFERENCES:
1. Connett M., (2003) The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environmental Overview
2. Schnelle, Karl B. Jr., and Brown, Charles A., (2002) Air Pollution Control Technology Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
3. Paul Connett, PhD; James Beck, MD, PhD; H.S. Micklem, (2010) The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazerdous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep it There. ISBN 978-1-60358-287-2
4. Hawley, G.G., The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 10th ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 1981. 472. ISBN-13: 978-0-47012-482-6
5. Neurath C., (2005) Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in non-fluoridated and fluoridated countries. Fluoride. 38:324-325.
6. Reich E., (2001) Trends in caries and periodontal health epidemiology in Europe. International Dental Journal. 51(6 Suppl 1):392-8.
7. Yiamouyiannis JA., (1990). Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-87 national survey of U.S. schoolchildren. Fluoride. 23: 55-67.
8. CDC. Table 23 from Beltrán-Aguilar et al. 2005. Surveillance for Dental Caries, Dental Sealants, Tooth Retention, Edentulism, and Enamel Fluorosis — United States, 1988–1994 and 1999—2002. MMWR Surveillance Summaries. 54(03);1-44.
9. Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy; Congressional Research Service, Resources, Science, and Industrial Division; Report RL33280, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues
10. Haimanot RT., (1990) Neurological complications of endemic skeletal fluorosis, with special emphasis on radiculo-myelopathy. Paraplegia. 28:244-51.
11. Krishnamachari KA., (1986) Skeletal fluorosis in humans: a review of recent progress in the understanding of the disease. Progress in Food and Nutrition Sciences. 10(3-4):279-314.
12. Choubisa SL, et al., (2001) Endemic fluorosis in Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Environmental Health. 43:177-89.
13. Misra UK, et al., (1988) Endemic fluorosis presenting as cervical cord compression. Archives of Environmental Health. 43:18-21.
14. Cook HA., (1971) Fluoride studies in a patient with arthritis. The Lancet. 1: 817.
15. Galletti P, Joyet G., (1958) Effect of Fluorine on Thyroidal Iodine Metabolism in Hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology. 18:1102-1110
16. Jooste PL., (1999) Endemic goitre in the absence of iodine deficiency in schoolchildren of the Northern Cape Province of South Africa. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 53(1):8-12.
17. Freni SC., (1994) Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 42:109-121.
18. Ortiz-Perez D, et al., (2003) Fluoride-induced disruption of reproductive hormones in men. Environmental Research. 93(1):20-30.
19. Bucher JR, et al., (1991) Results and conclusions of the National Toxicology Program’s rodent carcinogenicity studies with sodium fluoride. International Journal of Cancer. 48(5):733-7.
20. National Toxicology Program. (1990) Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C
21. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA., (2006) Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control. 17: 421-8.
22. Bassin EB., (2001) Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Osteosarcoma for Children and Adolescents. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine.
23. Takahashi K., Akiniwa K., Narita K., (2001) Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on IACR/IARC (WHO) data (1978-1992). International Agency for Research on Cancer. Journal of Epidemiology. 11:170-9.
24. Tohyama E., (1996) Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan. Journal of Epidemiology. 6(4):184-191.
25. Chen J, et al., (2003) Selective decreases of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in PC12 cells exposed to fluoride. Toxicology. 183(1-3):235-42.
26. Chen J, et al., (2002) Studies on DNA damage and apoptosis in rat brain induced by fluoride. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 36(4):222-224.
27. Lu XH, et al., (2000) Study of the mechanism of neurone apoptosis in rats from the chronic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology. 19: 96-98.
28. Shao Q, et al., (2000) Influence of free radical inducer on the level of oxidative stress in brain of rats with fluorosis. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 34(6):330-2.
29. Mullenix P, et al., (1995) Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. 17:169-177.
30. Blank, Ph.D., T., (2011) A Review of the 2010 Fluoride Literature
31. Ding Y, Gao Q, Sun H, Han H, Wang W, Ji X, Liu X, Sun D, (2010) The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children’s intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Hazardous Materials. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.097
April 25, 2011 at 3:07 pm
The following response was sent to info@thehealthjournals.com.
I have been dissatisfied with the direction of The Health Journal for quite awhile now, but I did not think that you would sink to the level of ‘yellow journalism’ to sell advertising. A self-described ‘health journal’ that is serving the community should never resort to such base tactics that seem extremely self-serving and inflammatory.
The recent article [“Water Break,” March 2011, written by Skip Miller] confused me at first because I was unaware of a controversy in this area or nationwide. Sure, there have been discussions on fluoridation of water over the years but these have been solved by the scientific community and by referendum vote by the public time after time. I was also puzzled by the author. Nothing was listed about his qualifications or affiliations with research, university or the scientific community. Only while attempting to find the email address did I notice that in fact he is the Associate Editor, which would explain the defensive editorial response to comments from those in the dental profession. I might also note that the dental profession does not have a proprietary interest in water fluoridation other than preventing dental work that they would otherwise be paid for.
As I said I have been increasingly unhappy with the editorial policies of this publication including only listing health providers if they are paid advertisers, often featuring paid advertisers—certainly limiting the unbiased reporting one should expect from a community-based health publication. Now, to find out that such inflammatory information is put out in the guise of scientific reporting by a member of the editorial staff has for me crossed the line of not reporting the story but trying to create or be the story—shame on you.
I’m sure that this letter will never see print on your pages, but I challenge you to set aside your editorial bias and start serving the community as a whole.
Robert F Morrison, D.M.D.
April 25, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Dr. Morrison,
It’s surprising that you are unaware of the controversy regarding the practice of water fluoridation. I presume fluoride is a medication dispensed routinely in your dental practice. Scientific uncertainty regarding the practice has prompted over 3,600 scientists and health professionals to recently sign a statement calling for the end of water fluoridation. The list includes Arvid Carlsson, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate for physiology and medicine, 2000; William Marcus, Ph.D., former chief toxicologist of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Water Division; the current and past six presidents of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology; and three members of the National Research Council committee who wrote the landmark review of fluoridation in 2006, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA Standards. The list includes 454 Ph.D.s, 395 M.D.s and 309 dentists; and it’s growing. All of these professionals are challenging the practice and calling it obsolete. This statement can be viewed at: fluoridealert.org/statement.august.2007.html.
So, has the scientific community really “solved” this matter as you say? In 2006 the American Dental Association issued a statement warning members against reconstituting baby formula with fluoridated tap water. In January 2011, the EPA called for a 42 percent reduction in fluoride concentration levels; that was the impetus for the article. Peer reviewed studies on the detrimental physiological effects of ingesting fluoride are emerging regularly. Science is always up for revision.
I defended the facts Miller presented in his article. We would do this for any writer, on staff or not. Miller is a skilled journalist with over 40 years’ experience reporting for newspapers, including The Washington Post, The Daily Press and others. A journalist doesn’t need to be an academic or a scientist; he just needs to report the facts. All of the scientific information presented in “Water Break” can be found in the public domain. If you have found an error, please let us know. We publish corrections.
As far as your dissatisfaction with the direction of The Health Journal; our editorial policies have not changed. We’ve always published health-related news stories. Occasionally stories are connected to practices that happen to advertise. We published an article about your Cone Beam CT Scanner in July 2008. You did not raise concerns about our editorial policies then. At that time you were advertising in The Health Journal.
You’re upset that we’ve discontinued the free Health Directory listings. The Directory is still free to charitable non-profits, free health clinics and public hospitals. Is it unreasonable to expect for-profit medical offices to help subsidize the cost of publishing a free health magazine?
The point of Miller’s “Water Break” article was to raise awareness of the scientific and ethical controversies regarding water fluoridation—a newsworthy, relevant topic of which many people, including you, were not aware. We did not discuss fluoride as medication used topically by dentists, so why do you take such offense?
Finally, what led you to believe that we wouldn’t publish your letter? We published the opinions of others who wrote in—you saw those in last month’s Inbox. We have never withheld comments from readers simply because they are critical of our editorial stance—no matter how biting.
Brian M. Freer, Publisher