Officials Lie About Fluoride Safety

by nyscof | March 26, 2009 at 04:36 am
177 views | 4 Recommendations | 3 comments

The American Public Health Association’s (APHA) new Fluoridation Position Statement is based on many documents that neither support nor evaluate fluoridation’s safety and/or effectiveness as it claims (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

 

APHA asserts, “All of these reviews have found CWF [Community Water Fluoridation] to be safe and effective.” Here’s the truth about APHA’s “supportive” references:

 

     National Research Council (2006)

 

This isn’t a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis. It found EPA’s current fluoride maximum-contaminant-level-goal for drinking water is not protective of health and must be lowered. (2)

 

     Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)

This report says "… subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds…the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein." (3)

      University of York, UK (2000)

 

About this report, the Centre for Review and Dissemination writes “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.” (4)

 

     Lewis and Banting, Canada (1994)

 

“The effectiveness of water fluoridation alone cannot now be determined,” they write. (5)

 

      New York State Department of Health (1990)

 

The authors concluded: “… some individuals may experience hypersensitivity to fluoride-containing agents.” And, “…it is currently impossible to draw firm conclusions regarding the independent effect of fluoride in drinking water on caries prevalence using an ecologic study design.” (6)

 

     World Health Organization (2006)

 

This report, not about fluoridation, documents high levels of natural fluoride causing human bone and teeth malformation in many countries. (7)

 

     Medical Research Council, UK (2002)

 

This report, not a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis, identifies fluoridation health uncertainties such as total exposure and bone effects. (8)

 

     Institute of Medicine (1999)

 

Since fluoride is not a nutrient, this report set the adequate intake from all sources to avoid children’s moderate dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) and, also, the upper limit to avoid crippling bone damage -- which the IOM admits “is too high for persons with certain illnesses…” (9)                                             

 

While APHA says that fluoridation reduced the incidence and severity of tooth decay, ”No clear reasons for the caries decline have been identified,” according to dental textbook, Dentistry, Dental Practice, and the Community (Burt and Eklund).

 

“Why is the APHA misrepresenting these documents and not publicizing fluoridation’s health risks and uncertainties, therefore, protecting fluoridation instead of the American public?” asks attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President.

 

Over 2,200 professionals urge Congress to stop fluoridation. Join them at http://congress.FluorideAction.Net

 

References:

 

1)  American Public Health Association Oral Health Section Newsletter, Winter 2009

http://www.apha.org/membergroups/newsletters/sectionnewsletters/oral/winter09/

 

2) “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of

EPA's Standards,”

Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National

Research Council, Executive Summary, 2006

http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=11571&type=pdfxsum

 

3) US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluordie, and Fluorine, (2003) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf

 

4) “What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found,” October 28 2003,A statement from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm

5) Lewis DW, Banting DW. Water fluoridation: current effectiveness and dental fluorosis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22:153–158 http://tinyurl.com/bhtlkq

6). Kaminsky LS, Mahoney MC, Leach J, Melius J, Miller MJ. Fluoride: benefits and risks of exposure. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1990;1:261–281 http://crobm.iadrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/1/4/261

7) World Health Organization, “New WHO report tackles fluoride in drinking-water,” November 2006   http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/new/2006/nw04/en/index.html

8). Medical Research Council. Medical Research Council Working Group Report: Water Fluoridation and Health. September 2002. www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002482

9)  Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Fluoride: Background Information. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. Report of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC:http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309063507

 

 

recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
RoryKearney

As toxic as flouride may be, it does prevent tooth decay, which is even more toxic to the individual, imo.

1
poisontap

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Fluoride is a *topical* agent that kills germs on contact and it was never meant to beingested. It’s basically similar to swallowing Neosporin.

 

It’s very easy for everyone to dismiss anti-fluoridation as the movementof crackpots. To all of you I say this: You are asking the wrong question.The question is not whether or not water fluoridation is good for you.The question is why any municipality would medicate the water supply withoutyour consent. Why not dump multivitamins into the water? Vitamins are alsogood for you right? The answer is obvious. Just because you may get all of yourvitamins from one source doesn't mean your neighbor does. Wise up people. We personally don't really care about the 'why'. We just want it stopped! Join us in the growing movement.

 

Steve

www.PoisonTap.org

 

0
nyscof2

Actually ingested fluoride does not prevent tooth decay.  Modern science shows that fluoride's purported benefits are topical meaning it just needs to touch the outside of the tooth to get into the enamel such as using fluoridated toothpaste which contains 1,000 parts per million fluoride.  On the other hand water supplies containing just 1 ppm fluoride doesn't reduce tooth decay because the amount of swallowed fluoride emerging from the saliva to bathe the teeth is too small to have any benefit.  However, swallowing fluoride does cause sided effects which can be found here http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health


Even swishing with 1 ppm fluoride is ineffective as fluoridated mouthrinses have also been shown to be ineffective at reducting tooth decay, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  And fluoridated mouthrines have much more fluoride than fluoridated water but less than toothpaste.


So brush with fluoridated toothpaste if you choose; but keep it out of my water.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from