Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The Case Against Water Fluoridation The Case Against Water Fluoridation Paul Connett, PhD Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry St. Lawrence University,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "The Case Against Water Fluoridation The Case Against Water Fluoridation Paul Connett, PhD Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry St. Lawrence University,"— Presentation transcript:

1 The Case Against Water Fluoridation The Case Against Water Fluoridation Paul Connett, PhD Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY Director, Fluoride Action Network www.FluorideALERT.org pconnett@gmail.com Auckland, NZ, April 2, 2011 Auckland, NZ, April 2, 2011

2 Outline of talk Outline of talk 1. Fluoridation is a poor medical practice 2. Fluoridation is unethical 3. The evidence of any benefit is very weak 4. There is no adequate margin of safety to protect the brain from harm and other KNOWN health effects 5. Why does the NZ MOH continue to push fluoridation? 6. The next steps.

3 Part 1. Fluoridation is a poor medical practice

4 Fluoridation is a poor medical practice Fluoridation is a poor medical practice 1. Fluoridation is the only time since 1945 we have used the public water supply to deliver medicine. 1. Fluoridation is the only time since 1945 we have used the public water supply to deliver medicine. 2. You can control CONCENTRATION (mg/liter) at the water works but you cant control DOSE (mg/day) that people drink. 2. You can control CONCENTRATION (mg/liter) at the water works but you cant control DOSE (mg/day) that people drink. 3. You cant control who gets the medicine. 3. You cant control who gets the medicine.

5 Fluoridation is a poor medical practice Fluoridation is a poor medical practice 4) There is no individual oversight by a doctor 5) No health agency is monitoring for side effects 6) Fluoride is NOT a nutrient. 7) Fluoride is a known toxic substance that interferes with many fundamental biochemical functions

6 Fluoridation is a poor medical practice Fluoridation is a poor medical practice 8. The chemicals used are not pharmaceutical grade as used in dental products They come from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry They come from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry A spray of water captures two very toxic gases (HF and SiF 4 ) that have caused a great deal of environmental damage. This hazardous waste cannot be dumped into the sea by international law, BUT if this waste is PURCHASED by someone it becomes a PRODUCT and is no longer covered by US hazardous waste regulations! This hazardous waste cannot be dumped into the sea by international law, BUT if this waste is PURCHASED by someone it becomes a PRODUCT and is no longer covered by US hazardous waste regulations!

7 Fluoridation is a poor medical practice Fluoridation is a poor medical practice 9. The main chemicals used are the silicon fluorides: H 2 SiF 6 (hexa fluoro silicic acid) or its sodium salt Na 2 SiF 6 (sodium hexa fluorosilicate). H 2 SiF 6 (hexa fluoro silicic acid) or its sodium salt Na 2 SiF 6 (sodium hexa fluorosilicate). Neither of these chemicals, either in their pure form, or the contaminated solutions used, have been put through any rigorous toxicological testing. Neither of these chemicals, either in their pure form, or the contaminated solutions used, have been put through any rigorous toxicological testing.

8 Proponents claim 1. That they are merely adjusting the levels of a naturally occurring element. 2. Just because a substance occurs naturally does not make it safe – arsenic occurs naturally! 3. As far as nature is concerned it has made a determination of how much fluoride the baby needs – and it is VERY, VERY small. 4. The proponents adjustment is to give a new born baby up to 250 times the level of fluoride in mothers milk (1 ppm = 250 x 0.004 ppm)

9 Fluoridation is a poor medical practice Fluoridation is a poor medical practice In NZ 0.7 – 1.0 ppm fluoride added to water (average 0.85 ppm) In NZ 0.7 – 1.0 ppm fluoride added to water (average 0.85 ppm) 0.85 ppm is over 200 times the level in mothers milk (0.004 ppm) 0.85 ppm is over 200 times the level in mothers milk (0.004 ppm) A bottle fed baby gets 20,000% the dose a breast fed baby gets

10 Proponents claim 1. That water fluoridation is not medication, 2. But the definition of a medicine is a substance given to people to help prevent or combat a disease. 3. Fluoride is added to water to help combat or prevent tooth decay (a disease). 4. Fluoride is being used as a medicine and water fluoridation is mass medication.

11 Fluoridation is a poor medical practice Fluoridation is a poor medical practice The official classification of the The US Food and Drug Administration: Fluoride is an unapproved drug. The FDA has never regulated fluoride for ingestion. As a result… Fluoridation has never been subjected to randomized clinical trials (RCT) for effectiveness or safety as required for other drugs. Fluoridation has never been subjected to randomized clinical trials (RCT) for effectiveness or safety as required for other drugs.

12 The FDA does regulate fluoridated toothpaste in the US

13

14 A Pea Size amount of Tooth Paste contains 0.25 mg

15 A Pea Size amount of Tooth Paste contains 0.25 mg equivalent to 250 ml of water at 1 ppm

16 A Pea Size amount of Tooth Paste contains 0.25 mg equivalent to 250 ml of water at 1 ppm i.e. 1 large glass of water

17 Part 2. Fluoridation is not ethical

18 Fluoridation is not ethical Fluoridation is not ethical 1. No government has the right to force medication on its people to fight a non- contagious, non-life-threatening disease. 2. It deprives individuals of their right to informed consent to medication. 3. With fluoridation a government is doing to EVERYONE what a doctor can do to NO ONE.

19 Part 3. The evidence of benefit is very weak

20 Only EIGHT Countries have more than 50% of the population drinking fluoridated water (Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States) Only EIGHT Countries have more than 50% of the population drinking fluoridated water (Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States)

21 98% of Western Europe now drinks Non-Fluoridated Water Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Northern Ireland Norway Scotland Sweden Switzerland

22 98% of Western Europe now drinks Non-Fluoridated Water Austria* Belgium Denmark Finland France* Germany* Greece Iceland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Northern Ireland Norway Scotland Sweden Switzerland* *Some fluoridate their salt

23 Most countries dont fluoridate their water, but according to WHO data their kids teeth are as good as those that do Most countries dont fluoridate their water, but according to WHO data their kids teeth are as good as those that do

24 SOURCE: World Health Organization. (Data online)

25 Comparing US Communities

26 NIDR conducted the largest survey of tooth decay ever conducted in the US (1986-7) The teeth of over 39,000 children in 84 communities were examined. The teeth of over 39,000 children in 84 communities were examined.

27 The largest US survey of tooth decay Average difference (for 5 - 17 year olds) in DMFS 3.4 DMFS NF 2.8 DMFS F

28 Brunelle and Carlos, 1990 Average difference (for 5 - 17 year olds) in DMFS = 0.6 tooth surfaces (5 surfaces to a tooth) 3.4 DMFS NF 2.8 DMFS F

29 Studies in Australia have found even less saving than O.6 DMFS! Spe ncer et al. (1996) found a saving in two states of ONLY 0.12 – 0.3 permanent tooth surfaces. Spe ncer et al. (1996) found a saving in two states of ONLY 0.12 – 0.3 permanent tooth surfaces. Armfield and Spencer (2004) found no statistically significant difference in tooth decay in the permanent teeth between children in South Australia who had drunk fluoridated water all their lives and those who had drunk bottled or tank water. Armfield and Spencer (2004) found no statistically significant difference in tooth decay in the permanent teeth between children in South Australia who had drunk fluoridated water all their lives and those who had drunk bottled or tank water.

30 The magnitude of [fluoridations] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant, and may not be of clinical significance. SOURCE: David Locker for the Ontario Ministry of Health & Long Term Care, 1999

31 Studies in NZ Dr. John Colquhoun (1984, 1985, 1987) found no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non- fluoridated communities in NZ Dr. John Colquhoun (1984, 1985, 1987) found no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non- fluoridated communities in NZ

32 Hastings-Napier trial: A Fraud?

33 Studies in NZ De Liefde, 1998 described the difference in tooth decay in the permanent teeth as clinically meaningless De Liefde, 1998 described the difference in tooth decay in the permanent teeth as clinically meaningless

34 Studies in NZ (MOH) Recent studies reported in MOH (2010), Our Oral Health Recent studies reported in MOH (2010), Our Oral Health … found that 9-10 year olds continuously exposed to water fluoridation had half the dental caries experience… … found that 9-10 year olds continuously exposed to water fluoridation had half the dental caries experience… The MOH cites four recent NZ studies The MOH cites four recent NZ studies

35 Lee and Dennison, 2004 Lee and Dennison, 2004 Wellington versus Canterbury saving of 1 DMFS (2.4 – 1.4), MOH, 2010, p.28. Wellington versus Canterbury saving of 1 DMFS (2.4 – 1.4), MOH, 2010, p.28. 1/2.4 x 100 = 41% saving 1/2.4 x 100 = 41% saving If Lee and Dennison had compared If Lee and Dennison had compared non-fluoridated Canterbury (1.28 DMFT) with fluoridated Waikato (1.68 DMFT) and fluoridated Otago (1.42 DMFT). NF Canterbury is 31% and 11% better than F Waikato and F Otago respectively (MOH, 2009 data). non-fluoridated Canterbury (1.28 DMFT) with fluoridated Waikato (1.68 DMFT) and fluoridated Otago (1.42 DMFT). NF Canterbury is 31% and 11% better than F Waikato and F Otago respectively (MOH, 2009 data).

36 Kanagaratnam et al., 2009 no signicant relationship was found between residential uoridation history and dental caries in the permanent dentition.. no signicant relationship was found between residential uoridation history and dental caries in the permanent dentition..

37 Schluter et al 2008 Prevalence of caries: Prevalence of caries: Deciduous teeth, prevalence: F = 54.9%, NF = 62.0 % (p=0.05) Saving = 7.1% Deciduous teeth, prevalence: F = 54.9%, NF = 62.0 % (p=0.05) Saving = 7.1% Permanent teeth prevalence F = 15.9%, NF = 11.7% (p=0.14) Permanent teeth worse in F-areas but not statistically significant Permanent teeth prevalence F = 15.9%, NF = 11.7% (p=0.14) Permanent teeth worse in F-areas but not statistically significant

38 Mackay and Thomson, 2005 Residence in F area up to age 9 Residence in F area up to age 9 Permanent teeth: DMFS Permanent teeth: DMFS None 1.22 None 1.22 Intermittent 1.18 Intermittent 1.18 Continuous 0.70 Continuous 0.70 Saving = 1.22 – 0.70 = 0.52 DMFS Saving = 1.22 – 0.70 = 0.52 DMFS % saving = 0.70/1.22 x 100 = 43% % saving = 0.70/1.22 x 100 = 43%

39 Savings in the four studies cited by MOH 0, 0, 0.53 and 1 permanent tooth surfaces out of about 100 permanent tooth surfaces in a childs mouth 0, 0, 0.53 and 1 permanent tooth surfaces out of about 100 permanent tooth surfaces in a childs mouth

40 Percentage savings versus absolute savings Proponents frequently report their findings as percentage savings. This can be very deceptive. Proponents frequently report their findings as percentage savings. This can be very deceptive. We saw in the Mackay and Thomson, 2005 study that a saving of one half of a permanent tooth surface (note there are 4 or 5 surfaces to a tooth) equates to a percentage saving of 43%. We saw in the Mackay and Thomson, 2005 study that a saving of one half of a permanent tooth surface (note there are 4 or 5 surfaces to a tooth) equates to a percentage saving of 43%. The latter sounds more impressive to the general public. The latter sounds more impressive to the general public.

41 Delayed eruption in F areas There is some evidence that fluoride delays the eruption of the permanent teeth (Komarek, 2005) There is some evidence that fluoride delays the eruption of the permanent teeth (Komarek, 2005) A delay of one year would eliminate all the benefits seen in recent studies in NZ. A delay of one year would eliminate all the benefits seen in recent studies in NZ. According to the York Review (McDonagh et al. 2000) No study used an analysis that would control for the frequency of sugar consumption or the number of erupted teeth per child (York, p.24) According to the York Review (McDonagh et al. 2000) No study used an analysis that would control for the frequency of sugar consumption or the number of erupted teeth per child (York, p.24)

42 Original Data – Age BasedShifted Data – Post-Eruption Based* Recent Trends in Dental Caries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation by J.A. Brunelle and J.P. Carlos Journal of Dental Research February 1990 (Volume 69, Special Issue, Pages 723-727) *Fluoridated data was shifted back by one year; e.g. age 6 Fluoridated aligns with age 5 unfluoridated, etc. Mean DMFS Adjusted for one year Delayed eruption of teeth William Kiel, Alamo Heights.

43 Delayed eruption in F areas The DA (dental age) of the AUS and UK populations was found to be different (Fig. 5). The AUS population had a 0.82 year delay in their DA compared to the UK population. This difference was compared and was found to be very statistically signicant (P < 0.001). Peirisi et al. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2009; 19: 367–376 The DA (dental age) of the AUS and UK populations was found to be different (Fig. 5). The AUS population had a 0.82 year delay in their DA compared to the UK population. This difference was compared and was found to be very statistically signicant (P < 0.001). Peirisi et al. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2009; 19: 367–376

44 Important recent studies Komarek et al., 2005 (controlled for delayed eruption of teeth in F- communities). Komarek et al., 2005 (controlled for delayed eruption of teeth in F- communities). Found no difference in tooth decay between F and non-F communities. Found no difference in tooth decay between F and non-F communities. Warren et al., 2009 (measured tooth decay as a function of individual exposure to fluoride). Warren et al., 2009 (measured tooth decay as a function of individual exposure to fluoride). Found no relation between tooth decay and amount of fluoride ingested. Found no relation between tooth decay and amount of fluoride ingested.

45 An explanation for weak evidence of benefit in recent studies The major benefits of fluoride are TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC. (CDC, 1999, 2001). In other words fluoride works on the outside surface of the tooth not from inside the body The major benefits of fluoride are TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC. (CDC, 1999, 2001). In other words fluoride works on the outside surface of the tooth not from inside the body Fluoridation should have ended in 1999!

46 Fluorides main benefit is TOPICAL. It works on the outside of the tooth. Its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." Centers for Disease Control, 1999 "Fluoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical." Centers for Disease Control, 2001

47 In pharmacology, if the effect is local (topical), it's awkward to use it in any other way than as a local treatment. I mean this is obvious. You have the teeth there, they're available for you, why drink the stuff? -Dr. ARVID CARLSSON, NOBEL LAUREATE in MEDICINE 2000

48 Part 4. There is no adequate margin of safety to protect everyone from known harmful effects of fluoride

49 Harmful effects have been carefully documented in a 507- page (1100 references) report by the US National Research Council published in 2006.

50 National Research Council (2006)

51 Harmful effects of FLUORIDE include: 1. Dental fluorosis 2. Brain damage 3. Lowered thyroid function 4. Accumulation in the pineal gland 5. Bone damage 6. Osteosarcoma? 7. Some people very sensitive to very low levels

52 Dental Fluorosis Early promoters thought that at 1 ppm F they could limit dental fluorosis to 10% of children in its very mild form. Early promoters thought that at 1 ppm F they could limit dental fluorosis to 10% of children in its very mild form.

53 Very Mild Dental Fluorosis Impacts up to 25% of tooth surface

54 Mild Dental Fluorosis Impacts up to 50% of tooth surface

55 Moderate Dental Fluorosis Impacts 100% of tooth surface

56 Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004 November 2010: CDC update on fluorosis by Beltrán-Aguilar et al. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db 53.htm#findings November 2010: CDC update on fluorosis by Beltrán-Aguilar et al. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db 53.htm#findings http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db 53.htm#findings http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db 53.htm#findings

57 CDC, 2010

58 41%

59 Sensitivity to fluorides toxicity may have an ethnic component Afro Americans and Hispanic Americans appear to be more sensitive to fluorides toxicity. – They have HIGHER dental fluorosis rates than white Americans in same communities. Afro Americans and Hispanic Americans appear to be more sensitive to fluorides toxicity. – They have HIGHER dental fluorosis rates than white Americans in same communities.

60 Dental Fluorosis in NZ NZ dental fluorosis rates = about 30% NZ dental fluorosis rates = about 30%

61 A KEY QUESTION When fluoride is damaging the babys growing tooth cells (causing dental fluorosis) what is it doing to its other developing tissues? When fluoride is damaging the babys growing tooth cells (causing dental fluorosis) what is it doing to its other developing tissues?

62 The babys developing brain The baby should NOT be exposed to fluoride of up to 250 times the level of fluoride that occurs in mothers milk The baby should NOT be exposed to fluoride of up to 250 times the level of fluoride that occurs in mothers milk

63 One wonders what …an increase in the exposure to fluoride, such as occurs in bottle-fed infants …may mean for the development of the brain and the other organs… 1978 Arvid Carlsson Nobel Prize for Medicine, 2000

64 National Research Council (2006): Fluoride & the Brain it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.

65 Fluoride and the Brain Many more studies on the brain have been published since the NRC review The panel reviewed FIVE IQ studies

66 Human studies As of 2011, there are now 24 published studies (from China, Iran, India and Mexico) indicating that moderate to high fluoride exposure is associated with lowered IQ in children As of 2011, there are now 24 published studies (from China, Iran, India and Mexico) indicating that moderate to high fluoride exposure is associated with lowered IQ in children

67 Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) Compared children in two villages ( <0.7 ppm versus 2.5 - 4.5 ppm F in water) Compared children in two villages ( <0.7 ppm versus 2.5 - 4.5 ppm F in water) Controlled for lead exposure and iodine intake, and other key variables (NOTE: both lead exposure and low iodine also lower IQ). Controlled for lead exposure and iodine intake, and other key variables (NOTE: both lead exposure and low iodine also lower IQ). Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole age range Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole age range The whole IQ curve shifted for both males and females The whole IQ curve shifted for both males and females

68 Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) MALES

69 Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) FEMALES

70 Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) Estimated that IQ in children lowered at Estimated that IQ in children lowered at 1.9 ppm fluoride in water (threshold) 1.9 ppm fluoride in water (threshold)

71 There is no adequate margin of safety There is no adequate margin of safety If fluoride is associated with lowering IQ of children at 1.9 ppm in a small population study we need to apply a safety factor to protect the whole population of children If fluoride is associated with lowering IQ of children at 1.9 ppm in a small population study we need to apply a safety factor to protect the whole population of children Normally we use a safety factor of 10 to do this Normally we use a safety factor of 10 to do this If we assume that the Chinese children were drinking one liter of fluoride per day the dose that lowered IQ was 1.9 mg/day If we assume that the Chinese children were drinking one liter of fluoride per day the dose that lowered IQ was 1.9 mg/day That would mean to protect the intelligence of ALL the children in a large population a safe dose would be 0.19 mg/day (1.9 divided by 10) That would mean to protect the intelligence of ALL the children in a large population a safe dose would be 0.19 mg/day (1.9 divided by 10)

72 Xiang et al. (2010) Xiang et al. elaborated on their 2003 study. Xiang et al. elaborated on their 2003 study. Added in more details of methods etc. Added in more details of methods etc. Added in data showing an association between plasma levels of fluoride and lowered IQ. Added in data showing an association between plasma levels of fluoride and lowered IQ. Accepted for publication by Environmental Health Perspectives the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Accepted for publication by Environmental Health Perspectives the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) NIEHS is an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). NIEHS is an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Pre-publication copy of this article published online Pre-publication copy of this article published online Article withdrawn because Xiang had published some of the data before (conflicts with EHP policy) Article withdrawn because Xiang had published some of the data before (conflicts with EHP policy)

73 Xiang et al. (2010) Please note: Please note: Xiang et al. (2010) paper was NOT withdrawn because the methodology was considered inadequate Xiang et al. (2010) paper was NOT withdrawn because the methodology was considered inadequate The methodology was PEER REVIEWED and the study considered acceptable for publication in the leading US environmental health journal. The methodology was PEER REVIEWED and the study considered acceptable for publication in the leading US environmental health journal.

74 Ding et al. 2011 (J. Hazardous Materials) Mean value of uoride in drinking water was 1.31 ±1.05mg/L (range 0.24–2.84). Mean value of uoride in drinking water was 1.31 ±1.05mg/L (range 0.24–2.84). Conclusions Conclusions Overall, our study suggested that low levels of uoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on childrens intelligence... Overall, our study suggested that low levels of uoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on childrens intelligence... The results also conrmed the dose–response relationships between urine uoride concentrations and IQ scores… The results also conrmed the dose–response relationships between urine uoride concentrations and IQ scores…

75 Ding et al. 2011 Fig 2. The relationship between IQ differences and urine fluoride concentrations. Multiple linear regression model was carried out to confirm the association with urine fluoride exposure and IQ scores (F=9.85, p < 0.0001)

76 Ding et al. 2011 an increase in the urine uoride concentration of 1 mg/L associated with a decrease of 0.59 IQ scores. an increase in the urine uoride concentration of 1 mg/L associated with a decrease of 0.59 IQ scores.

77 Two preposterous notions What parent in their right mind would put their childrens teeth above their brains? What parent in their right mind would put their childrens teeth above their brains? What government would support a program aimed at lowering tooth decay - by at most 0.6 of one tooth surface – if it lowered the IQ of the population by even a small amount? What government would support a program aimed at lowering tooth decay - by at most 0.6 of one tooth surface – if it lowered the IQ of the population by even a small amount?

78 Other health concerns (see chapters 13-19 in The Case Against Fluoride )

79 Fluoride may cause bone cancer (osteosarcoma)

80 Osteosarcoma: Science vs Politics The science: In 2001, Dr. Elise Bassin (a dentist) successfully defended her PhD thesis at Harvard. The science: In 2001, Dr. Elise Bassin (a dentist) successfully defended her PhD thesis at Harvard. She found (in a matched case-control study) that if young boys were exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th,7th or 8th years, they had a 5-7 fold increase in developing osteosarcoma by the age of 20, compared to non-exposed boys. She found (in a matched case-control study) that if young boys were exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th,7th or 8th years, they had a 5-7 fold increase in developing osteosarcoma by the age of 20, compared to non-exposed boys. Now the politics Now the politics Between 2001 and 2005, Bassins thesis adviser - Prof. Chester Douglass three times concealed her findings (1. From his peers - a meeting of the BFS in 2002; 2. The NRC panel and 3. His funder - the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Between 2001 and 2005, Bassins thesis adviser - Prof. Chester Douglass three times concealed her findings (1. From his peers - a meeting of the BFS in 2002; 2. The NRC panel and 3. His funder - the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

81 Osteosarcoma The Science: Bassin publishes research in the May 2006 issue of the journal Cancer Causes and Control. The Science: Bassin publishes research in the May 2006 issue of the journal Cancer Causes and Control. The politics again. In a letter published in the same issue, Douglass promises a study that he claims will discount Bassins findings. The politics again. In a letter published in the same issue, Douglass promises a study that he claims will discount Bassins findings. This promise of a study is being used by promoters of fluoridation to negate concern over Bassins findings. This promise of a study is being used by promoters of fluoridation to negate concern over Bassins findings. Douglass promised his study for the Summer of 2006 – Douglass promised his study for the Summer of 2006 – we are still waiting! we are still waiting!

82 National Research Council (2006): Fluoride & the Thyroid several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.

83 IF fluoride lowers thyroid function It could explain: It could explain: 1) delayed eruption of primary teeth 1) delayed eruption of primary teeth 2) lowered IQ in children 2) lowered IQ in children 3) Increase in hypothyroidism among US population, plus the accompanying symptoms – obesity, lethargy, tiredness not relieved by sleep etc 3) Increase in hypothyroidism among US population, plus the accompanying symptoms – obesity, lethargy, tiredness not relieved by sleep etc

84 Fluoride & Pineal Gland In 1997 Jennifer Luke confirmed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland. She found an average of 9,000 ppm on the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals (highest 21,000 ppm) (Luke, 2001). In 1997 Jennifer Luke confirmed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland. She found an average of 9,000 ppm on the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals (highest 21,000 ppm) (Luke, 2001). In animals (Mongolian gerbils) fluoride lowers melatonin production and shortens time to puberty (Luke, Ph.D. thesis, 1997). In animals (Mongolian gerbils) fluoride lowers melatonin production and shortens time to puberty (Luke, Ph.D. thesis, 1997).

85 Schlesinger et al. (1956)

86 Fluoride and Childrens Bone The Newburgh-Kingston, NY trial (Schlesinger et al, 1956) also reported about twice the incidence of cortical bone defects in the children in the fluoridated community (13.5%) compared with the non-fluoridated community (7.5%).

87 Alarcon-Herrera et al. (2001) In a Mexican study researchers found that as the severity of dental fluorosis went up so did the incidence of bone fractures in both children and adults In a Mexican study researchers found that as the severity of dental fluorosis went up so did the incidence of bone fractures in both children and adults

88

89 Arthritis The first symptoms of fluorides poisoning of bone are identical to arthritis (stiffness, aching joints and pain in the bones) The first symptoms of fluorides poisoning of bone are identical to arthritis (stiffness, aching joints and pain in the bones) According to the CDC, arthritis affects 68 million people in the US - 1 in 3 American adults According to the CDC, arthritis affects 68 million people in the US - 1 in 3 American adults No fluoridated country is collecting fluoride bone levels in a systematic fashion to check a possible connection with arthritis or other bone problems! No fluoridated country is collecting fluoride bone levels in a systematic fashion to check a possible connection with arthritis or other bone problems!

90 "All members of the committee agreed that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures.weaken bone National Research Council (2006): Fluoride & Skeletal System

91 Li et al (2001)

92 Fluoride levels in tea High concentrations of fluoride have been reported in the tea drinks of India, Tibet, and China: Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l.

93 Fluoride levels in tea Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l. I liter = 8 cups or 4 mugs 8 cups of tea/day = 0.76 – 7.34 mg/day 16 cups of tea/day =1.5 -14.6 mg/day A heavy tea drinker could damage their bones

94 Fluoride levels in tea High concentrations of fluoride have been reported in the tea drinks of India, Tibet, and China: Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l.

95 Fluoride levels in tea Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l. I liter = 8 cups or 4 mugs 8 cups of tea/day = 0.76 – 7.34 mg/day 16 cups of tea/day =1.5 -14.6 mg/day A heavy tea drinker could damage their bones

96 Key Health Studies have NOT been done in most fluoridating countries NO INVESTIGATION of a possible relationship between consumption of fluoridated water and lowered IQ in children (except one small study in NZ), lowered IQ in children (except one small study in NZ), behavioral changes in children (attention deficit etc) behavioral changes in children (attention deficit etc) arthritic symptoms in adults, arthritic symptoms in adults, hypo-thyroidism (underactive thyroid), hypo-thyroidism (underactive thyroid), increased bone fractures in children, increased bone fractures in children, Melatonin levels in children Melatonin levels in children Earlier onset of puberty, Earlier onset of puberty, Alzheimers disease in adults, and Alzheimers disease in adults, and

97 There has been NO FORMAL INVESTIGATION of the many anecdotal reports and case studies (and one clinical trial) that some individuals are highly sensitive to fluoride (e.g. gastrointestinal, neurological and skin conditions) There has been NO FORMAL INVESTIGATION of the many anecdotal reports and case studies (and one clinical trial) that some individuals are highly sensitive to fluoride (e.g. gastrointestinal, neurological and skin conditions) See Fluoride Fatigue (Spittle, 2008)

98 If you dont look, you dont find! The absence of studies, does not mean the absence of harm The absence of studies, does not mean the absence of harm Dr. Peter Cooney, the Chief Dental Officer of Canada, told an audience in Dryden, Ontario (April 1, 2008), Dr. Peter Cooney, the Chief Dental Officer of Canada, told an audience in Dryden, Ontario (April 1, 2008), I walked down your High Street today, and I didnt see anyone growing horns, and you have been fluoridated for 40 years! I walked down your High Street today, and I didnt see anyone growing horns, and you have been fluoridated for 40 years!

99 WHY? The only rational explanation for so much irrational (or irresponsible) behavior on the part of health agencies that continue to promote water fluoridation even though the science indicates that it is neither effective nor safe, IN MY OPINION is because The only rational explanation for so much irrational (or irresponsible) behavior on the part of health agencies that continue to promote water fluoridation even though the science indicates that it is neither effective nor safe, IN MY OPINION is because it has become more important to protect this practice than it is to protect the health of the people they represent… it has become more important to protect this practice than it is to protect the health of the people they represent… Why should that be? Why should that be?

100 Why does the dental lobby continue to promote fluoridation? The y are very proud of this practice The y are very proud of this practice Fluoridation helped to establish dentistry on a par with medicine Fluoridation helped to establish dentistry on a par with medicine Fluoridation is the backbone of public health dentistry Fluoridation is the backbone of public health dentistry Fluoridation has made careers, reputations and provides money for endless research on teeth Fluoridation has made careers, reputations and provides money for endless research on teeth

101 Why do health bureaucracies continue to promote fluoridation? We have to do look at this at three levels: We have to do look at this at three levels: At the bottom At the bottom In the middle In the middle At the top of the bureaucracies (or chain of command) At the top of the bureaucracies (or chain of command)

102 At the bottom of the chain of command We have thousands of doctors and dentists who truly BELIEVE that fluoridation works. This was all they were taught at dental and medical school. Now most are so busy treating patients that they dont have time to read the literature. They take the word of professional bodies and health agencies at face value. We have thousands of doctors and dentists who truly BELIEVE that fluoridation works. This was all they were taught at dental and medical school. Now most are so busy treating patients that they dont have time to read the literature. They take the word of professional bodies and health agencies at face value.

103 In the middle of the chain of command Within the chain of command we have bureaucrats who are trained to PROMOTE NOT to QUESTION policy (i.e. their jobs depend upon promoting fluoridation) Within the chain of command we have bureaucrats who are trained to PROMOTE NOT to QUESTION policy (i.e. their jobs depend upon promoting fluoridation)

104 At the top of the chain of command At the top of the chain of command of the health agencies in fluoridating countries the major concern is: At the top of the chain of command of the health agencies in fluoridating countries the major concern is: Losing credibility Losing credibility

105 Why do health agencies like the NZ MOH continue to promote fluoridation? Lose fluoridation = lose credibility Lose fluoridation = lose credibility Lose credibility = lose (or threaten) the publics trust in other important public health policies Lose credibility = lose (or threaten) the publics trust in other important public health policies Public health policies require the publics trust Public health policies require the publics trust MY RESPONSE: I argue that by coming clean and stopping their support for fluoridation (switching to promoting TOPICAL treatments and investing in education for a better diet) health agencies (like NZ MOH) would improve their credibility and regain the publics trust. MY RESPONSE: I argue that by coming clean and stopping their support for fluoridation (switching to promoting TOPICAL treatments and investing in education for a better diet) health agencies (like NZ MOH) would improve their credibility and regain the publics trust.

106 Heavy tea drinkers are already getting too much fluoride

107 MY RESPONSE I argue that by coming clean and stopping their support for fluoridation (switching to promoting TOPICAL treatments and investing in education for a better diet) health agencies (like NZ MOH) would improve their credibility and begin to regain the publics trust. I argue that by coming clean and stopping their support for fluoridation (switching to promoting TOPICAL treatments and investing in education for a better diet) health agencies (like NZ MOH) would improve their credibility and begin to regain the publics trust.

108 THE SCIENCE INDICATES THAT FLUORIDATION SHOULD BE ENDED SEE FAN-NZs website FANNZ.org.nz SEE FAN-NZs website FANNZ.org.nz SEE FANs website FluorideALERT.org SEE FANs website FluorideALERT.org SEE FANs health data base SEE FANs health data base SEE the NRC (2006) report ONLINE SEE the NRC (2006) report ONLINE SEE the 28-minute video Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation SEE the 28-minute video Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation SEE our book, The Case Against Fluoride SEE our book, The Case Against Fluoride

109 Book to be published by Chelsea Green October, 2010 Can be ordered now on Amazon.com Meanwhile, see FluorideAlert.org for more information

110 The Next Step We have done our job as scientists We have done our job as scientists We have outlined our case in detail We have outlined our case in detail We have documented every fact and argument we have presented We have documented every fact and argument we have presented Now we need health authorities to do their job Now we need health authorities to do their job Either respond scientifically to our case or Either respond scientifically to our case or admit that fluoridation was a HUGE MISTAKE and STOP IT NOW! admit that fluoridation was a HUGE MISTAKE and STOP IT NOW!

111 EFFECTING CHANGE Is like driving a nail through a piece of wood

112 EFFECTING CHANGE Experts may sharpen the point

113 EFFECTING CHANGE Experts may sharpen the point But you need the hammer of public opinion to drive the nail home

114 More evidence

115 More evidence that promoters of fluoridation are more interested in protecting this practice than protecting our health

116 In Nov, 2006, the American Dental Association told its members "If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride." SOURCE: American Dental Association, Nov 9, 2006

117 BUT parents are not Being warned! "If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride." SOURCE: American Dental Association, Nov 9, 2006

118 We need to get this warning to parents This warning should be inserted in water bills: Parents should not use tap water to make up baby formula

119 The difference between science and politics In science you examine the data and draw a conclusion In science you examine the data and draw a conclusion In politics you reach a conclusion and then select the data to support that conclusion In politics you reach a conclusion and then select the data to support that conclusion

120 POLITICS versus SCIENCE A good example of how promoters put politics above science is the way they treated the landmark NRC (2006) report.

121 The NRC report NRC published their report on March 22, 2006 NRC published their report on March 22, 2006 The panel concluded that the safe drinking water standard for fluoride (the MCL and MCLG of 4 ppm) was not protective of health The panel concluded that the safe drinking water standard for fluoride (the MCL and MCLG of 4 ppm) was not protective of health They recommended that the EPA do a health risk assessment to determine a new MCLG They recommended that the EPA do a health risk assessment to determine a new MCLG

122 POLITICS versus SCIENCE On the same day as the NRC published its report the ADA declared the NRC review was irrelevant to water fluoridation! They stated that 4 ppm was much higher than the level used in fluoridation (0.7 - 1.2 ppm) On the same day as the NRC published its report the ADA declared the NRC review was irrelevant to water fluoridation! They stated that 4 ppm was much higher than the level used in fluoridation (0.7 - 1.2 ppm) Six days later the CDC declared that NRC report was consistent with their promotion of fluoridation at 1 ppm Six days later the CDC declared that NRC report was consistent with their promotion of fluoridation at 1 ppm In 2007, the Australian NHMRC said NRC report not relevant to Australia In 2007, the Australian NHMRC said NRC report not relevant to Australia In Feb. 2009, the Strategic Health Authority in Southampton, UK, said NRC report not relevant to fluoridation in UK In Feb. 2009, the Strategic Health Authority in Southampton, UK, said NRC report not relevant to fluoridation in UK

123 POLITICS versus SCIENCE There are FOUR problems with these dismissals of the relevance of the NRC (2006) review: There are FOUR problems with these dismissals of the relevance of the NRC (2006) review: 1) They didnt wait for the EPA to determine a new MCLG, or attempt their own 1) They didnt wait for the EPA to determine a new MCLG, or attempt their own 2) They are confusing concentration and dose. Someone consuming a lot of water at 1 ppm could get a higher dose than someone consuming a little water at 4 ppm (or less than 4 ppm when a new MCLG is determined) 2) They are confusing concentration and dose. Someone consuming a lot of water at 1 ppm could get a higher dose than someone consuming a little water at 4 ppm (or less than 4 ppm when a new MCLG is determined) 3) They didnt attempt a margin of safety analysis on the levels causing harm reported in the NRC report. 3) They didnt attempt a margin of safety analysis on the levels causing harm reported in the NRC report. 4) They didnt note that in chapter 2 the NRC panel showed that subsets of the population were exceeding the EPA IRIS reference dose drinking water at 1 ppm fluoride 4) They didnt note that in chapter 2 the NRC panel showed that subsets of the population were exceeding the EPA IRIS reference dose drinking water at 1 ppm fluoride

124 THE US EPA On Jan 7, 2011 (after 5 years) the EPA has begun a process that will eventually a determine a new safe drinking water standard (MCL) or goal (MCLG) On Jan 7, 2011 (after 5 years) the EPA has begun a process that will eventually a determine a new safe drinking water standard (MCL) or goal (MCLG) If EPA did this job honestly using routine assumptions and methods used in regulatory health risk assessments it would force a new MCLG LESS than 1 ppm If EPA did this job honestly using routine assumptions and methods used in regulatory health risk assessments it would force a new MCLG LESS than 1 ppm And end water fluoridation overnight! And end water fluoridation overnight!

125 THE US EPA However on Jan 7, 2011 EPA spokesperson made it clear that they will be determining a new safe MCLG which would not interfere with the benefits of the water fluoridation program. However on Jan 7, 2011 EPA spokesperson made it clear that they will be determining a new safe MCLG which would not interfere with the benefits of the water fluoridation program. In my view that would be impossible to do honestly (note my calculations on IQ lowering) In my view that would be impossible to do honestly (note my calculations on IQ lowering) It is also a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act which it makes it clear that the MCLG should protect all the people from both known and reasonably anticipated health effects– any consideration of supposed benefits should not interfere with this determination It is also a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act which it makes it clear that the MCLG should protect all the people from both known and reasonably anticipated health effects– any consideration of supposed benefits should not interfere with this determination

126 Extra slides Extra slides

127 Sensitivity analysis for IQ risk assessment Sensitivity analysis for IQ risk assessment If the Chinese children were drinking 0.5 liter, LOAEL for lowered IQ = 0.95 mg/day. Safe dose to protect whole population = 0.095 mg/day. If the Chinese children were drinking 0.5 liter, LOAEL for lowered IQ = 0.95 mg/day. Safe dose to protect whole population = 0.095 mg/day. If the Chinese children were drinking 2 liters, lowered IQ at 3.8 mg/day. Safe dose to protect whole population = 0.38 mg/day (less than two glasses of water) If the Chinese children were drinking 2 liters, lowered IQ at 3.8 mg/day. Safe dose to protect whole population = 0.38 mg/day (less than two glasses of water) If we reduced margin of safety to 5 (instead of 10) Safe dose = 0.19- 0.76 mg/day (equivalent to 190 -760 ml of water at 1 ppm a day) If we reduced margin of safety to 5 (instead of 10) Safe dose = 0.19- 0.76 mg/day (equivalent to 190 -760 ml of water at 1 ppm a day)

128 Fluoride & the thyroid gland European doctors (1930s to 50s) used sodium fluoride to reduce thyroid activity in patients with hyperthyroidism (over active thyroid gland). The doses used by Galletti and Joyet (1958) - 2.3 - 4.5 mg of fluoride per day - are currently exceeded by some people living in 1 ppm communities

129 Bachinskii 1985 2.3 ppm of fluoride in water 2.3 ppm of fluoride in water was a risk factor of more rapid development of thyroid pathology. was a risk factor of more rapid development of thyroid pathology.

130 Lin et al., 1991 Lin et al. found that for mothers with borderline iodine exposure the IQ in their offspring was further lowered by drinking water at 0.9 ppm fluoride i.e. fluoride exposure makes low iodine intake worse

131 Fluoride levels in tea High concentrations of fluoride have been reported in the tea drinks of India, Tibet, and China: Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l.

132 Fluoride levels in tea Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l. I liter = 8 cups or 4 mugs 8 cups of tea/day = 0.76 – 7.34 mg/day 16 cups of tea/day =1.5 -14.6 mg/day A heavy tea drinker could damage their bones

133 Comparing US States

134 50 USA States and DC Percent National Survey of Children's Health. http://mchb.hrsa.gov/oralhealth/portrait/1cct.htm http://mchb.hrsa.gov/oralhealth/portrait/1cct.htm U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. The National Survey of Children's Health 2003. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005 http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/waterfluoridation/fact_sheets/states_stats2002.htm

135 Fluoride and the Pineal gland

136 Pineal Gland

137 Fluoride & Pineal Gland TRYPTOPHAN SEROTONIN MELATONIN Enzyme 1 Enzyme 2 Enzyme 4 Enzyme 3


Download ppt "The Case Against Water Fluoridation The Case Against Water Fluoridation Paul Connett, PhD Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry St. Lawrence University,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google