What You Forgot To Tell Us About Being Over-Exposed To Fluoride, Via Water Fluoridation.

The cheerleaders of water fluoridation backed their statements up with PR the chemical got and they turned a blind eye to the works of those who opposed the idea, they even went as far as discrediting their findings and punishing the professionals who openly opposed this by ensuring that they were removed from the boards they sat on. In one of the many pro-fluoridation articles that popped up, it is alleged that during the 1930’s some scientists came to conclude that fluoride could prevent cavities, not that it would. However that was good enough of a reason for the American government to adopt and implement this program, and they fluoridated communal water during the 1940’s – 1950’s – preventing tooth decay was their justification.
There is a danger in not looking into the so-called solutions to our problems that the governments and capitalists present us. It is also weird to come for those who question the credibility of what is presented to us as facts, why punish them for having opposing views that provide a different perspective on your program if it is what you say it is?

A picture of Dr Paul Connett

Dr Paul Connett, states how most developed countries which include Japan and 97 percent of the Western European population do not fluoridate their water. There are a few European countries: Ireland (73%); Poland(16%); Serbia(3%); Spain(11%); and the UK(11%) that fluoridate any of their water. But there’s this urge for developing countries and low-income communities to fluoridate their water, to prevent tooth decay despite no major differences being recorded to prove this. It is recorded that close to 70 percent of public water facilities/ supplies in countries that implemented this program have fluoridated water. This equates to an estimated 185 million people who are drinkers of water that is artificially fluoridated globally. There are also countries with natural high fluoride levels in their water, to name a few: India; China and in some parts of Africa- however there aren’t many sources that point towards safety measures being to remove the fluoride instead of ‘lowering’ it, despite the negative effects overexposure can have on one’s health.

What Is Fluoride?

According to Colgate, the number two selling brand in the world which is bought by 65% of the world’s households , “It is a natural mineral found throughout the earth’s crust and widely distributed in nature. Some foods and water supplies contain fluoride” they go on to say the following, “studies since then have repeatedly shown that when fluoride is added to a community’s water supply, tooth decay decreases. The National Dental Forum Dental Association of South Africa among many other organizations have endorsed the use of fluoride in water supplies because of its effects on tooth decay” Source

They did not only give us an idea of what fluoride is but they endorsed the idea of fluoridating the water supply of communities. Did you know that fluoride is the only chemical put in water for the dental medical treatment of those who consume it?

When fluoride is added into water for the sole purpose of preventing dental cavities it qualifies as, a form of medical treatment. Water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water quality and to ensure it is safe for consumption, not to prevent the formation of cavities. The United States Food and Drug Administration classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease. (FDA 2000)

Is The Water Fluoridation Program Ethical?

Water fluoridation is unethical and standard procedures ought to be followed prior the distribution of medication to a patient by a medical practitioner, their consent is important so is their knowledge and understanding on why they need to take their medicine. Unlike with the water fluoridation program that allows government to do to the masses what doctors can not, which was a good enough reason for non-fluoridating countries to rule against it.

But They Can Control The Dose, What’s The Fuss?

The dose can not be controlled, despite professionals and governments claims of only administering a fixed amount into the water. The minute fluoride is put into water, it becomes impossible for one to control the dose they receive due to their consumption of water because different people drink different quantities. As a health professional being able to control the patients dose is important, but here that does not apply. Without complete control over the dose consumed by an individual, it is important to note that fluoride goes to everyone whether they are young or old, health or not and when they are vulnerable. According to Dr Arvid Carlsson, one of the scientists that were part of those who opposed the adoption of this program in Sweden, “Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy which is progressing from a stereotyped medication – of type 1 tablet 3 times a day- to a much more individualised therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking of water means the exactly opposite of individualized therapy”(Carlsson 1978).

Nowadays people receive fluoride from more than one source, fluoridated water is not the only way people are exposed to it these sources include:
– Food & Beverages processed with fluoridated water(Heilman 1999)
– Fluoridated Dental Products (Bentley 1999, Levy 1999)
– Mechanically Deboned Meat (Fein 2001)
-Tea(Levy 1999)
-Pesticide Residues on food (Stannard 1991;Burgstahler 1997)
“It is now widely acknowledged that exposure to non-eater sources of fluoride has significantly increased since the water fluoridation program began” (NRC 2006).

But It’s a Necessity! Or is It?

There is no single biological process that has shown to require fluoride however there is extensive evidence that’s states hoe too much fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes. Fluoride interferes with numerous enzymes.

Wardbott 1978

In combination with aluminium fluoride interferes with G-proteins

Bigoy 1985

If fluoride was that much of an essential nutrient, why is it very low in breast milk? The level of fluoride in a mother’s milk is low as compared to the amount found in the milk of a bottle fed baby. A bottle fed baby that consumes fluoridated water can get up to 300 times more fluoride than a breast fed baby. The consumption of fluoridated water, is risky than it is beneficial. Infants take in heightened levels of fluoride at an early stage of their lives and aren’t safe from being hit with serious health conditions in the future. When an individual consumes fluoride, it accumulates in their body. According to Mavier & Rose, healthy adult kidneys excrete 50-60% of the fluoride consumed a day. (Mavier & Rose 1971)

The remaining percentage accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland. (Luke 1997,2001)

Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys because they are still developing and they take up 80% of the fluoride they consumed into their bones. (Ekstrand 1994)

The fluoride concentration in an individual’s bone increases over a lifetime.

It is scary how organisations and health agencies in fluoridated countries turn a blind eye when it comes to monitoring fluoride expose and its side effects. There are no regular measurements being made to actually look into the levels of fluoride in urine, blood, bone, hair and nails of the general population or those sensitive subparts of the population. A major red flag about this program is how there has never been a randomized controlled trial held that would demonstrate its safety and effectiveness.

There have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation.

Chang 2007

Randomized trials are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment.

In 2000, the British Government “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of research. (Mc Donagh 2000)

Source: Pinterest

What Effects Does It Have On Our Teeth?

The benefit of water fluoridation is topical and not systemic. Studies that are easily accessible are those that are pro-fluoridation and they lack factual evidence.

The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluorides benefits are mainly topical and not systemic.

CDC 1999 – 2001

There is no need for the consumption of fluoridated water, in order for us to prevent tooth decay, especially when swallowing it is potentially dangerous and unnecessary. Why not apply on to the teeth? Isn’t this why we now have Toothpaste? There is no justification for how people have been forced into consuming fluoride through their water supply, to go as far as claiming that this is done to prevent tooth decay and cavities is beyond me, why push for this program to be in developing countries at most? Seeing that a number of western industrialised countries without fluoridated water have experienced a decline in dental decay as compared to the fluoridating group who are yet to see a change.

The role played by water fluoridation in the decline of tooth decay is not a guarantee. “One of the biggest surveys conducted in the US, which covers 39 000 children from 84 communities by the National Institute of Dental Research showed a small difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non fluoridated communities.” – Hileman 1989

Large surveys from three Australian states found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0-0.3 of one permanent tooth surface.

Spencer 1996 et al.

None of these studies have allowed for the possible delayed eruption of teeth that may be caused by exposure to fluoride, for which there is some evidence.

Komarek 2005

A one year delay in the eruption of an individual’s permanent teeth could eliminate the very small benefit recorded in these modern studies.

The rise of tooth decay in low-income communities that have been fluoridated for years is not normal, it prompts us to question what the actual benefit fluoridation has on one’s health. Fluoridation can not prevent an oral health problem, which is a result of poverty, malnutrition and poor or no access to quality dental health care facilities.
Research has repeatedly found fluoridation to be ineffective at preventing the most serious oral health problem facing poor children namely “baby bottle tooth decay” otherwise known as early childhood cavities. (Barnes 1992; Shiboski 2003)

Another Myth we were told was that tooth decay vanishes when we consume fluoridated water. In countries that discontinued the program there hasn’t been an increase in reports of tooth decay instead there has been a general decrease. To name a few: Canada, the former east of Germany, Cuba and in Finland. (Mapomé 2001)

Studies presented to us that encouraged the idea of water fluoridation were methodologically flawed. “The early trials conducted between 1945-1955 in North America that helped launch fluoridation have been heavily criticised for their poor methodology and poor choice of communities.”
(De Stefano 1954 et al)

Serious questions have also been raised about Trendley Dean’s famous 21 city study he conducted in 1942.

Zieglebeeker 1981

Trendley Dean is known as the father of fluoridation, and is famous for the study he conducted. About Him

What Happens To The Over-Exposed?

Being overexposed to fluoride from a young age can be problematic at a later stage in life. Children who are overexposed to fluoride aren’t immune to dental decay nor the limiting of dental fluorosis. The program has failed to achieve it’s key objectives.

What is dental fluorosis?

It is the discolouring of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis to 10% of children.

NRC 1993

The British government’s ‘York Review’ estimated that up to 48% of children in fluoridated areas globally have dental fluorosis in all forms, with 12.5% having fluorosis of aesthetic concern. – Mc Donagh, 2000

The larges doses of fluoride go to babies who are bottle fed, due to their reliance on liquid for their food intake. Infants that consume formula made with fluoridated water have the highest exposure to fluoride by body weight in the population. Due to infants being overexposed to fluoridated water and this finding being a major risk for developing dental fluorosis later in life, a number of dental researchers have recommended that parents of new-borns refrain from using fluoridated water when making baby formula.
(Marshall 2004, et al.)

Even the American Dental Association (ADA), one of the most evident institutional proponents of fluoridation sent out a number of email alerts to members, recommending that parents be advised to make the formula with low or no fluoridated water. However that is as far as they went to getting the information out and into the hands of parents. There is still a large number of parents who are in the dark where the issue of water fluoridation is concerned especially when the water isn’t suitable for infants to consume and be overexposed to it.

Is It Harmful To Other Tissues?

Here are a few examples:

1. Dental fluorosis may ne an indicator of a much more wider systemic ruin. The promoters of fluoridation are comfortable with dismissing the dental fluorosis caused by the consumption of the water to just a mere cosmetic effect. It is harsh to assume fluoride does not impact other developing tissues when it visibly damages teeth by some biochemical mechanism. (Groth 1973) Over consuming fluoride is said to cause dental fluorosis during the period before the eruption of permanent teeth, what does this mean for children between the ages of 6-8 if other tissues are potentially susceptible to damage throughout life? In areas with levels of naturally high fluoride, the first indicator of harm is dental fluorosis in children, in some communities a number of older people develop skeletal fluorosis.

2. Fluoride may damage the brain, according to the National Research Council (2006),”It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”

3.Fluoride may lower your I. Q, a number of studies have been conducted from China, Iran, India and Mexico that reported on an association between fluoride exposure reducing one’s I.Q:
– One of these studies indicate that moderate levels of fluoride exposure can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency.
-Another study found 10 reductions at 1.9ppm etc. In the Ding study each 1ppm increase of fluoride in urine was associated with a loss of 0.59 I. Q points.
None of these studies point towards an adequate margin of safety to protect all children who drink artificially fluoridated water.

4. Fluoride may cause non-I. Q neurotoxic effects, reduced I. Q is not the only neurotoxic effect that may result from fluoride exposure. At least 3 human studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired visual spatial organization. (Calderon 2000,et al.)While four other studies have found an association between prenatal fluoride exposure and foetal brain damage. (Han 1989 et al.)

5.Fluoride affects the Pineal Gland, Jennifer Luke’s 2001 study shows how fluoride forms in the human Pineal gland in very high levels. Consistent with her findings are one of the earliest fluoridation trials in the United States which reported that an average of young girls from the fluoridated community began their menstrual cycle 5 months earlier than girls in the non-fluoridated community. (Schlesinger 1956)
These findings are yet to be contested nor have there been calls for further investigation into this.

6. Fluoride affects Thyroid function, during the middle of the twentieth century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to induce the activity of the Thyroid gland for those who suffered from hyperthyroidism. (Sketcher 1960, et al.)
According to a clinical study by Galetti & Joyer(1958) “The thyroid function of hyperthyroid patients was effectively reduced at just 2.3 to 4.5mg a day of fluoride.” Symptoms of hyperthyroidism include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels and heart disease.

7. Fluoride causes Arthritic symptoms,”Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis mimic the symptoms of arthritis” – Teotra 1976

8. Fluoride damages bones, an early fluoridation trial found a significant two-fold increase in cortical bone defects among children in the fluoridated community. The cortical bone is the outside layer of the bone and is important to protect against bone fracture. (Schlesinger 1956)

9. Fluoride can increase hip fractures in the elderly. There have been studies published since the 1990s that have investigated a possible relationship between hip fractures and long term consumption of artificially fluoridated water or water with high natural levels.

10. People with impaired kidney functions are particularly vulnerable to bone damage, due to their inability to effectively excrete fluoride. People with kidney disease are prone to accumulating high levels of fluoride in their bones and blood. As a result high fluoride in the body of kidney patients elevates the risk for developing skeletal fluorosis. For More On This

Was The Safety Tape Taken Out?

There is no margin of safety, for a number of health effects. Millions of people in India and China have had their health compromised by Fluoride. The real question is whether there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses shown to cause harm in published studies, and the total dose people receive when consuming uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and non-fluoridated water. This margin is to consider the wide range of individual sensitivity expected in a large population. It is also to consider the large range of doses people are exposed to.

Is Environmental Justice A Thing Here?

Those who are paralysed by fluoridation according to Dr Paul Connett are low income households. They are most likely to suffer from malnutrition and poor dental health care access which would make them vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects. It is these people who are being targeted by these programs.
While at risk, poor families are least able to afford to avoid fluoride once it is added to their water supply. No financial assistance is offered to families that need help getting alternative water supplies or to help pay costs for treating dental fluorosis cases. Here’s an interesting piece from the former Mayor of Atlanta, Mr Andrew Young:

See how it states the possibility of past facts about water fluoridation being far from true or effective?

Tooth decay is a reflection of low-income or poor health care not low fluoride intakes. Tooth decay is consistent in poverty stricken communities and this is where we should be advocating for an increase in access to, dental health care facilities for these communities. The highest rate of tooth decay cases are found in low-income areas that have been fluoridated for years.

The continued promotion of this program is unscientific, seeing that key-health studies are yet to be conducted. In a January 2008 issue of the Scientific American Professor John D, who at the time was also the chairman of the 2006 National Research Council had this to say on the fluoridation of water:

It is the absence of studies and lack of information that prompts the promoters of fluoridation to continue sugar-coating the dangers the program has on one’s health. An endorsement does not represent scientific evidence – those who promote the program rely on a list of endorsements. They would rather ignore the fact that the program was adopted before a single test had been conducted, before these findings were published on the studies conducted the program was already in action. Many other endorsements were quick to follow accompanied by little evidence of any scientific rational for doing so. The continued use of these flawed endorsements is more political than it is medicinal or scientific. Review panels were also hand-picked to deliver a pro-fluoridation result. When fluoridation is under threat governments of fluoridating countries hand-pick panels to deliver reports that encourage this. In their recent pro-fluoridation book ‘Fluoride Wars’ which was published in 2009 this was what the two had to say:

In case you were wondering, there is a large number of scientists, researchers and professionals who oppose the idea of water fluoridation. The earliest opponents were biochemists. As these professionals, doctors and researchers looked into the primary literature by themselves instead of relying on the self-serving statements from the ADA or CDC they began to awaken from the slumber and have come to realize they and the general public weren’t diligently informed by their professional bodies on this subject. In January 2012 over 4000 professionals signed a statement which called for an end to eater fluoridation globally. To Read About It, Kindly Visit This Link.

The proponents on the one side continue to defend and promote the fluoridation program but they seemingly lack the back bone to defend this program on public platforms where they do not control the debate and it is broader. These cheerleaders disappear when they are challenged to a debate by organisations such as the, Association of Science in the public interest, the American College of Technology and the United States EPA. (Bryson 2004)
According to Dr Michael Easley, a well known lobbyist for water fluoridation in the United States “Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluoriphobes view” (Easley1999)

In light of the proponents refusal to debate the issue, a wise Dr Edward Groth. Who is a senior scientist at the Consumers Union responded by saying that,

The political profluoridation stance has evolved in a dogmatic authoritarians essentially anti-scientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues. Proponents use dubious tactics to promote fluoridation, many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation.

Marlin 1991

To name a few of those who were dealt with for opposing:
Dr Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her role as chair of Toxicology at the Fory Dental Centre for publishing her findings on what fluoride does to the brain. (Mullenix 1995)
Dr William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s hand in of the NTP’s fluoride cancer study. (Bryson 2004)

Many dentists and doctors tell opponents in safe spaces away from the public, that they too are opposed to this program but they dare not speak out in public due to the peer pressure and the victimization that follows those who do. Such tactics should not be necessary if the cheerleaders of this program were sailing on the waves of scientifically safe and sound waters.

When it comes to controversies that surround toxic chemicals, vested interests traditionally do their best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led governments to frag their feet on regulating Asbestos, Benzene, PPT, PCBs, Tetraethyl lead, Tobacco and Dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a 60 year delay. Unfortunately because government officials and dental leaders have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation. Fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorder or thyroid related problems. It will be very difficult for them to speak honest and openly about the issue. But they must, to not only protect millions of people from unnecessary harm but to protect the notion that at its core, possible health policy must be based on sound scientific and not political expediency.

Dr Paul Connett

Figures from WHO show rates of tooth decay in the United States where two-thirds of the public’s water supplies are fluoridated, are higher than similar cases reported in non-fluoridating countries. If many European countries rejected the implementation and adoption of this program due to lack of sound scientific evidence that proves it reduces the risk of dental fluorosis or cavities, is it fair for those in charge to continue with this by subjecting developing countries and communities to the consumption of fluoridated water?

As we conclude, it is important to note that water fluoridation may not be among the biggest environmental health threats. It is one of the easiest to stop, it would require political will and the enlightening of the masses on the dangers of this program prior their mobilisation.

Excess fluoride ingestion is linked to dental fluorosis, a condition that causes tooth enamel to become discoloured. Which then present can indicate that the rest of your body has been overexposed to allude as well.

Belcanto Dental

My Sources:

There is a danger in not looking into the so-called solutions to our problems that the governments and capitalists present us. It is also weird to come for those who question the credibility of what is presented to us as facts, why punish them for having opposing views that provide a different perspective on your program if it is what you say it is?

La Nkosi