There is an overwhelming consensus amongst dental,
medical and public health professionals supporting
Fluoridation .
The evidence
for the effectiveness of water fluoridation is incontrovertible. More than a
dozen large-scale literature reviews have found water fluoridation,
confers a considerable Dental Caries preventive benefit in
children. Further to this, water fluoridation and its effect on the
tooth structure provides a benefit to adults across their lifespan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/
The
ant-fluoridation arguments are little more than fallacious non-science
Here are 4
examples from a few hundred one can find in the
National Library of Medicine's database :
-
Community water fluoridation prevents about 2/3 of the operations
necessary for severe childhood cavities in baby teeth and saves about 50%
of the total bill for childhood dental care in Medicaid patients. MMWR
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999 Sep 3;48(34):753-7. Water fluoridation and
costs of Medicaid treatment for dental decay--Louisiana, 1995-1996.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10499787
-
The
largest study ever done on cavities in school children's permanent teeth
found that in the Pacific Region fluoridated communities had 61% fewer
cavities. J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:723-7; (see graph on p
323) Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of
water fluoridation. Brunelle JA, Carlos JP.
-
Kids who drink fluoridated water become adults with more teeth. Am
J Public Health. 2010 Oct;100(10):1980-5. Epub 2010 Aug 19. The
association between community water fluoridation and adult tooth loss.
Neidell M, Herzog K, Glied S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724674
-
Teeth with mild fluorosis have fewer cavitis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009
Jul;140(7):855-62. The association between enamel fluorosis and dental
caries in U.S. schoolchildren. Iida H, Kumar JV.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049
Skeptic's
view of the European situation likely comes from a graph on the Fluoride
Action Network's website. The graph misleads. For example, not all European
countries are included. Secondly, the widespread use of fluoridated salt is
not mentioned. For a discussion of that and other errors please read the
famous
debate between Drs. Connett and Pollick which includes this matter.
“Fluoridation is one of the 10 greatest public health achievements
of the 20th century,” Dr. Howard Pollick of the University of
California San Francisco School of Dentistry told the subcommittee
as he encouraged members to continue fluoridation.
“Fluoridation is safe, it saves money and it works — that is the
bottom line, take-home message,” Will Humble, Director for the
Arizona Department of Health Services, told the subcommittee.
Great Britain
is currently undertaking an expansion of water fluoridation similar in scope
to what has and is occurring in California.
|
The
European opinion as to water fluoridation's safety joins those of:
 |
Australia's National Health Research Council (2007), |
| the
US National Academy of Sciences (2006), |
| the
World Health Organization (2006), |
|
Ireland's Forum on Fluoridation (2002) and others.
The Ireland data nicely demonstrates that additional benefit
came to those with fluoridated water.
Ireland WHO: -
http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/EURO/
|
| |
Dental Caries |
| |
non fluoridated |
fluoridated |
|
1984 |
3.3 |
2.6 |
|
1992 |
2.1 |
1.4 |
|
2002 |
1.8 |
1.1 |
|
|
Removing
any doubt as to European opinion, in May 2011 the European
Union's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks
issued a formal report titled "Critical review of any new evidence on
the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and
the fluoridating agents of drinking water".
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf
(Conclusion on page 39)
Dispels
the alleged fears of:
|
While the
studies
the Harvard team reviewed (Developmental
Fluoride Neurotoxicity)
IQs among
schoolchildren, the data is not applicable here because it came from
foreign (Chinese) sources where fluoride levels are multiple times
higher than they are in American tap water.
Studies didn't screen for other toxins.
Data on fluoride,
IQ not applicable in U.S.
|
|
A very
thorough and detailed analysis of fluoride in Switzerland over 45 years
is available.
see:
http://www.sso.ch/doc/doc_download.cfm?uuid=BFC72B80B1408D4053BBBB937D37EABD
About
half of the remarkable decline in cavities is
ascribed to fluoride.
Roughly 80% of the children studied consume fluoridated salt. Most agree
that salt fluoridation has equivalent efficacy as public water fluoridation.
1
As with other calcifying tissues, the
pineal gland can accumulate fluoride. Fluoride has been shown to be present
in the pineal glands of older people aged 72-100 years, with the fluoride
concentrations being positively related to the calcium concentrations in the
pineal gland, but not to the bone fluoride, suggesting that
pineal
fluoride is not necessarily a function of cumulative fluoride exposure of
the individual
|
Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You
If you live in a community with fluoridated water, consider yourself lucky.
If you do not, don't let the poisonmongers scare you. Fluoridation is still
a modern health miracle.
US fluoridation
does NOT reduce IQ - Snopes
the claim that there are scientific studies that support the
notion that water fluoridation can cause developmental problems in children
that result in lower IQs is false.
No studies that actually investigate that specific question have reached
that conclusion.
Your dentist may be giving you
more fillings than you need
A
2007 report by the Institut National de Sant Publique shows that in
Dorval, Québec, the
discontinuation of water fluoridation in 2003 led to the doubling of the
percentage of kindergarten children at high risk of developing
cavities by 2005
Alternatives to water fluoridation – like programs that promote routine
brushing with fluoridated toothpaste – “are more expensive” and it will be
especially damaging for already health-disadvantaged
and worsen oral health inequities.
Tooth decay, or caries, is caused by bacteria that thrive
on sugars in the mouth and produce acids. Left in contact with a tooth, the
acids draw out minerals, creating microscopic pores. Decay progresses
slowly, and it may take years for a full-blown hole, or cavity, to form;
until that point, it can still be reversed. Mineral-containing saliva is
constantly working to replenish the teeth, and fluoride aids
remineralization.
After a filling, more than 60% of people will return to
the dentist with new decay within the next two years. source WSJ
The Centers for Disease Control
considers fluoridation to be
one of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements of the 20th century.
And the American Dental Association and the
American Public Health Association
unequivocally support maintaining a measured amount of fluoride in drinking
water.
The easily-led mob, instead, put their faith in a propaganda website called The Fluoride Action Network or a junk book called
"The Case Against Fluoride".
Newsweek article: The
Cochrane Collaboration
and
one isolated city in a country where kids eat twice as much candy and
studies that don't allow for the worldwide increase in sugary drinks, ---
does not replace the many worldwide studies to date.
The American Dental Association Responds to the Cochrane Review of Water
Fluoridation
Newsweek’s "Cochrane Review"
headline, reads “Fluoridation
May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows“.
This is irresponsible journalism, as
that’s not what the Review showed at all. But it does peddle
false scientific information to its huge
readership.
Just as you don't have the right to refuse inoculation of your child and
then send her to school, infected, to sicken
or even kill other children. You don't have the right to deprive
everyone of the benefits of flouridation. |
TSCA section 6(a)
rulemaking to protect adequately against such risk .
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/TSCA_21_%20Petition_Response_HFSA_FRN_PrePub_2013-08-06.pdf
(page 8)
B. What is EPA’s Reason for this Response?
For the purpose of making its decision, EPA evaluated the information
presented or referenced in the petition as well
as the Agency’s authority and requirements under TSCA sections 6, 9, and 21.
After careful consideration, EPA denied the TSCA section 21 petition because
the evidence presented by the petitioners
does not adequately support a conclusion that HFSA, when used as a fluoridation agent, presents or will present an
unreasonable risk to health or the environment and that a TSCA section 6
rulemaking is necessary to protect adequately
against such risk . More specifically:
1. Arsenic.
EPA evaluated the cost-benefit analysis submitted by the petitioners and
determined that the petitioners miscalculated
net benefits for pharmaceutical grade NaF
compared to HFSA.
Specifically, it appears that the petitioners failed to convert their
estimates of lifetime cancer risk to estimates
of annual cancer risk for the purpose of calculating annual net benefits.
This error alone results in a 70-fold
overestimation of the number of annual cancer cases due to arsenic.
That is, for the analysis in which the petitioners evaluate arsenic
concentrations of 0.078 parts per billion (ppb)
due to HFSA and 0.00084 ppb due to pharmaceutical grade NaF, the estimated
numbers of cancer cases, when corrected,
decrease from 320 to 4.6 per year for HFSA and from 3.4 to 0.05 per year for
pharmaceutical grade NaF(Refs. 2 and 9).
Similarly, for the analysis in which the petitioners evaluate an arsenic
concentration of 0.43 ppb due to HFSA and
0.00084 due to pharmaceutical grade NaF, the estimated numbers of cancer
cases, when 8 corrected, decrease from 1,800
to 25 per year for HFSA and from 3.4 to 0.05 per year for pharmaceutical
grade NaF (Refs. 2 and 9).
After making the correction (i.e., annualizing the lifetime cancer risk),
and retaining all other assumptions of the
petitioners analysis, the analysis actually indicates that the cost-benefit
ratio is in favor of using HFSA over
pharmaceutical grade NaF (-$81M/year to-$8M/year, respectively) rather than
pharmaceutical grade NaF over HFSA (Ref.
).
As a result, the information submitted by petitioners does not support the
petitioners’ claim that there are net
benefits in switching from HFSA to pharmaceutical grade NaF. Given that the
petition is based upon the premise that
the benefits of using pharmaceutical grade NaF as a fluoridation agent
significantly exceed the costs relative to the
use of HFSA as a fluoridation agent, EPA concludes that petitioners have not
set forth sufficient facts to establish
that HFSA presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment with respect to arsenic
or that it is necessary to initiate a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking to
protect adequately against such risk.
2. Lead.
Petitioners assert that HFSA contains lead but provided no data to support
this assertion.
Petitioners also assert that the use of HFSA in lead-containing water piping
systems results in leaching of lead from
lead-containing water piping systems into water (Ref. 5), and that when
chloramine is used in conjunction with
silicofluorides greatly enhanced leaching of lead into water occurs (Ref.
3). However, multiple other studies
concluded that the fluoridation of drinking water with HFSA has little
impact on corrosivity and/or release of metals
from plumbing materials (Refs.10,11,12, and 13).
For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted
a study of the relationship between the
additives used for fluoridation (i.e., 9 HFSA, sodium silicofluoride, and
sodium fluoride) and blood lead
concentrations among a nationally representative sample of >9,000 U.S.
children, aged 1-16 years (Ref.10).
The study analysis did not offer support for the hypothesis that
silicofluorides in community water systems increase
blood lead concentrations in children.
Based on the available evidence, EPA cannot conclude that the use of HFSA,
with or without the presence of chloramine,
results in enhanced leaching of lead. |
fluoridation of Marin
Municipal Water District’s water is mandated by
two local ballot Measures and a state law.
MMWD started adding fluoride to its water in 1973 after a measure calling
for fluoridation on the November 1972 ballot passed with the support of 57
percent of voters. Marin voters reaffirmed their support for fluoridation by
giving 53 percent support to a local ballot measure in 1978.
Then in 1995, Assembly Bill 733 became law, requiring public water systems
that have more than 10,000 connections to provide fluoridated water as long
as they don’t use ratepayer funds.
The North Marin Water District, which provides water to
Novato and West Marin,
doesn’t fluoridate its water and does not fall
under the rules of AB 733.
“I can’t as a board member cast a vote that violates the law,” Gibson said.
“I’m not going to do that.” |
|
