Home » News » Metro »

Task force finalizing research on fluoride impact for April

By Hilary Farrell on March 1, 2010 4:45 am in Metro / 7 comments

 

The city’s Fluoride Task Force is finalizing its research of fluoride’s impact on water.

The task force, a group comprised of Mount Pleasant residents, hopes to release its findings to the City Commission by the end of April, said Commissioner and FTF chairwoman Kathy Ling.

The group was created to research the safety of city water fluoridation, she said.

“This is very important,” Ling said. “The committee is not looking at whether or not fluoride in water is effective.”

Instead, she said, the task force is researching various health and safety issues regarding water fluoridation, such as incidents of over exposure to fluoride.

Concerns include effectiveness and safety regarding water fluoridation, as well as public health, legal and ethical questions.

According to the city’s Aug. 25, 2008 resolution on fluoride, the concern came from a report in March 2006 by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences stating the current Environmental Protection Agency’s ruling of four parts per million for fluoride in drinking water is too high.

Upon passing the resolution, the city reduced the levels of fluoride in drinking water to .7 parts per million and agreed to establish a task force.

The task force has had four meetings so far, Ling said, and began gathering in June.

Fluoride is effective in the prevention of tooth decay because it is applied topically to teeth while drinking water, said Scott McNaught, Central Michigan University biology associate professor and aquatic ecologist.

He said the fluoride found in many toothpastes is up to 1 million times higher than the fluoride in water supplies.

“These two are the best possible way to prevent cavities,” McNaught said.

A common side effect of too much fluoride in children is dental fluorosis, identified by permanent, but harmless, white spots on the teeth, McNaught said.

In 2005, the Center for Disease Control concluded more than 32 percent of American children display symptoms of at least mild dental fluorosis because of fluoride overexposure.

Fluoridation in municipality water became the official policy of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1951.

This came about when certain areas found a correlation between very low cavity rates and naturally high fluoride in ground water, McNaught said.

“Fluoride repels bacteria (from) decay, and attacks food residues on teeth,” McNaught said. “It is clear cut, no argument.”

 

Tags

,

Related Posts

 
  • maureen jones

    Water Fluoridation Does Not Mitigate BabyBottle/Sippy Cup Tooth Decay:

    Auge, K. Denver Post Medical Writer. Doctors donate services to restore little girl’s smile. The Denver Post, April 13, 2004. (Note: Denver, CO has been fluoridated since 1954.) “Sippy cups are the worst invention in history. The problem is parents’ propensity to let toddlers bed down with the cups, filled with juice or milk. The result is a sort of sleep-over party for mouth bacteria,” said pediatric dentist Dr. Barbara Hymer as she applied $5,000 worth of silver caps onto a 6-year-old with decayed upper teeth. Dr. Brad Smith, a Denver pediatric dentist estimates that his practice treats up to 300 cases a year of what dentists call Early Childhood Caries. Last year, Children’s Hospital did 2,100 dental surgeries, many of which stemmed from the condition, Smith said. The condition crosses economic boundaries, but Smith said it is especially pervasive among children in poor families.

    Allukian, M. Symposium Oral Disease: The Neglected Epidemic – What Can Be Done? Introduction: Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 53, No 1, Winter 1993. “Oral Disease is still a neglected epidemic in our country, despite improvements in oral health due to fluoridation, other forms of fluorides, and better access to dental care. Consider the following: 50 percent of Head Start children have had baby bottle tooth decay.” (Bullet #5 of 8.)

    Shiboski CH et al. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity Among California Preschool Children. J Pub Health Dent; Vol 63, No 1, Winter 2003. Among 2,520 children, the largest proportion with a history of falling asleep sipping milk/sweet substance was among Latinos/Hispanics (72% among Head Start and 65% among non-HS) and HS Asians (56%). Regarding the 30% and 33% resultant decay rates respectively; Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water.

    Barnes GP et al. Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle Tooth Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children. Public Health Reports; 107: 167-73, 1992. By either of the two criterion i.e., two of the four maxillary incisors or three of the four maxillary incisors, the rate for 5-year-olds was significantly higher than for 3-year-olds. Children attending centers showed no significant differences based on fluoride status for the total sample or other variables.

    Kelly M et al. The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American Populations. J Pub Health Dent; 47:94-97, 1987. The prevalence of BBTD in the 18 communities of Head Start children ranged from 17 to 85 percent with a mean of 53%. The surveyed communities had a mixture of fluoridated and non fluoridated drinking water sources. Regardless of water fluoridation, the prevalence of BBTD remained high at all of the sites surveyed.

    Maureen Jones, Archivist Citizens for Safe Drinking Water – http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org Fluoride Action Network – http://www.FluorideAlert.org 1205 Sierra Ave. San Jose, CA 95126 408 297-8487

  • jwillie6

    Europe has rejected fluoridation and is now 98% fluoride free, and their decay rate is better than any fluoridated country. They and most of the world caught on to this fluoridation hoax years ago.
    Adding fluoride to drinking water is an absolute waste of money. People only drink 1/2 % of the water they use. The remaining 99 1/2% simply goes down the drain. If you doubt this, just ask your water department  I guess we expect government programs to be inefficient and wasteful, but this sets a new low in waste of taxpayers money. Giving away fluoride tablets free to whoever wants them would be much cheaper. The only benefits of putting it in drinking water go to the industries which can sell their toxic waste fluoride to communities.
    For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain, $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $2.50 would be consumed by children.  Can you think of a more wasteful government program? Voters get  very angry when they learn of this waste of tax money. 
    When the fertilitzer companies, and  others, clean their smokestacks, they bag the  waste fluoride chemical, ( Hydrofluorosilicic Acid),  which contains lead, mercury, arsenic, etc. and sell it to communities to add to our water systems. The Government tries to convince us that it does not harm us if it is diluted enough, but hundreds  of research studies prove otherwise.
    Those promoting fluoridation simply refuse to read the current research showing it is ineffective and dangerous to health. Go to  (www.fluoridealert.org) and read several scientific  articles.
    Read the letter  from  Dr. Hardy Limeback ( DDS, PhD Biochemistry) — Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto entitled
     ”Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water” 

      He was the principal research advisor to the Canadian Dental Asociation for over 10 years in promoting fluoridation. His letter is an apology to other dentists and the public for ever recommending it.                       
            Dr. Limeback includes over 140 Research studies, including:
       Increased risk of bone cancer –  13 studies
       Lead, arsenic, radium contaminants causing toxic water — 10 studies
       Link with fluoride and other cancer — 12 studies
       Fluoride causes birth defects — 5 studies
       Fluoride affects the immune systems — 12
       Fluoride is neurotoxic (brain, nerves, lowering IQ) — 11
       Etc.
    Also see the petition signed by over 2700 professionals opposing fluoridation.

  • joe

    Fluoride is bad for your teeth and it lowers your IQ!

  • Anita Knight

    Available online is National Academy of Sciences Report for Congress: Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, 1993. See pages; 5, 11 (The subcommittee found inconsistencies in the fluoride toxicity data base and gaps in knowledge. Accordingly it recommends further research in the areas of total fluoride intake, dental fluorosis, bone strength and fractures, and carcinogenicity.), 34 (color pictures of moderate to severe dental fluorosis, pits, ie, cavities also), 44-45 (cavities form in these weakened teeth.), 128 (processed beverages/soft drinks and foods are important sources of fluorides), and 129 (high dietary levels of calcium can form insoluble complexes with fluoride making it unabsorbable from the gastrointestinal tract.)

  • Jim Schultz

    Scott Please show us a list of reseachers that prove with data the mechanism of ingested fluorides at 1ppm range being of any topical benefit. We understand even the CDC has admitted the old theory now invalid as ingested pre eruptive in young kids is now proven not the benefit and was the sole claim for fluoridation. Now the claim is topical (CDC 1999 MMWR) but not one reseacher has yet to prove it exists except in the 1000ppm range as it toothpaste. The Britsh health services last August very clearly said below 1000ppm for young kids was nearly useless. The Aussie health services months later said 5000ppm would be much better but below 1000ppm near useless.
    So you are claiming 1ppm ingested has topical benefit. Show the mechanism please. FAN has a list of over 20 researchers saying ingested has no mechanism of benefit provable and 1ppm has such a small increase in spit fluoride and to have no measurable benefit. High level fluoride can bump it up for a few hours. maybe the real issue is higher PH by natural bacteria breaking down arginine and also other minerals not the fluoride.
    The mouth is a complex environment of bacteria and I have heard 400 mentioned so it is unwise to assume fluoride as a enzyme poison will selectively destroy just the one that produces the acid. It would also destroy the one that increases PH in a normal healthy process. You do not just pour roundup in the garden and assume good results likely.
    Scott seems to make some dental talking point assumptions with no data to support. Quite invalid points at that.
    Yoder K.M. is a study of dental professionals tested for fluoride knowledge in Indiana and Illinois. Only a tiny percentage get even the basic facts correct. This is what is acceptable by ADA promotion policy. They did repeat back what they are taught. Too bad it isn’t correct. McNaught seems to fall for the old storyline and missed reading the new science. Then passes it as fact all would have to agree with. Try reading the http://www.iaomt.org policy on fluoridation which is current science based. real professionals cite real science not revered theory.
    The NRC 2006 and 1993 US Tox report show many susceptable sub groups that current exposures will expose many to risk at. Beyond teeth it is cancer , thyroid ,Kidney ,hip fracture and as a potent neurotoxin brain effects also. Babies are the highest risk group with the biggest per body weight intake with formula. Even the ADA and CDC urge caution to prevent dental fluorisis as if that is the only organ in the body. For decades the fact blacks are damaged double of whites has been covered up by the CDC and not shared with those damaged. Even after formal ethics charges in 2007 the CDC still refused informed consent a basic right. Kidney damage at double was the bigger issue also ignored and i know the 30 Million with CKD are not informed. Not even those with kidney failure on dialysis. Look at the 2006 studies by the NRC proving this a risk.

  • warren burhans

    Hey Scott, How much are you getting paid????

  • Jan

    FTRC Home > Symptoms of Fluoride Poisoning
    Symptoms of Fluoride Poisoning
    Do you think you may be fluoride poisoned?

    As with other toxins, fluoride affects different individuals differently. Symptoms can vary widely and depend on many factors, such as one’s genetic predispositions, body burden (overall body accumulation from all sources), mode of exposure, and length of exposure time (whether acute, as in the workplace, or chronic, as with ingestion of fluoridated water and food).

    Also involved are synergistic effects that occur, for instance, when fluoride enhances other drugs people may be taking, or by combining with substances in the water and forming even more potent toxins (such as with Aluminum Fluoride, a dangerous neurotoxin).

    Fluoride poisoning can be manifested in seemingly harmless symptoms, such as white spots in teeth (dental fluorosis), or chronic problems, such as arthritic joints, or more serious problems, including respiratory disease or cancer, or a complex of problems, whether acute or chronic.

    Fluoride sensitivity (i.e. not being able to tolerate any amount of fluoride in food, water, or even taking showers) may occur if one is fluoride poisoned, or it may occur if one is chemically sensitive due to toxic exposure to other chemicals or because of allergy or some other body imbalance.

    We believe that many, many people are either fluoride poisoned or fluoride sensitive and simply do not know that they are. They know that they feel sick and may be treated for symptoms with any number of drugs, but neither they nor their doctors have any idea that fluoride is the culprit.

    This FTRC WebCenter page offers a wide range of possible symptoms that may affect individuals, one symptom at a time, or as a syndrome or complex.

    If you suspect you may be, indeed, fluoride poisoned, we offer you a self-help protocol for immediate response to your symptoms.

    DISCLAIMER: FTRC WebCenter and Second Look/SLweb do not diagnose or treat any conditions. We are providing information to be used only as guidelines. Only the individual’s medical providers can make medical diagnoses and