Home » News » Metro »

Many surrounding communities support water fluoridation

 

Editor’s note: This is the fourth and final part in a series examining water fluoridation in Mount Pleasant.


While the battle of water fluoridation rages on in the city of Mount Pleasant, surrounding cities fluoridate municipal water supplies with little debate.

Water fluoridation, the practice of adding fluoride to municipal water supplies to help fight tooth decay, is recommended by the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control.

William Pilmore, water department superintendent for the city of Alma, said Alma has been fluoridating its water since the mid-1960s without much controversy.

“We’ve never had an issue come up where someone has challenged us putting it in the water,” Pilmore said. “Until that happens, we’ll continue to fluoridate.”

Pilmore said the concentration of fluoride in Alma’s municipal water supply varies in range between 1 parts per million, or milligrams per liter, to 1.3 ppm. The ADA and CDC currently recommend between .7 and 1 ppm.

He said water fluoridation is beneficial and he is unaware of any adverse health effects.

“The obvious benefits are for the children’s teeth and cavities, kind of preventing that,” he said. “We haven’t had that level of disagreement on the benefits.”

Pilmore, referencing the ongoing study by the Environmental Protection Agency on the safety of water fluoridation, said the city of Alma is not in the business of breaking any rules.

“Whatever EPA mandates, we have to follow,“ he said. “Obviously we will have to comply with that, otherwise we’ll be in violation of the safe drinking water act.”

Other cities

Dave Love, water department superintendent for the city of Midland, said the city’s water is fluoridated to 1 ppm.

“It’s used in water treatment and it’s recommend by the CDC to fluoridate community water supplies,” Love said. “Basically, it reduces dental cavities, it provides protection from tooth decay amongst the general population. It has been used for years in the United States for that.”

He said the EPA study will dictate whether or not the city of Midland continues to fluoridate its water supply.

“We’ll review the findings, they’re the ones that will assist in creating regulatory direction,” he said. “As far as regulatory issues and treatment go, we’re certainly going to comply.”

Tom Quick, a water department operator for the city of Clare, said the city has practiced water fluoridation for more than 20 years and treats its water supply at 1 ppm.

Carmen Johnson, water department superintendent for the city of Big Rapids, said there has been little concern about fluoridation in the city.

“If you talk to any dentist in town, they believe that the fluoridation is a huge benefit,” he said.

Johnson said Big Rapids has a fluoride concentration of 1 ppm.

However, not all surrounding communities practice water fluoridation.

Kim Smith, public works coordinator for Union Township, said the township does not fluoridate its water.

Only the naturally occurring fluoride concentration of 0.33 ppm exists in its water supply.

“We very seldom even get a request for that,” Smith said.

 
 
  • http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof nyscof

    Since 2000, the following US communities rejected fluoridation

    Crete, Nebraska May 11, 2010
    Dakota City, Nebraska May 11, 2010
    Franklin County, Nebraska May 11, 2010… See More
    Norfolk, Nebraska May 11, 2010
    Wahoo, Nebraska May 11, 2010
    Walden, New York May 5, 2010
    Schuylkill Haven Borough, Pennsylvania February 4, 2010
    Xenia, Ohio December 16, 2009
    Amery, Wisconsin November 30, 2009
    Wisner, Nebraska November 10, 2009
    Yutan, Nebraska November 10, 2009
    Humboldt, Kansas September 22, 2009
    Wakefield, Nebraska September 15, 2009
    Plainfield, Vermont (voted to remove fluoride) March 3, 2009
    Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin (for the 2nd time) February 17, 2009
    Skagit County, Washington February 10, 2009
    Big Canoe, Georgia January 8, 2009
    Jackman, Maine November 4, 2008
    Moose River, Maine November 4, 2008
    Corning, New York November 4, 2008
    Ainsworth, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Aurora, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Battle Creek, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Bayard, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Beatrice, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Bridgeport, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Broken Bow, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Cambridge, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Central City, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Chadron, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Cozad, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Crawford, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    David City, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Eagle, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Friend, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Geneva, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Gothenburg, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Grand Island, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Grant, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Hastings, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Hebron, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Imperial, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Kimball, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Lexington, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Madison, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Milford, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Mitchell, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    North Platte, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Ord, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Pawnee City, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Pierce, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Plainview, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Ravenna, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Schuyler, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Scottsbluff, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Shelton, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Sidney, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    St. Paul, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Stanton, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Stromsburg, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Sutherland, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Sutton, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Tekamah, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Valentine, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Weeping Water, Nebraska
    November 4, 2008
    Wilber, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Wood River, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Wymore, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    York, Nebraska November 4, 2008
    Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin November 4, 2008
    Alamo Heights, Texas September 8, 2008
    Littleton, Massachusetts May 10, 2008
    Yarmouth, Massachusetts May 6, 2008
    Poughkeepsie, New York February 2008
    Manila, Humboldt County, Calfornia February 2008
    Elgin City Council, Texas November 2007
    Juneau, Alaska October 2007
    O'Connor UD, Sparta, White County, Georgia
    August 8, 2008
    Quebeck Walling UD, Sparta, White County, Georgia August 3, 2008
    Cobleskill Village, Schoharie County, New York August 2007
    Marshall County BUP#1, Lewisburg, Marshall County, Georgia July 27, 2008

    Conewango Township, Pennsylvania May 2008
    Glade Township, Pennsylvania May 2008
    Mead Township, Pennsylvania May 2008
    Pleasant Township, Pennsylvania May 2008
    Big Creek Utility District, Grundy County, Georgia May 7, 2008
    Cagle-Fredonia Utility District, Big Creek, Sequatchie, Georgia May 7, 2008
    Altoona, Pennsylvania May 2007
    Beach Haven, New Jersey April 2007
    Sulphur Rock, Arkansas April 2007

    LaGuardo UD, Lebanon, Wilson County, Georgia
    May 20, 2008
    Lebanon Water System, Wilson County, Georgia May 20, 2008
    Mt Desert Water District, Maine March 5, 2007
    Martin County, Florida December 19, 2006
    Juneau, Alaska December 11, 2006
    Ashland, Oregon November 21, 2006
    Central Bridge Water District, New York November 21, 2006
    Lenapah, Oklahoma November 21, 2006
    Page, Arizona November 7, 2006
    Lincoln, Maine November 7, 2006
    Rockford, Iowa January 12, 2006

    Lafayette, Tennessee November 9, 2005
    Bellingham, Washington State November 8, 2005
    Springfield, Ohio November 8, 2005
    Xenia, Ohio November 8, 2005
    Tooele, Utah November 8, 2005
    Mammoth Lakes, California November 8, 2005
    Homer, New York November 1, 2005
    Hood River, Oregon May 2005
    Neosho, Missouri April 5, 2005
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado March 2005
    Snohomish, Washington State January 2005
    Lancaster, Ohio November 2, 2004
    Hutchinson, Kansas November 2, 2004
    Clarksdale, Mississippi October 25, 2004
    Milton, Washington State September 20, 2004
    Telluride, Colorado September 2004
    Sumner, Washington State August 2, 2004
    South Blount Water District, Tennessee June 2004
    Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin April 2004
    Honolulu, Hawaii January 28, 2004
    Lancaster, Ohio January 12, 2004

    Sequim, Washington State May 7, 2003
    York, Nebraska May 6, 2003
    Columbiana, Alabama May 2003
    Canton, New York February 18, 2003
    Shaler, Pennsylvania February 11, 2003
    Billings, Montana November 5, 2002
    Kalispell, Montana November 5, 2002
    Washoe County, Nevada November 5, 2002
    Methuen, Massachusetts November 5, 2002
    Redding, California November 5, 2002
    Watsonville, California November 5, 2002
    Texarkana, Arkansas November 5, 2002
    Ashdown, Arkansas November 5, 2002
    Oneida, New York August 6, 2002
    Franklin, North Carolina May 2002
    Plainville, Massachusetts April 1, 2002
    Monroe, Louisiana February 26, 2002
    Colorado Springs, Colorado January16, 2002
    Kennewick, Washington January 15, 2002
    Benninton, Vermont January 8, 2002
    Lanai, Hawaii January 2002
    Cobalt, Ontario, Canada December 11, 2001
    Erie, Colorado November 2001
    Modesto, California November 7, 2001
    Worcester, Massachusetts November 7, 2001
    Flagstaff, Arizona November 7, 2001
    Sutherlin, Oregon November 7, 2001

    White Salmon, Washington September 2001
    Goldendale, Washington September 2001
    Bishopville, South Carolina June 2001
    Harper, Kansas May 31, 2001
    Brewster, Massachusetts May 15, 2001
    McPherson, Kansas April 3, 2001
    Norridgewock, Maine May 5, 2001
    Blue River, Wisconsin February 2001
    Willamina, Oregon January 2001
    Ithaca, New York November 7, 2000
    Spokane, Washington November 7, 2000
    Brattleboro, Vermont November 7, 2000
    Wenatchee, Washington November 7, 2000
    Shawano, Wisconsin November 7, 2000
    Nibly City, Utah November 7, 2000
    Hyrum City, Utah November 7, 2000
    Providence City, Utah November 7, 2000
    Smithfield City, Utah November 7, 2000
    Logan City, Utah November 7, 2000
    River Heights, Utah November 7, 2000
    Pequannock, New Jersey November 7, 2000
    Ozark, Missouri November 7, 2000
    Wooster, Ohio November 7, 2000
    Woodside, California September 2000
    Ste. Genevieve, Missouri August 8, 2000
    Winfield, Kansas March 6, 2000
    Wilmington, Massachusetts February 15, 2000

    http://www.FluorideAction.Net/communities.htm

  • jimschultz

    Corky Overmeyer Environmental safety for Grand Rapids almost 2 years ago announced a investigation review of the risks of fluoridation. He thought it was his job to be objective and review the huge data base showing risk and sharp increases in total dose from contaminated beverages and foods. Fluoridation is not about science so he had push back from the commission,dentists ,ADA and health department. He never did that objective review and declined comment most hoping to keep his job. In public health and for most dentists the epidemic of fluoride toxicity damaged teeth must be ignored to protect the policy not children. Many dentists quietly in their practice do not promote fluoride toxicity by such out of control over use. Most do not speak out publicly as they can be shunned by the dental community as betraying the profession and the ADA. ADA bylaw clearly states they must promote fluoridation to be in good standing. They circle the wagons and claim only slight cosmetic enamel damage can result and normal people can not detect this. The ADA website even claims only 13% have dental fluorosis from fluoridation. They say parents are the real cause of the ugly damage which they hint could exist if they did not give enough supervision in brushing and allowed the child too much on the brush or brush too often or not spit and rinse. In the real world this is common and Many researchers now admit the brushing not the fluoride might be the actual benefit. The ADA only promotes and endorses fluoridated toothpaste and ignores totally safe and more effective alternatives like cavistat which can heal cavities in the 2 year study. No fluoride either and no risk of enamel damage.
    The sad thing about this organized deception is dentists would do the right thing if they actually took the time to review the risk data. Most dentists just repeat what taught in Dental school in a near religious blind faith in fluoride benefit. When tested the dental community are fluoride science drop outs most flunking the new science. Yoder K.M. published the results of testing for Indiana and was shocked only 17% understood any benefit is topical post eruptive not ingested pre eruptive like fluoridation theory still claims in their minds. This was shocking so Illinois dental professionals were tested and did worse at 15%. By the way 15% of the dentists in a pole on WealthyDentist.com strongly opposed fluoridation. So the tiny number of dentists that know fluoridation is harmful and of no benefit do the right thing. The fluoride ignorant ones put patients at risk full full belief they are doing the right thing..Go to pubmed.com and understand patients suffer under this outdated non science policy.
    Kumar just verified again the in the other Kingston Newbergh New York the never fluoridated control has slightly fewer cavities still today then the fluoridated one but 50% less fluoride damaged enamel. Grand Rapids had the control city fluoridate and never mentioned cavities also declined in that city before they fluoridated. A compete analysis was done years ago of the poor design or the studies which would never be considered real science today if fluoridation was about science.
    T.T.Dean the father of fluoridation and his 21 city study was clear deception in that it did not isolate variables as other minerals were the real benefit not the fluoride which increased damage in teeth. They looked at 345 cities and 278 showed fluoride of no value but he only reported on 21 to deceive by faked deceptive science. He had to admit his data was invalid by his own standards in court and to the ADA in hearings about 1960. The ADA does not shre the truth with their faithful fluoride promoting dentists.
    The ADA is a trade union with the prime goal of increasing dental incomes like any trade organization. When asked about fluoridation Ted Kennedy pleaded not a expert but warned the ADA was not the place to go for information as their job is to increase dental incomes.
    Dental incomes have soared past doctors said a recent Wall Street Journal article. They work far fewer hours also in this reverse of fortunes of professions. The huge increase in fluoride toxicity damaged enamel plays a major role in this income increase. Just look at the advertisements for cosmetic repairs and understand much is this is from fluoride caused discolored,porous ,brittle stainable enamel. The repairs need upkeep with many redoes over a lifetime for the cash cow of repeat business. Even crooked teeth increase with delayed eruption which data show is increased by fluoride toxicity slowing eruption of teeth. This also is how data can be distorted to claim cavity reduction when no real reduction exists.
    Go to http://www.dentalconfessions.com and a real life dentist shares the fluoride secrets you ADA does not ever want you to know.
    The ADA has another dirty secret of Mercury amalgams and they have even sought court injunctions to silence truth telling dentists. Most dentists refuse to place mercury in peoples mouths especially when the data showed the everyday exposure harmed them the greatest. Wealthy Dentist showed 52% of male dentists and 60 plus of females no longer put toxic mercury in peoples mouths. Very few speak out publicy as the ADA still promotes the safety and they want big brother happy with them.
    http://www.iaomt.org has video of mercury fumes offgassing as they constantly do for you whole lifetime. The fillings shrink over time and mercury is only less toxic then plutonium. Open wide. Poor kids still get mercury fillings.
    The third huge issue is most dentists do not treat poor kids. A tiny few do their share and treat some medicaid poor kids. Many talk the talk but few walk the walk. Ask your dentist to treat a few poor kids even if the government pays him less then used to. Ask your dentist to look at the current science of fluoride risk for whole body cumulative toxicity. Teeth are just the tip of the ice burg of this toxic dental legacy. The real question is how much for will your intake be for a lifetime especially for people with damaged kidneys and huge intakes like diabetics. This safety was ignored but the data of harm is there. That is why 11 EPA unions asked congress and EPA management to halt fluoridation in 2005. This request to halt fluoridation started in 1985 when the EPA headquarters discovered deep fraud and deception in altered and ignored risk. They had the fluoride removed from the Headquarters building in DC or they refused to report to work. Most dentists do not understand Toxicolocy risk like Robert Carton PHD and William Hirzy PHD who have videos on http://www.fluoridealert.org
    Protect yourself with knowledge.

  • Brianl

    10 Facts about Fluoride
    ——————————————————————————–

    1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water . This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.
    ——————————————————————————

    2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety – which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

    In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”

    In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”

    In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
    ——————————————————————————–

    3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

    According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's “predominant effect is posteruptive and topical” (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.
    ——————————————————————————–

    4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

    Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis – a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).
    ——————————————————————————–

    5) There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

    A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

    B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

    C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.
    ——————————————————————————–

    6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

    Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

    a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

    b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

    c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

    d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as “biologically plausible.” Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

    e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)
    ——————————————————————————–

    7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals – fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride – used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can – in combination with chlorinated compounds – leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)
    ——————————————————————————–

    8) Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, “The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance.” (36)

    a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

    b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

    c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, “The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.” (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.
    ——————————————————————————–

    9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

    a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

    b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water.” (51)
    ——————————————————————————-

    10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

    “Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion.” (52)

    Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

    * Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm

  • http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7547385139152764985&hl=en# Brianl

    “If you talk to any dentist in town, they believe that the fluoridation is a huge benefit,” …

    More fluoride = more money for dentists?

    Despite 60+ years of water fluoridation, Americans are spending more than ever on dental care. “between 1998 and 2008 the increase in the cost of dental services exceeded that of medical care and far exceeded the overall rate of inflation,” according to Slate Magazine. Americans paid 44.2 percent of dental bills themselves compared to 10.3 percent of physician costs, Slate reports. (3)

    Dentists pat themselves on the back claiming they are the only profession endorsing something that would put them out of business. But apparently the more fluoride people get, the more money dentists make.

    Dentists' Nominal Net Income for 2000 was $533,000 up from $141,000 in 1982, according to the American Dental Association Survey published in the March 2005 Journal of the American Dental Association. During the same time period, the number of Americans living in fluoridated communities went from 116 million to 172 million. (4)

    Analysis of Kumar’s data: http://tinyurl.com/MoneyDownTheDrain

    3) Slata Magazine, “The American Way of Dentistry, The Oral Cost Spiral” by June Thomas (September 29, 2009)

    4) Fluoridation Statistics: http://www.cdc.gov/nohss/FSGrowth_text.htm

    “Fluoridation opposition is science-based and growing,” says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, who has co-authored the upcoming book, “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There.” Co-authors are James Beck, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of medical physics at the University of Alberta in Calgary; and Spedding Micklem, DPhil, professor emeritus at Edinburgh University.

    “We have spent many years investigating water fluoridation and the toxicity of fluoride and we are dismayed that some are willing to repeat, without verification, pro-fluoridation statements that disparage scientists and citizens who oppose the practice,” says Connett.

    “FAN's website http://www.FluorideAlert.org has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective,” says Connett. “In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children.” On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”

    “The majority of countries do not fluoridate or have ended the practice, including 98% of Western Europe, and yet, according to WHO statistics, their tooth decay rates are no different than those in fluoridated countries,” Connett states.

    The FAN website has an online DVD of 15 scientists explaining why fluoridation is a risky and inappropriate medical practice. These scientists include one Nobel Prize winner, three members of a National Research Council committee that published a groundbreaking report on fluoride's toxicity in 2006, and two former EPA scientists. see
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7547385

  • jimschultz

    I forgot to mention current Dental fluorosis data. The biggest US study ever in 1986-7 was on 39,207 kids in 84 communities and showed 66.4% with enamel damage of fluoride toxicity. The study also did not release the fact no benefit could be proved. Two years later they released a claimed small benefit using a different reporting method designed to report any delayed eruption as a real cavity decline. Even then this faked data only showed a .6 tooth surface benefit. Not mentioned is many of the non fluoridated cities had the best teeth.
    The public was told 22% of kids had dental fluorisis but not told that is only if non fluoridated cities are averaged in. Now the official number is 32% from the CDC but current data shows more like 48.42% if the 25% with the slight damage are not counted. This is all about how the data is reported to understate reality. Also blacks are damaged double from the first study until today with the CDC even after 2007 formal ethics charges flat refusing to inform of this double kidney and enamel damage. The NKF national Kidney Foundation even withdrew support of fluoridation after doing a review after 25 years of ignoring the risks. They have not informed the public or dentists much less doctors yet and hid the notice in the website in fear of litigation maybe. Augusta Ga with optimal fluoridated water at 1ppm had 80% toatl but 14% with moderate and severe every tooth ugly for a lifetime damage in a 1990 study. The ADA and health department claim it is impossible and fluoridation only causes almost undetectable slight damage. Data show this a lie as total intakes of fluoride soar out of control many times over the 1945 goal of 1mg daily. 1.5mg was the max received in early fluoridation showed the Mc Clure data. By the 70's people were receiving several times that total dose showed the EPA data. Food and beverage contamination and dental products with more fluoride pesticides as arsenic was phased out. Today many drugs have fluoride in them to better pass the blood brain barrier. Dow fluoride fumigant Profume is now used in 200 foods types leaving shocking high fluoride residues with no warning ever required much less mentioned. This was after a expidited high speed approval not understanding how it would affect the food supply long term. Dried eggs are allowed not over 900ppm and grains from 70-125ppm with no mention and maybe some day we will see a study on the effects. Also 3 research labs proved this a powerful long lived green house gas the opposite of the claim used to get approval.
    Even the WHO says total intakes from all exposures should be computed before fluoridation is ever done. No US city has ever done this to date and bone toxicity data has been avoided also but was noted in the Grand Rapids experment with double the defective bone in kids examined. So they stopped looking to protect fluoridation.
    Go to Mercola.com the largest natural health site for his new video and one PHD and one MD discuss the science data you might want to read.
    By the way it is the same data looked at by the review panel when all found risks giving concerns of safety. The majority vote was for an immediate halt until the EPA looks at the data and gives the new revised safe for all Max. The EPA scientists already did the risk analysis and that number is ZERO which is why 19 EPA unions have asked congress to halt fluoridation. A rational person would listen to that many whistle blowers(10,000).
    http://www.waterloowatch.com has many fluoride research articles anyone can understand. The top water plant operator trainer after having trained most in Canada now is trying to retrain them as to the risks of fluoridation for all and little if any benefit. It is very destructive to plant equipment and causes many health risks when handled besides destroying pipes and equipment from extreme corrosion and puts lead in the water from leading it out of brass.
    I welcome any comments from the ADA or MDA or health department showing the science. I know it is rare they enter a forum about science as they only want to say talking points and avoid tough questions. They are cut and paste experts for standard form letters. I expect more from those paid to protect us. Call or email and and for for the proof of safety and benefit in chronic use studies. It does not exist. No double blinded study man or animal ever showed benefit or safety. This is a giant bluff with us the test rats. Blacks were known double damaged from the beginning and still today. A very sad joke. Other minorities almost as badly damaged in many studies. Nutrition,income and dental care were always the best predictors and ingested fluorides only damage.

  • jwillie6

    So, after 65 years of fluoridation, how is it going? The following are newspaper reports from cities in Michigan and elsewhere showing crises in decay rates. How is this posible, if fluoridation is so good? People are waking up to this scam.
    Washington, DC – Fluoridated since 1952:
    “one of the highest decay rates in children in the country.”

    Detroit – Fluoridated since 1967:
    “83% of this population has severe tooth decay”
    Pittsburgh – Fluoridated since 1953:
    “More than 70 percent of 15-year-olds in the city have had cavities, the
    highest percentage in the state.”
    Kentucky – Fluoridated since 1951
    “leads the country in the number of people with tooth loss.”
    Cincinnati – Fluoridated since 1979
    “urgent dental cases have nearly tripled since 1990”

    Grand Rapids – Fluoridated since 1945
    “high rates of tooth decay and dental fluorosis”

  • jimschultz

    Where i live in Florida the health department refused to even discuss dental fluorosis as they said it is not a medical effect so Florida keeps no records on it. So they promote fluoridation as totally safe and everyone benefits while knowing poor blacks damaged double. Hispanics almost as badly. I have asked many health departments questions and 5 years ago many of the CDC ,EPA top people in Washington. That was a total waste of time as it only got cut and paste endorsements avoiding my questions after many months of waiting. In talking to them some are shocking ignorant but some actually knew the data. One I remember was shocked when I informed her the fumigation with Profume was now used. She had been in that project before and knew there is no way to assure a safe exposure. She was shocked it had been approved. It is a rare dentist that even knows it exists much less cares. It is just one more uncontrolled ,undocumented exposure our body will store forever mostly in bones. I am not talking about drop dead in your tracks but slow chronic toxicity increasing over a lifetime of a enzyme distrupter and DNA breaker as weak hydrogen bonds are broken causing cell damage at very low levels. Fluoride is being spread into the environment but used to be locked up in rock but now is spread in fields or given to cattle as raw ground rock as they live very short lives and the worst damage is in later life toxicity. Their bones are used for dog food which is usually fluoride toxic said the EWG recent pet food testing. Most at 8 to10ppm range when bone meal is added except in a very few higher price few which were very low on fluoride.
    So those of you who love your pets more protect them with healthy food. http://www.fluorideaction.net has all these stories stored to search in recent events. Go to the site and search your specific interest on fluoride. Then try to get your dentist up to speed for your own protection. That income data Brianl showed is even a bigger income increase the the Wall Street Journal article showed. The ADA worked hard to make dentists money. Fluoridation is part of that picture while ignoring treating poor kids another part. Informed consent should be given for any drug treatment. Fluoride is not a nutrient or even probable nutrient said the FDA in 1979 after losing court cases. The public is told the opposite by ignorant dentists doing talking points of the ADA. The FDA has never approved or reviewed any ingested fluoride ever. It is a new unapproved drug in the US. The EPA regulates water and fluoride as a contaminate only. They legally can make no claim of benefit. The ADA used to claim they endorsed fluoridation. This is one confusing web of deception.

  • Scott J

    “If you talk to any dentist in town, they believe that the fluoridation is a huge benefit,” he said..

    Dentists deal with teeth, not internal organs. I want to hear an opinion from a nephrologist or hepatologist about how the organs are affected by fluoride.

    Of course a dentist is going to agree that it's good. There's little debate on whether it helps the TEETH….but no one ever talks about internal organs!!

  • Anonymous

    Respectfully Scott any ingested benefit is the big question. The CDc in 1999 and 2001 MMWR admitted the primary benefit is topical not ingestion. No researcher has ever been able to prove mechanism of topical benefit exists at 1ppm range. Over 20 researchers do admit ingestion has little if any benefit. Featherstone even showed this in detail and also that even huge levels of fluoride in teeth had no cavity decreasing ability. Sorry if the facts are confusing in light the ADA and most dentists get the science wrong. Yoder K.M. 2007 Indiana Illinois shows test results for fluoride knowledge of dental professionals. They are a risk to patients until they understand the science. Read the study at pubmed.com to see what peer reviewed data shows. Misguided dentists you still trust. This is not a claim no benefit at toothpaste rates exists. That is still up to debate and other formulas can have greater benefit with out any risk. Cavistat is one . This was tested and published in 2004 in a two year study and it healed cavities in the second year of use. Slowly in other words.
    Blind faith in the dental profession does not seem wise on the fluoridation issue. It should be a individual choice not forced medication lacking informed consent. Do you feel good about blacks being damaged double but never informed? Not very professional.
    Florida phosphate mines are the big industry benefiting now days. Alcoa Aluminum was the big one that started the drive to create data to eliminate huge costs of fluoride lawsuits before WW2. From 1957-68 more lawsuits for airborne fluoride damage then all other contaminates combined. Now we drink this toxic waste from phosphate super phospate smokestacks. 99% just backs into the environment for big cities just like a belching factory. It is just diluted by your city. Same tonnage just diluted and same for all the fluoride in the fresh water food chain today because of our runoff. It destroys fish spawning at very low levels and migration of salmon. Florida had one stream at 19ppm for years the Peace river. It had no fish or anything for years. We had one giant radioactive waste gypsum pile drop into a sinkhole with it billions of gallons of toxic cooling pond water. Phosphate is a pollution night mare but now they sell the pollutant cocktail for fluoridation. Mt Pleasant used the dry sodium fluoride and no US company produces it now most comes from China now. There are contamination problems being reported in many cities.

  • Anonymous

    Respectfully Scott any ingested benefit is the big question. The CDc in 1999 and 2001 MMWR admitted the primary benefit is topical not ingestion. No researcher has ever been able to prove mechanism of topical benefit exists at 1ppm range. Over 20 researchers do admit ingestion has little if any benefit. Featherstone even showed this in detail and also that even huge levels of fluoride in teeth had no cavity decreasing ability. Sorry if the facts are confusing in light the ADA and most dentists get the science wrong. Yoder K.M. 2007 Indiana Illinois shows test results for fluoride knowledge of dental professionals. They are a risk to patients until they understand the science. Read the study at pubmed.com to see what peer reviewed data shows. Misguided dentists you still trust. This is not a claim no benefit at toothpaste rates exists. That is still up to debate and other formulas can have greater benefit with out any risk. Cavistat is one . This was tested and published in 2004 in a two year study and it healed cavities in the second year of use. Slowly in other words.
    Blind faith in the dental profession does not seem wise on the fluoridation issue. It should be a individual choice not forced medication lacking informed consent. Do you feel good about blacks being damaged double but never informed? Not very professional.
    Florida phosphate mines are the big industry benefiting now days. Alcoa Aluminum was the big one that started the drive to create data to eliminate huge costs of fluoride lawsuits before WW2. From 1957-68 more lawsuits for airborne fluoride damage then all other contaminates combined. Now we drink this toxic waste from phosphate super phospate smokestacks. 99% just backs into the environment for big cities just like a belching factory. It is just diluted by your city. Same tonnage just diluted and same for all the fluoride in the fresh water food chain today because of our runoff. It destroys fish spawning at very low levels and migration of salmon. Florida had one stream at 19ppm for years the Peace river. It had no fish or anything for years. We had one giant radioactive waste gypsum pile drop into a sinkhole with it billions of gallons of toxic cooling pond water. Phosphate is a pollution night mare but now they sell the pollutant cocktail for fluoridation. Mt Pleasant used the dry sodium fluoride and no US company produces it now most comes from China now. There are contamination problems being reported in many cities.

  • jimschultz

    Most doctors know little or nothing about cumulative fluoride toxicity. It is not taught as being possible other then for very high exposures. The NRC 2006 showed for many subgroups levels at and below typical many are at risk now. Thyroid malfunction was at the lowest of .7mg for an adult male if iodine deficient. It was 3.5mg if not iodine low. Fluoride is the strongest halogen and displaces the nutrient iodine thyroids must have. The NRC 2006 was 507 pages with 1100 studies reviewed by 12 persons. For a first they allowed 3 who did not give full support to fluoridation. That had been a condition to be on the panel before. That panel voted 12-0 the current Fluoride Max set in 1986 is too high and should be lowered by EPA. The EPA said they must do studies first so some day. The EPA unions did say ZERO is the correct goal just like arsenic and lead.
    Doctors and researchers in India know well the effects especially at higher levels as it is pandemic in several areas with tens of millions damaged. Many disabled and die painful deaths.
    Most doctors I talk to are not interested and some know the risks well but still back off a frank discussion on talk shows for some reason. Harvard Ellie Bassin PHD showed osteosarcoma data for bone cancer in young boys was 5-7 times more common with FSA fluoridation. The same results as two New Jersey studies. The same as a 1990 rat study later revised twice to say it did not really cause cancer. William Marcus PHD EPA toxicologist was fired when he said fraud had happen in altering data. The study was ordered done in 1952 but delayed many times. Much data has shown fluoride toxicity causes cancer as it is a mutigenic. Time Magazine just said so April 16 2010 in Toxic risks lurking in your home. Fluoridation and toothpaste were listed as source. They also mentioned neurotoxic and 23 studies show IQ decrease linear in dose. Varnier 1999 showed destroyed kidneys and beta amaloyd deposits in brain with 80% of rats dying before one year. All rats were damaged at low 1ppm dose when aluminum present also. Mulinex also showed same blood level as humans had adverse neurotoxic effects in rats. She was fired by Harvard(Forsyth Dental) when she published the data.Fluoride is the protected pollutant said EPA Bill Hirzy. EPA Robert Carton PHD said fluoridation was fraud, the largest ever. Read the data instead of trying to find a doctor with the knowledge. It is much easier and quicker.

  • Paragraph Jack

    You know, it would be much easier to read the pages of info you write if you break it up into logical paragraphs!

  • justmeint

    Have we been duped about the need to fluoridate our drinking water?
    Why on earth would you want to remove fluoride? It helps keep your teeth healthy doesn't it? That my dear friends is the $64,000 question. Actually it could end up eventually costing you more than that IF your value your health.

    Have we been duped about water fluoridation (1)
    Have we been duped about water fluoridation? (2)

    Have we been duped about water fluoridation (3)

    Have we been duped about water fluoridation? (4)

  • T3103

    Then why does the toothpaste say if swallowed contact poison control?

  • Dan

    Flouride (F) is the most electronegative element and therefore the strongest in terms of creating a bond with another atom or molecule. Flouride will destroy you from the inside in “high enough” doses in the short term.

    The BIG question is what happens with a little over a long long time??

  • Nickt5500

    fluoridation=sedation