April 22, 2019

Archives for September 5, 2012

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 05-Sep-2012

Fluoridation Battle Engulfs Wichita, Kansas (Part 1)

By: Dr. Stephen C. L’Hommedieu, NewsWithViews.com, Wichita, Kansas 05-Sep-2012

There’s a major storm brewing throughout the Wichita, Kansas area. Although this storm won’t produce the obvious immediate destruction of an F5 tornado, many experts argue it has the long-term potential to be just as destructive to our health and environment—it’s water fluoridation.

Once again, Wichita’s municipal water system is the targeted kingpin to topple as it continues to stand among the largest cities in the U.S. remaining fluoridation-free. This time formidable allies of water fluoridation mounted pressure to ram their fluoridation measure through the Wichita City Council meeting on August 22. Despite the $250,000 pledge by the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund and a commitment for $800,000 more from other donors to assist with start-up costs, the measure still failed to gain a majority of Council votes. Strong public opposition to the water fluoridation measure was clear—this is for the public to decide. The measure will appear on the November 6th ballot.

Political momentum behind the strong media push to fluoridate Wichita’s water supply was largely initiated by the not-for-profit Kansas Health Foundation (KHF) and the American Dental Association (ADA). There’s also a long list of medical endorsements including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Medical Association (AMA), Kansas Academy of Family Physicians (KAFP), Kansas Health Institute (KHI), state and federal health agencies, and many spin-off dental and medical associations, foundations, clinics and care units, and the United Methodist Church and its health ministries (strong promoters of water fluoridation).

In addition to the full and half page ads and news articles featured in The Wichita Eagle during the initial surge, KHF financial resources helped to aggressively promote the pro-fluoridation message through television, radio, billboard ads, social media and websites. Two of these websites are designed to spoof the opposition, creating pro-fluoridation websites FluorideFreeKansas.COM and WichitansForPureWater.com to counter the opposing independent scientific research and information presented on FluorideFreeKansas.ORG and WichitaPureWater.com.

The pro-fluoridation initiative also included door-to-door solicitations. The 11,000 plus signatures exceeded the requirement for introducing the fluoridation referendum to the Wichita City Council to force immediate compliance or a public vote.

Everyday Wichitans are exposed to the pro-fluoridation message: Fighting tooth decay through water fluoridation is “beyond dispute” as an effective way to help protect our children’s teeth. Adding to the incentive is the theoretical $4.5 million savings in dental care every year. Let’s face it, how could anyone disagree when every major dental and medical association and public health agency glorifies water fluoridation as one of the great health achievements of our time?

Despite the fanfare, the history and science behind water fluoridation is extremely controversial and far from being beyond dispute. There are numerous leading health and independent research experts throughout the world who are alarmed by the influence of this corporate brand of science dominating the water fluoridation paradigm. Immersed in conflicts of interest, fluoridation science has been heavily criticized for its poorly conducted research studies. Independent experts, including the EPA’s own scientists,[1] stand strongly opposed to water fluoridation and warn that the advertised health and financial benefits being sold to Wichitans don’t add up.

During the initial pro-fluoridation rally at GraceMed Clinic on July 12th, pediatrician and water fluoridation advocate Dr. Larry Hund stated, “We have the science on our side…It’s a no-brainer.” The science behind water fluoridation may be a “no-brainer” for some like Dr. Hund, but the science on their side is a corporate-driven science that strives to defy, ignore, redefine and reinterpret objective findings and conclusions of legitimate independent scientific research. Thus, the scientific reliability of studies that “prove” the benefits and safety of water fluoridation have been called into question since the beginning.

Those benefiting most from the science supporting water fluoridation just may be the extractive industries that manufacture super phosphate fertilizer and aluminum. For these industries, the water fluoridation program is certainly “beyond dispute” as the greatest achievement for disposing of the tens of thousands of metric tons produced every year of the highly toxic industrial waste—fluorosilicic acid.

Similar to other highly questionable practices that plague the medical establishment, the science behind water fluoridation is far more political than scientific. Although many fluoride advocates have sincere intentions of helping children’s teeth, they’re completely unaware of the strong political influences underpinning fluoridation science. The real threat to our community’s health isn’t fluoridation opponents and their “junk science,” it’s the water fluoridation paradigm reducing legitimate science to junk.

The studies and references presented throughout this review are by no means all-inclusive. Those selected are among the volumes of studies, research and information available to provide insight and, for the most part, understandable points of interest. This series of articles considers a number of critical arguments and statements used by fluoridation advocates to support their views.

Have Wichitans Been Longing for Water Fluoridation?

Advocates for water fluoridation claim: “The citizens of Wichita have been waiting a long, long time for their city government and their community leaders to provide them with a proven form of health prevention.” —Sara Meng, DDS, The Wichita Eagle, July 12, 2012.

Think About This: Dr. Meng shares a common belief held by many of those within her profession, but there are many more who don’t share her fluoridation belief system. Having practiced chiropractic and natural medicine in Wichita, KS for sixteen years, I have never heard anyone complain about the lack of fluoridation in our city water. In fact, the water fluoridation issue has been soundly rejected in the 1950s, 1964, 1978 and 2000. Apparently, no one explained to Dr. Meng or her patients that there was no need to wait—they could use sodium fluoride tablets.

The idea that Wichitans have been waiting for this “great health achievement” to come pouring out of our faucets just isn’t reality. Allies of fluoridation, however, are working hard to create this public perception. Dr. Meng, who chairs Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, posted the KWCH Channel 12 “scientific” survey on their website to display the results: 53% of the surveyed audience was in favor for fluoridation, 33% opposed fluoridation and 13% were not sure. How scientific was the survey? It doesn’t matter; the impact on public perception was the goal. The intent is to build the perception of how water fluoridation must be a really good thing because everyone who knows the science wants it, except for, you know, those crazy people with their “junk science” claiming it’s poison.

Knowing the importance of public perception, Dr. Meng quickly “updated” her website to remove the word “fluorosis” from her services page. Fluorosis is a discoloring of the teeth caused by fluoride toxicity that can occur even at levels less than 1 part per million (ppm) in our water. The retraction was to avoid an obvious question: If you are promoting water fluoridation, and fluoride causes fluorosis, are you promoting water fluoridation to increase your business? This notable change was brought to public attention in an open letter that included before and after images of the website page.[2] Attempts to deliberately mislead the public and obscure the facts are the mainstay for the success of the water fluoridation movement.

Dr. Meng and others believe that Wichita is far overdue for fluoridating its water. According to Vice Mayor Janet Miller, Wichita needs to “join the 21st century.” But even if the City Council did vote to immediately climb on board the “F” Train, ironically, they would have found themselves still out of step with the times—more and more cities have abandon or are fighting to end this out-dated mode of health care. Hundreds of cities have continued to reject, have ended, or are presently pushing for legislation to end fluoridation programs because of numerous health concerns, freedom and informed consent issues, and simply because it doesn’t work. Here are some recent developments over the past year:

1. Fairbanks, Alaska voted 5 to 1 to stop their fluoridation program on June 6, 2011 (population 80,000). Fairbanks required fluoridation since 1959.

2. Albuquerque, NM stopped fluoridating their water last year (population 500,000). This year Santa Fe, NM was fighting to end their fluoridation program, but eventually lost with a reversal of the initial vote to end fluoridation.

3. College Station, Texas voted 6 to 1 to stop fluoridating their water in September of 2011 (population 100,000). College Station had been fluoridating their water since 1989.

4. Pinellas County, FL stopped fluoridating their water supply last year that serves nearly a million residents.

5. Alderman Jim Bohl of the City of Milwaukee, WI proposed legislation calling for the immediate cessation of any fluoride products introduced into the water.[3] This is another clear sign of how water fluoridation is losing credibility among decision-makers in public office.

6. Phoenix, AZ is one of the largest cities in the nation and the latest Valley city to reassess its controversial water fluoridation policy that affects 1.4 million people. This follows the cities of Page in 2006 and Flagstaff in 2001, both of which rejected fluoridation three times.

7. New York City Councilman Peter Vallone has been pushing legislation since 2010 to remove water fluoridation that supplies 8.2 million residents.

8. The cities of Lawrence and Salina, KS are fighting to end their water fluoridation programs.

9. Georgia fluoridates 96% of their water supplies and ranks 25th in the nation in dental health. Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and former Atlanta mayor, along with Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, Pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, have been urging Georgia legislators to end the mandatory water fluoridation program. Statistics show “61% of low-income Georgia third graders have tooth decay compared to 51% from higher-income families—and 33% and 20%, respectively, have untreated cavities…” Ambassador Young wrote, “We also have a cavity epidemic today in our inner cities that have been fluoridated for decades.”[4]

The state of Tennessee also fluoridates 96% of their water supplies, yet ranks far behind Georgia placing 47th in dental health.

10. According to Fluoride Action Network, more than 300 hundred communities in the U.S. and Canada have stopped or rejected the practice of water fluoridation since 1990.[5]

If fluoridation is a “proven form of health prevention” that Dr. Meng claims, why are rates of tooth decay at epidemic levels in cities fluoridated for decades? And why are more and more communities fighting to stop the “benefits?” The examples of Georgia and Tennessee are among many others that demonstrate the dichotomy between fluoridation presented as a “proven form of health prevention” and the statistical realities. The public is quickly learning that there are far more effective and safer options for preventing tooth decay. They emphasize the importance of a nutritious diet absent of junk food and excessive carbohydrates, nutritional supplements and better dental oral care and education.

Rather than being pro-fluoridation activists, dentists and medical physicians may want to consider becoming teeth brushing activists and promote Teeth Brushing Awareness campaigns. Educate children and parents to the importance of brushing and flossing their teeth after meals. Better yet, become nutritious food activists and teach children how sugar, soda and processed foods contribute to tooth decay. Practicing real health care may not be as profitable or politically correct, but it would serve to produce overall healthier children with decay resistant teeth.



Fluoridation Battle Engulfs Wichita, Kansas (Part 2)

By: Dr. Stephen C. L’Hommedieu, NewsWithViews.com, Wichita, Kansas 05-Sep-2012

Is Naturally Occurring Fluoride and Water Fluoridation the Same?

Advocates for water fluoridation claim: “Fluoride occurs naturally in water, though rarely at optimal levels to protect teeth. That’s our goal: getting just enough to help all of us keep our teeth longer… Fluoride is a safe and natural way to prevent tooth decay.” —fluoridefreekansas.COM spoof site.

Think About This: Fluoride does occur naturally in the water in simple ionic form as calcium fluoride. Due to its low solubility, calcium fluoride is normally present at very low concentrations. It’s considered relatively harmless in the low concentrations present in Wichita’s water at 0.3 parts per million (ppm). Even naturally occurring calcium fluoride, however, is capable of exhibiting toxic effects of fluorosis in human populations with fluoride concentrations of 1 ppm and even less.

Sodium fluoride is another simple ionic form, although it’s far more water soluble and, therefore, far more toxic than calcium fluoride. Naturally occurring sodium fluoride is fairly rare in nature. All sodium fluoride used for water fluoridation purposes is an industrial grade hazardous waste. However, relatively few cities still use this compound for water fluoridation purposes today.

Sodium fluoride is also manufactured in tablet form under strict Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The resulting compound is 99.97% pure sodium fluoride. This is the pharmaceutical grade version of the hazardous waste that fluoride advocates give their children. The FDA classifies sodium fluoride for ingestion as an unapproved new drug. There are no double blind studies that have demonstrated either the safety or effectiveness of ingesting sodium fluoride to prevent tooth decay.

In sharp contrast to these simple ionic forms, the synthetic fluoride chemicals used for water fluoridation are sodium hexafluorosilicate and hydrofluorosilicic acid, collectively called hexafluorosilicates or, the more general term, fluorosilicates (and sometimes silicofluorides). Although fluoridation advocates will tell you it’s the “safe and natural way to prevent tooth decay,” there’s nothing safe and natural about them. These hexafluorosilicates used in water fluoridation are highly toxic and are listed as hazardous wastes by many environmental protection administrations. Hexafluorosilicates are not identical to or chemically interchangeable with the form of fluoride naturally occurring in our water. In fact, there’s no known chemical compound present in nature similar in structure to hexafluorosilicates.

The main source of this “fluoride” is derived as an industrial waste by-product through the phosphate fertilizer industry called fluorosilicic acid. This highly corrosive industrial waste is produced by treating phosphate rock with sulfuric acid. Sodium hexafluorosilicate is produced by treating fluorosilicic acid with a highly caustic metallic base sodium hydroxide (lye), sodium carbonate or sodium chloride. Both hydrofluorosilicic acid (25% solution) and sodium hexafluorosilicate are the major chemicals utilized for water fluoridation programs.

There are other chemical by-products present in these industrial grade fluorosilicates. The list includes unevaluated levels of chlorides, amines (derivatives of ammonia), diesel fuel, kerosene, sulfides (aggressive corrosives), reagent compounds such as lye (used for inducing chemical reactions), phosphorus, oil-based defoamers with possible dioxin containing contaminants, polymers, petroleum products, naphthalene, and Synspar, the multi-function synthetic coolant used in phosphate rock processing operations.[6]

Fluorosilicic acid is evaluated to contain a minimum of 18.22% fluorine and 0.02% heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury, along with trace amounts of uranium 238 and the highly radioactive radium, which are all known carcinogens (cancer causing).[7]

In addition, there are two uranium decay by-products, radon-222 and polonium-210, which are even more carcinogenic. Polonium-210 emits 5000 times more alpha radiation than radium. As little as 6.8 trillionths of a gram can be carcinogenic when consumed internally. Radionuclides can lay dormant in your body to eventually decay into one of these highly carcinogenic forms.[8]

Fluorosilicate compounds used for water fluoridation are misleadingly promoted as simply providing more “fluoride” to what is already naturally present in the water. Interestingly, the use of fluorosilicate compounds has still not been acknowledged by our city officials for the proposed fluoridation program. The public doesn’t understand that the toxicity of fluoride will vary significantly with different compounds. The simple calcium fluoride present naturally in our water is far removed from the chemical properties of hexafluorosilicate compounds.

Since the vast majority of fluoride research pertains to sodium fluoride within controlled laboratory environments using pure distilled water, concerns regarding the toxicity of fluorosilicate compounds should be an important issue. But according to environmental expert Declan Waugh, BSc, C.Env, MCIWEM, MIEMA, MCIWM, “No toxicological studies have been done to determine the toxicity of fluorosilicates on human health.”[9]

The concern of many scientists is the potential for harm associated with the special chemical properties of fluorosilicates: Dissociation, bioavailability and possible toxicities of fluorosilicates vary with the pH of its environment. All test results on fluorosilicates have been at city water pH levels. No consideration has been given to the extremes in pH environments the water will be exposed to through cooking processes and ingestion. Consider that 50% of the fluoride in your stomach at pH 3 (the pH range of stomach acid is 2 to 3) is in the form hydrofluoric acid. Hydrofluoric acid is highly corrosive and can penetrate tissues more rapidly than other mineral acids.[10]

Hexafluorosilicate is stabilized at a pH of 2.6. It’s now believed that incomplete dissociated fluorosilicate residues can reassociate in the stomach and during food preparation to produce exposures to a variety of toxic forms including silicon tetrafluoride—a known hazardous substance.[11]

Differentiating fluorosilicate compounds from sodium fluoride, and certainly from calcium fluoride, is absorption and processing within the body. This was known even before the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed sodium hexafluorosilicate in 1950 as a cheaper alternative to sodium fluoride with a biological equivalence in absorption. However, in strong contrast to this endorsement were the results of earlier animal studies. When equivalent amounts of these fluorides were ingested, more of the fluoride from sodium fluoride was eliminated through the feces, whereas there was a three-fold increase of the amount of fluoride from hexafluorosilicate eliminated through the kidneys. The higher blood levels of fluoride suggest hexafluorosilicate is processed differently by the body and/or absorption is greater.[12]

Help Keep Water Fluoridation Out of Wichita, Kansas

Protecting our water quality, public health, environment and the personal freedom of all citizens should be the priority of our city leaders. Although some believe water fluoridation is in the best interests of our children, informed citizens of Wichita, KS need your support to prevent this polluting of our city water that will endanger public health and the environment.

The Kansas Health Foundation and other private and corporate special-interests have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for the promotional advertising, media coverage, advertising agency, law firm and hired help to promote water fluoridation in Wichita. If Wichitans knew the truth about water fluoridation they would be outraged by this science that only money can buy.

The Fluoride Free Kansas (FFK) website is developed and operated by co-founder Travis Crank. You can visit FluorideFreeKansas.org for the latest fluoride information and details about future meetings and support activities.[13]

Donations are needed to support the costs of important electronic efforts to reach the masses, website upgrades and other campaign expenses. If you believe it’s important to prevent the polluting of our drinking water with a hazardous industrial waste, please show your support by donating to Fluoride Free Kansas.[14] Achieving success in Wichita will send a clear message across Kansas and to other cities in the country: A corporate-driven science that promotes the dumping of hazardous waste into our drinking water is not welcome!

Don Landis (not directly affiliated with FFK) is the spokesperson and action coordinator between FFK and a number of private and group efforts being organized to reach the public with the facts being withheld by the dental and medical communities and media. If you have a talent, Don can use your help! Donations of your time and talent to support this community effort would be greatly appreciated.

You may contact Don directly by e-mail at dlandis1@cox.net or call 316.990.1471. It’s important to educate the Wichita community since the surrounding communities that will be affected won’t be able to vote on this referendum on November 6th.

If you would like a speaker to attend a group meeting or an event in this area, please contact Don Landis or Fluoride Free Kansas to inquire about possible arrangements.

For those who live in Kansas, take a quick moment to sign the petition.[15] When you do, please include ALL information so signatures are verifiable, otherwise they will not be counted.

Spread the word: Say no to fluoridation on November 6th!


YOUR WATER: Healthcare system faces tsunami of fluoride-poisoned Baby Boomers

By: Heather Gingerich (Opinion), IngersollTimes.com, Ingersoll, Ontario 05-Sep-2012 As the wave of Canadian babies born between 1946 and 1966 start to enter their “golden years” in terms of healthcare expenditures, it’s important to remember that it wasn’t the 2006 Boxing Day earthquake itself that caused the human catastrophe of death and disease. Rather, it was the impact of a massive shift on distant water bodies, separated by time and space from the epicentre, that resulted in the tidal wave of destruction.

Likewise, by neglecting to consider the long-term health effects of tap water chemistry (a combination of source water chemistry, water treatment additives and the effects of the plumbing) as a risk factor in the development of chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease and mental illness, the provincial government’s post-Walkerton paralysis does nothing to defuse the demographic time bomb that the Baby Boomer generation poses to the healthcare system.

This is where the cross-over discipline of medical geology, that combines all of the strengths of both earth and health sciences and the universal languages of chemistry and mathematics, comes in handy. If the over 300 members of the International Medical Geology Association (who are spread over more than 80 countries) were asked to come up with a logo, it would probably be something along the lines of “Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger”.

Add the perspective, context and “colour” of indigenous traditional knowledge to the picture of “Sickness Country” that is outlined by modern, western scientific methods, and the Rainbow Serpent (as an embodiment of natural and man-made chemicals in the air, food and water) with a Do Not Disturb sign would make an excellent mascot.

For better or for worse, every element on the Periodic Table is somehow important when it comes to health, but owing to its unique characteristics, fluoride (symbolized by the letter F in chemistry and a fiery red colour in the Rainbow Serpent) in drinking water serves as arguably the best single indicator of potential for poor chronic health outcomes in the human and animal population.

And despite decades of false advertising to the contrary, no amount of fluoride is required by plants, humans or other animals for good health. Instead, the bulk of the non-industry funded agricultural, veterinary and toxicological science literature concerns itself exclusively with the issue of fluoride toxicity from environmental sources, with drinking water exposures being weighted the most heavily.

Most recently, researchers at Harvard University led by Dr. Phillippe Grandjean, added neurotoxicity to the (dirty) laundry list of likely non-dental consequences (pictured above) of the low-dose fluoride exposure from all sides that began in the mid 1940s when the Baby Boomers were born.

Ingersoll and several other relatively small communities located both inside and outside of Oxford County are known to have naturally high fluoride concentrations in the water supply over the 1.50 mg/L upper limit of the Ontario Drinking Water Standards. This results in individual daily doses that are clearly unsafe for children less than about 10 years old who weigh less than 30 kilograms or 66 pounds, but that also slowly disable and finally kill adults over time after a long, painful and in all ways expensive battle with chronic disease that our “world-class” healthcare system was not designed to support.


Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochemistry) DDS — Dental Fluorosis: Permanent tooth scarring caused by fluoridation

Dental Fluorosis: Permanent tooth scarring caused by fluoridation

What is dental fluorosis?

Dental Fluorosis caused by water fluoridation is irreversible, disfiguring, psychologically damaging and costly to repair. In essence, it is medical assault on children.

When children are exposed to increased fluoride intake from birth to age 6 years, fluoride interferes with normal tooth development and their teeth develop dental defects on the enamel surfaces that vary from

  1. barely visible white lines or spots (very mild) to
  2. coalescing chalky white opaque areas (mild) to
  3. chalky enamel on all teeth that start to ‘pit’ and stain brown (moderate) to
  4. mottling of all teeth, with enamel pitting and staining (severe)

Researchers have often categorized the various severities of dental fluorosis with indices, two of which are shown in this composite diagram.

How big a problem is dental fluorosis?

I was astounded by the high prevalence of fluorosis in my local area, but there is nothing special about my area. It was fluoridated for years. Dental fluorosis is rampant in fluoridated communities like mine.

When epidemiologists in the UK did a systematic review of all the relevant studies on dental fluorosis (the well known York Review), many of them conducted in the US, it was concluded that every eighth child had objectionable dental fluorosis as a result of fluoridation. (McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ. 2000 Oct 7;321(7265):855-9.)

In a recent US large scale study about 10% of children have fluorosis that needs to be treated (Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Barker L, Dye BA. Prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004.  NCHS Data Brief. 2010 Nov;(53):1-8.). The Center for Disease Control in the US reports that dental fluorosis has been increasing throughout the years. Fluorosis is always worse in fluoridated communities.

There have been several studies conducted in Canada to estimate fluorosis prevalence.

Twenty years ago dental fluorosis was found in nearly 70% of the children in fluoridated communities (Ismail AI, Shoveller J, Langille D, MacInnis WA, McNally M. Should the drinking water of Truro, Nova Scotia, be fluoridated? Water fluoridation in the 1990s. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1993 Jun;21(3):118-25).

The prevalence of fluorosis was about 60% in Courtenay and Comox in BC but this declined significantly when fluoridation was halted (Clark DC, Shulman JD, Maupomé G, Levy SM. Changes in Dental Fluorosis Following the Cessation of Water Fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2006 Jun;34(3):197-204)

In 1999, Dr. David Locker, now deceased, conducted a review of fluoridation for the Ontario Ministry of Health and the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch. He reported, “current studies support the view that dental fluorosis has increased in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. North American studies suggest rates of 20 to 75% in the former and 12 to 45% in the latter.”

It was after the Locker Report that Ontario decided to recommend a range of fluoride in drinking water from 0.5 ppm to 0.8 ppm.

The dental public health department in Toronto in a follow-up survey looked at whether fluorosis was still a problem in Toronto. It was. The authors reported

“Dental fluorosis of moderate severity (Tooth Surface Index of Fluorosis 2) was found among 14.0% of 7-year-olds, 12.3% of 13-year-olds and 13.2% of the 2 age groups combined.” (Leake J, Goettler F, Stahl-Quinlan B, Stewart H. Has the level of dental fluorosis among Toronto children changed? J Can Dent Assoc. 2002 Jan;68(1):21-5).

The authors even admitted “Nonetheless, the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis among those we could identify as having been born in Toronto support the August 1999 decision to reduce Toronto’s water fluoride concentration to 0.8 ppm from the former 1.2 ppm.”

How did Toronto end up having 1.2 ppm fluoride in its drinking water in the first place?

It turns out that picking that level was based on a silly calculation that suggested children living in cities in hot climates (Texas, Nevada, Arizona) would consume a lot more water than those in moderate climates (the ‘optimum fluoride level was arbitrarily set at a nice round figure of 1.0 ppm) and those children living in colder cities (e.g. Toronto) would consume less water.

But wait a minute.

It is well known that fluoride, if it has any benefit, provides its benefit through topical means, by exposing the teeth AFTER they erupt into the mouth, not systemically, through ingestion. (CDC 1999. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review (MMWR), 48(41);933-940 October 22, 1999.)

Someone messed up… and now they are reducing the fluoride in the drinking water without a peep to the public.

Dr. Dick Ito, in 2007, confirmed the observations I made in my own patients and found that in our region every tenth child had dental fluorosis that needed treatment (Ito D. A Cross-sectional Study to Compare Caries and Fluorosis in 7-year-old Schoolchildren from a Fluoridated Area with Those in a Neighbouring Non-fluoridated Area in Ontario. 2007, MSc Thesis, University of Toronto).

An attempt was made recently by the Chief Dental Officer of Canada to conduct a survey of fluorosis in Canada but this survey was not scientifically conducted. Non-fluoridated communities were selected at a ratio of two to one over fluoridated communities, it was not blinded or randomized, and there was no attempt to adjust for life-long fluoride exposure. The survey remains unpublished in an internationally-recognized journal and has not been peer-reviewed. Even so the Chief Dental Officer of Canada concluded that “the prevalence (of moderate to severe fluorosis) is too low to permit reporting”. http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Oral-Health-Statistics-2007-2009-Canadian-Health-Measures-Survey-CHMS-Health-Canada.pdf

In my opinion, the Canadian Health Measures Survey did little to add to our knowledge of dental fluorosis and its national prevalence pattern.

The psychosocial effects of dental fluorosis.

Having treated dozens of children for dental fluorosis I can say from my own experience as a practicing dentist that these children are psychologically and socially affected by their dental ‘scarring’.  Similar to how children are psycologically and socially impacted by acne scarring from years of acne. Both such children are often ridiculed or ostricized simply because of the way they look.

How would society react to a medication added to the drinking water that was supposed to prevent skin infections but left 4% to 10% of the population with irreversible acne scars? Public health might say, we’re lowering more severe skin infections by 10%. Most teens get acne. Acne is just a cosmetic side effect of the medication that we are putting in your drinking water– the scars can be covered up by make-up.

Society looks down on children who have ‘scarred’ teeth. The study by Bennett concluded, “…participants were significantly more likely to make negative judgments involving health, aesthetic, and person attributions about faces with high levels of fluorosis, and to make negative judgments more quickly and positive judgments more slowly than those with lower levels of fluorosis.” (Bennett P, Williams D, Chestnutt I, Hood K, Lowe R. A reaction-time study of social, health, and personal attributions in relation to fluorosed teeth. Psychol Health Med. 2008 Jan;13(1):75-86.)

The cost of treating dental fluorosis.

It costs a LOT of money to treat dental fluorosis.

If you have to cap the teeth with porcelain crowns or cover the front of the teeth with porcelain veneers it can cost tens of thousands of dollars!
See http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Osmunson-Water-Fluoridation-Intervention-Dentistry%E2%80%99s-Crown-Jewel-Or-Dark-Hour-Guest-Editorial-Fluoride-404214%E2%80%93221-Oct-Dec-2007.pdf for a discussion and some images.

I showed that some minor dental fluorosis can be treated with microabrasion and bleaching (Limeback H, Vieira AP, Lawrence H. Improving esthetically objectionable human  enamel fluorosis with a simple microabrasion technique. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006 May;114 Suppl 1:123-6; discussion 127-9, 380.)

However, because repairing dental fluorosis is considered ‘cosmetic’ dental insurance companies do not pay for these repairs.

In my estimate, repairing all those teeth with objectionable fluorosis costs families (on average) more money than it costs to treat the dental decay that fluoridation supposedly prevents.

Ingested fluoride makes teeth brittle and fracture more easily.

The next time you have to go to the dentist for a fractured tooth, ask yourself… Have I been drinking fluoridated water my whole life? Am I a post-fluoride baby?

If the answer is yes to either question, then your teeth are undoubtedly a little more brittle than your pre-fluoride parents. Fluoride accumulates in dentin, the mineralized tissue that supports the outer layer, the enamel. If dentin becomes brittle, entire portions of the tooth are at risk for breaking off, especially if you clench or grind your teeth.

Fluoride is toxic to the cells that make teeth. It alters the expression of genes. It interferes with cellular enzymes. Fluoride that is ingested changes teeth as they develop. If children from birth to age 6 years avoid ingestion of fluoride they do not get dental ‘scarring’.

Challenge to the reader: Look at kids’ teeth when they smile. See if you can identify dental fluorosis. Learn more about the condition. Tell the municipal councillor in your ward that you do not want your kids scarred for life by fluoride medication added to your drinking water by your municipality.

Take home message of blog: Dental fluorosis caused by water fluoridation is scarring our kids’ teeth for life. The practice is morally and ethically indefensible and it has to end.

Future blog topics:

1.Why infants are most at risk for dental fluorosis and developmental problems related to fluoridation.

2. Fluoridation increases lead uptake in children: the consequences.

3. Fluoridation has no effect on baby bottle tooth decay.



Case proceeds against the Ontario Dental Association

By: Bob Vrbanac, Waterloo Chronicle, Waterloo, Ontario 05-Sep-2012 The case is proceeding against the Ontario Dental Association and two former presidents of the organization accused of contravening the Ontario Municipal Elections Act during the run up to the fluoridation referendum in 2010.

Justice Arthur Child ruled last week against a motion to dismiss the case, and it is set to go to trial Nov. 13 in Provincial Offences Court. Child will preside over the case, and in his judgment last week ruled that the validity of the evidence against the Ontario Dental Association, and past-presidents Dr. Harry Hoediono and Dr. Ira Kirshen, is best decided before that court.

Defence attorney Murray Stieber, acting on behalf of the ODA, made the motion to dismiss last December arguing the charges were “frivolous and vexatious.” Stieber produced a sworn affidavit by Hoediono, a local dentist, saying he was intimidated during the referendum by anti-fluoridation activists. He argued the campaign of intimidation continued with the charges.

The incident stems from a June 17, 2010, public debate Hoediono and Kirshen attended in Waterloo where they provided materials printed by the ODA in support of water fluoridation. Robert Fleming, executive director of WaterlooWatch and the elected president of Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation claimed the ODA, Hoediono and Kirshen failed to file a notice of registration before campaigning as a candidate for the fluoride question.

He swore out a charge that the parties contravened the act by proposing to incur expenses with respect to a question on the municipal ballot and hadn’t properly registered to do so in time.

Provincial prosecutor Ralph Cotter decided to proceed with the charge in July of 2010. The motion to dismiss, made in Dec. 14 was put over to Feb. 6, and delayed again until a decision to go ahead with the case was made by Child on Aug. 27. There are four dates that have been set aside for the trial in Provincial Offences Court in Kitchener including Nov. 13, Dec. 18, Dec. 19 and Dec. 21.

It is unclear who will proceed with the case on behalf of the ODA and the two dentists named. Cotter will continue with the prosecution and declined to comment further on the details of the case as the matter is still before the court.

“I’m pleased that things are moving ahead to trial, where the merits of the case will be heard and the evidence will be weighed,” said Fleming, who brought the original charge as a private citizen. “This is a precedent-setting case.”