Syndicate content

cavities

Study: Fluoridation No Benefits; Definite Risks

Posted by NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. on January 24, 2010 - 7:04pm
Tagged in

 

Study Links Fluoride to Premature Births

Posted by NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. on November 14, 2009 - 6:37am
Tagged in
State University of New York (SUNY) researchers found more premature births in fluoridated than non-fluoridated upstate New York communities, according to a presentation made at the American Public Health Association’s annual meeting on November 9, 2009 in Philadelphia. (1)

 

Fluoridation is the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies ostensibly to prevent tooth decay. Many groups oppose fluoridation because of its scientifically-documented health risks. (2)

 

Human pregnancy lasts about 40 weeks or just more than 9 months. A baby born before 37 weeks of pregnancy is considered a preterm (or premature) birth.  About 12 percent of US pregnancies are preterm and this is one of the top causes of infant death in the US, according to the US National Institutes of Health. (3)

 

The SUNY researchers used 1993-2002 data from the NY Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), which collects patient characteristics, diagnoses, treatments, services and charges for every hospital discharge, ambulatory surgery patient and emergency department admission in New York State. They recorded fluoridation residence status (under or over 1 milligram fluoride per Liter of water) and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, neighborhood poverty level, hypertension and diabetes.

 

“Domestic water fluoridation was associated with an increased risk of PTB [preterm birth]. This relationship was most pronounced among women in the lowest SES [socio-economic-status] groups (>10% poverty) and those of non-white racial origin,” write Rachel Hart, et al. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, SUNY School of Public Health.

 

Previous published research by others has shown that fluoride can interfere with the reproductive system. (4)

 

“It would be wise to follow the lead of the 7,000 Environmental Protection Agency scientists and public health professionals (5) who asked Congress to place a moratorium on fluoridation until definitive studies are conducted to prove fluoridation is safe for every human consuming it,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. “Clearly fluoridation is not safe for everyone," says Beeber.

 

At the request of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a National Research Council (NRC) panel of experts reviewed current fluoride toxicology. In  2006 they concluded  that the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water is too high to be protective of health.  At least three NRC panel members believe water fluoride levels should be as close to zero as possible.  The EPA has yet to perform a fluoride risk assessment based on the NRC's findings leaving millions of Americans at risk of fluoride's adverse health effects.

 

According to Dr. Bill Hirzy, Chair of American University’s Chemistry Department and former EPA scientist from 1981 to 2008, the EPA fears “setting a maximum contaminant level goal of zero because that would mean the EPA is going to be responsible for the end of the water fluoridation program. EPA knows that there will be enormous political flak for doing that.” (6)

 

SOURCE:  New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc (NYSCOF)

PO Box 263

Old Bethpage, NY  11804

Follow NYSCOF on Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/nyscof

 

 

References:

 

1) 197468 Relationship between municipal water fluoridation and preterm birth in Upstate New York Rachel Hart, BA, MPH, et al. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University at Albany, State University of New York, Rensselaer, NY

http://apha.confex.com/apha/137am/webprogram/Paper197468.html

 

(2) Fluoride Action Network – Health Effects Database
 http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/sitemap.html

 

(3) National Institutes of Health, “Preterm Labor and Birth,”

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/Preterm_Labor_and_Birth.cfm

 

(4) Fluoride Action Network - HEALTH EFFECTS: Fluoride & the Reproductive System http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/repro/index.html

 

(5) Why EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation  

http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

(6) The Eagle, “Hirzy: EPA drags feet on fluoride.” by Howie Perlman, October 28, 2009

http://www.theeagleonline.com/news/story/hirzy-epa-drags-feet-on-flouride

All Infant Formula Contains Fluoride at Tooth Discoloring levels

Posted by NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. on October 29, 2009 - 6:53am
Tagged in

All infant formulas, whether ready-to-feed, concentrated or organic, contain fluoride at levels which can discolor developing teeth, reports the October 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) (1).

Fluoride, added to some bottled and public water supplies ostensibly
to prevent cavities, is also in many foods and beverages, including
infant formula. Excessive fluoride discolors and/or weakens permanent
teeth (moderate fluorosis).

Researchers measured fluoride content of 49 infant formulas. See:
http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/infantformulafluoride.htm

The research team concludes,  "Most infants from birth to age 12
months who consume predominantly powdered and liquid concentrate
formula are likely to exceed the upper tolerable limit [of fluoride]
if the formula is reconstituted with optimally fluoridated water (0.7
- 1.2 ppm).”

Surprisingly, the study reveals that all 6-month-olds and younger will
also exceed the lower “adequate intake” (0.01 mg/day) from all
formulas (concentrated or not) risking moderate dental fluorosis from
formula, alone. (2)

Breast milk contains about 250 times less fluoride than "optimally"
fluoridated water and isn't linked to fluorosis.

"Babies don't need fluoride and fluoride ingestion doesn’t reduce
tooth decay,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State
Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. “So why are US babies still
exposed to unnecessary fluoride chemicals via the water and food
supplies and why aren’t parents informed of the consequences?” asks
Beeber.

Up to 48% of school children have fluorosed teeth – 4% severe, reports
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (3).

Both the CDC and the American Dental Association’s web sites advise
parents to avoid mixing fluoridated water into concentrated infant
formula, but they have never effectively broadcast this information to
parents or the media (4,5).

A review of human studies by different researchers published in JADA
(July 2009) concluded, “Our systematic review indicated that the
consumption of infant formula [concentrated and ready-to-feed] is, on
average, associated with an increased risk of developing at least some
detectable level of enamel fluorosis.” (6)

“Parents, protect your children since dental and government agencies
won’t. Petition local and state legislators to stop adding unnecessary
and harmful fluoride chemicals into public water supplies and,
thereby, into our food supply,” says Beeber. “Further, demand that the
fluoride content of all food products be required on labels."

Researchers agree that infant formula levels should be lowered.  

"One interpretation of the available
evidence would be that public health officials should create
guidelines for infant formula consumption ensuring that the upper
intake level established by the Institute of Medicine... is not
exceeded. Another approach would be to strive for 'biological
normality' and to strive for fluoride levels observed in breast milk,"
write Hujoel et al. in "Infant Formula and Enamel Fluorosis: A
Systematic Review. (6)

A recent investigation by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found
that over-exposure to fluoride among infants is a widespread problem
in most major American cities. EWG's study found that, on any given
day, up to 60% of formula-fed babies in US cities were exceeding the
Institute of Medicine's "upper tolerable" limit for fluoride. (6a)

In 2004, fluoride researcher Dr. Teresa A. Marshall told Reuters
Health, "Very young infants are unlikely to benefit from the caries-
prevention effects of fluoride…They may be at increased risk of dental
fluorosis." (7) Marshall co-authored “Associations between Intakes of
Fluoride from Beverages during Infancy and Dental Fluorosis of Primary
Teeth,” in the Journal of American Clinical Nutrition. (b)

In 2000, researcher A K Mascarenhas evaluating only well-conducted
studies from the 1980s through the 1990s concluded in Pediatric
Dentistry that infant formula was a major risk factor for dental
fluorosis. (8)

As part of the on-going Iowa Fluoride Study, Levy and his team
measured the fluoride content of infant formula and found from 0.15 to
0.30 ppm in ready-to-feed infant formula. (9)

Common household water filters (e.g. carbon filters) do not remove 
fluoride and unlike chlorine, which dissipates upon boiling, fluoride
becomes more concentrated when water is boiled.

Only distillation, reverse osmosis and political activism removes fluoride from tap water.

Parents are advised to control their chldren's total daily fluoride intake with the help of their dentists.  But most dentists don't know what foods contain fluoride and at what levels. Also, most dentists are unware that fluoride ingestion does not reduce tooth decay (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/Yoder ) The USDA set up a Fluoride in Foods database to help parents out.  However, that also is not well-advertised.

USDA: Fluoride-content of common foods: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=6312

Pictures of fluorosis
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/fluorosis/moderate-severe.html


SOURCE:  New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.FluorideAction.Net


References:

1)   “Assessing a potential risk factor for enamel fluorosis: a
preliminary evaluation of fluoride content in infant formulas,”
Journal of the American Dental Association October 2009

2) http://fluoridation.webs.com/intakefromformula.htm

3) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s403a1t23.gif

4) http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm

5)  http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?art...

6)  “Infant Formula and Enamel Fluorosis: A Systematic Review,”
Journal of the American Dental Association by Hujoel, et al, July 2009

6a) "National Academy Calls for Lowering Fluoride Limits in Tap
Water," EWG News Release, March 2006 http://www.ewg.org/node/21000

7) "Too Much Fluoride May Harm Babies' Teeth," Reuters Health, May 5,
2004
http://www.fluoridealert.org/media/2004c.html

8) Pediatric Dentistry. July-August 2000. "Risk factors for dental
fluorosis: a review of the recent literature," by Mascarenhas AK
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10969430?dopt=Abstract

9) Dental Clinics of North America 47(2003), "Current and future role
of fluoride in nutrition," by Warren & Levy, 225-243

More evidence that infant formula is linked to dental fluorosis:

http://tinyurl.com/AllFormulaContainsFluoride

Fluoride/Cancer Link is Plausible, studies show

Posted by NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. on July 9, 2009 - 7:55am
Tagged in

"Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone...," according to the most recent and extensive review of fluoride toxicology by the prestigious National Research Council (NRC). (1)
 
Fluoride chemicals are added to about 70% of public water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay, not to purify the water.
 
In 2006, the NRC found the.The Environmental Protection Agency's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride is too high to be protective of health (4 mg/L) and must be lowered. EPA scientists have been saying this since 1986; but EPA management caved to political pressure and over-ruled its scientists.  EPA is long overdue in revising fluoride's MCLG based on the 2006 NRC Fluoride Report, which was done at EPA's request.
 
According to Bill Hirzy, PhD, retired EPA scientist, "Since 1986 the [EPA HQ professionals] union has taken exception to EPA’s unscientific approach to dealing with the toxicity of fluoride in order to protect the USPHS [Public Health Service] program of national water fluoridation." (2)
 
Hirzy writes, "When I last spoke with the Division Director responsible for that risk assessment he told me EPA was waiting for a paper, promised three years ago by its principal first author, that would counter an epidemiology study done under that very author’s direction at Harvard."
 
Hirzy is talking about a published peer-reviewed study by Bassin (2a) which links fluoridation to osteosarcoma (bone cancer).  Chester Douglass, Bassin's Harvard University advisor and, at that time, employee of Colgate (sellers of fluoridated dental products) signed off on Bassin's work. But, Douglass told the NRC panel that no such study existed, according to the Environmental Working Group.(3)
 
The whole fluoridation program appears to rest upon the shoulders of Chester Douglass whose much anticipated osteosarcoma/fluoridation research has yet to be published even though it was promised years ago, costing tax payers millions of dollars.
 
But, there's more evidence linking fluoride to osteosarcoma (See:  http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/osteosarcoma.html ) and loads of evidence linking fluoride to adverse health effects - even at low doses added to public (and some bottled) water supplies (See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/ )
 
At least three members of the NRC fluoride panel believe the MCLG for fluoride should be zero.
 
In a different study, Ramesh and colleagues propose that high fluoride bone content might have been one of the major factors causing osteosarcoma in people living in India where water supplies are often high in natural fluoride (Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology, 2001) (5)
 
The high levels of bone fluoride levels and the similarity of the mechanisms of action between fluoride-induced DNA damage and chemically-induced p53 mutations lead us to propose that high fluoride bone content might have been one of the major factors causing osteosarcoma, they write.
 
Mutations in the p53 genes are the most commonly observed genetic alterations in human cancer. Ramesh concludes that fluoride probably causes mutations in p53.

In another study published in the July 2001 "Journal of Epidemiology," Takahashi and colleagues write, "The likelihood of fluoride acting as a genetic cause of cancer requires consideration."  (4)
 
Takahashi's team report that the National Cancer Institute provided  epidemiological evidence of a relation between cancer incidence and  water fluoridation in 1987. These findings provoked a 1990 National Toxicology Program (NTP) study that determined fluoride could be a cancer-causing agent.
 
The NTP study "supplied a detailed description of the toxicology of  fluoride, not only in terms of osteosarcoma, but also lesions in the oral mucosa, thyroid gland, skin and uterus...(which) prompted us to  re-test the hypothesis of an epidemiological association between water fluoridation and cancer incidences...", wrote Takahashi who found fluoridation status positively correlates to cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, colon, rectum, hepato-bilary & urinary organs and bone cancer in males.
 
Such a broad spectrum association has never been observed for any particular known carcinogen, but it may be reasonable for fluoride, because of its strong electronegative nature, the authors explain.
 
Some studies, e.g., Hoover (1976) and Knox (1985) claim no credible fluoridation/cancer association exists. However, Takahashi and co-authors found the Hoover/Knox assessments flawed, and explain why in their paper.
 
After ten years of water fluoridation, children aged 7-18 in Newburg, N.Y., had more cortical bone defects than the non-fluoridated control city, Kingston. And more osteosarcoma occurred in young males in
fluoridated portions of New Jersey. ... these two facts may be connected pathophysiologically, Takahashi reports.

An April 2009 research paper (Biological Trace Element Research) reports blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups. Sandhu and colleagues measured serum fluoride levels in three equal groups of age-matched and sex-matched patients. Group one had osteosarcoma; group two had non-osteosarcoma bone tumors; and group three had musculo-skeletal pain. (6)
 
“Mean serum fluoride concentration was found to be significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma as compared to the other two groups,” write Sandhu’s team. “(T)his report proves a link between raised fluoride levels in serum and osteosarcoma,” they write.
 
Take action to end fluoridation here:  http://congress.FluorideAction.Net
 
More information about fluoride and cancer:
 

References:
 
1) Fluoride in Drinking Water:A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards
 
 
2) Science Progress "Dude, Where’s My War on Science? An Attack on EPA’s Policy Process Fails Peer Review."
 
Comment #7 by Bill Hirzy
 
 
2a) Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8.
 

3) Environmental Working Group "Harvard Fluoride Findings Misrepresented?"
 
 
(4) J Epidemiol. 2001 Jul;11(4):170-9.Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on IACR/IARC (WHO) data (1978-1992). International Agency for Research on Cancer, by Takahashi K, Akiniwa K, Narita K.

(5) J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 2001;20(3):237-43.
Low levels of p53 mutations in Indian patients with osteosarcoma and the correlation with fluoride levels in bone, by
Ramesh N, Vuayaraghavan AS, Desai BS, Natarajan M, Murthy PB, Pillai KS.
 
 
6) Biological Trace Element Research, “Serum Fluoride and Sialic Acid Levels in Osteosarcoma,” by Sandhu R, Lal H, Kundu ZS, Kharb S, Apr 24, 2009 [published online]
 
 
 
 

 
 
                                                              
 
 
 
 
  

Fluoride in Your Water? GET IT OUT

Posted by NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. on July 2, 2009 - 9:37am
Tagged in

 

Water suppliers nationwide, in the US, are required to supply consumers with annual Water Quality Reports or Consumer Confidence Reports at least once a year. 
 
“Consumers should take this yearly opportunity to check their water fluoride levels,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. "If your water department adds fluoride chemicals, tell them and your legislators to stop. They are wasting your money and endangering your health," says Beeber.
 
“If your water is not fluoridated, don’t be complacent.  The American Dental Association has mobilized their army of dentists nationwide to go to your legislators and convince them that you need to swallow more fluoride (a) without any knowledge of how much fluoride you are already ingesting,” says Beeber
 
Dental fluorosis (discolored teeth), the visible sign of fluoride overdose, now afflicts up 48% of school children, reports the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).  
Fluoride's purported benefits are topical but its risks are systemic, says the CDC. "This means there is no good reason to swallow fluoride and no logical justification for water fluoridation," says Beeber.
 
A 2006 review of peer-reviewed studies in respected journals by the prestigious National Research Council (NRC) reveals fluoride is a health risk even at low levels added to water supplies. Especially harmed are high-water drinkers, babies, kidney and thyroid patients. The NRC panel found that fluoride’s links to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible.
 
Because of the NRC report, the CDC and the American Dental Association both advise that infant formula should NOT be mixed with fluoridated water.
 
The NRC report also caused the National Kidney Foundation to advise that “Individuals with CKD  [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.” Too much fluoride damages bones and malfunctioning kidneys do not excrete fluoride properly allowing a toxic build-up in the bones.
 
Besides, fluoride ingestion is not stopping tooth decay in primary teeth.
 
According to a systematic review of fluoride supplement research published in the November 2008 Journal of the American Dental Association, "There is weak and inconsistent evidence that the use of fluoride supplements prevents dental caries in primary teeth." In fact, the authors could find only one study, from China, showing any fluoride benefit to primary teeth and that study was probably biased with a high withdrawal rate, the authors write.
 
Fluoride supplements never underwent FDA testing.(1)
 
"Fluoridation began with the untested belief that ingested fluoride prevented tooth decay in small children, only. Evidence-based-dentistry now shows that swallowing fluoride poses dental risks without benefits to the very children fluoridation was supposed to help," says Beeber.
 
"It may...be that fluoridation of drinking water does not have a strong protective effect against early childhood caries (cavities) reports
dentist Howard Pollick, University of California, and colleagues, in  the Winter 2003 Journal of Public Health Dentistry.
 
Beeber advises: Call your water department, ask if fluoride chemicals are added into your water supply.  Then ask them and your local legislators, “Who has the authority to stop fluoridation?”  Organize your neighbors to lobby the appropriate agency or department to have them cease fluoridation. You will be saving your community money and improving overall health with no increased dental risk. In fact, many studies show that when fluoridation ends, tooth decay rates actually go down or stay the same.
 
Fluoride does occur naturally in most water systems. But over 90% of fluoridating communities use silicofluorides, waste products of phosphate fertilizer production, which carry trace amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury and other toxins, according to NSF International, the governing body over water additives.(2)
 
Opposition to fluoridation is scientific, respectable and growing in numbers and political popularity.
 
On November 4, 2008, 53 US cities rejected fluoridation joining a growing list of communities saying "No" to fluoridation.
 
Dr. Joey Hensley, a respected practicing physician serving in the Tennessee legislature, urges all Tennessee Water Districts to stop fluoridation. At least 31 Tennessee water districts have already complied.
 
Over 2,550 professionals signed a statement urging the US Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html
 
Also, 11 Environmental Protection Agency unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals, called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. (3)
 
Fluoridation is now a political issue usually defended and promoted, without valid science, by organized dentistry and their members in federal and state health departments as well as those in private practice.
 
For more information on fluoride's adverse health effects, visit the Fluoride Action Network Health Page at  http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health 
 
Join the 21,000 Americans calling on Congress to stop fluoridation here:  http://congress.FluorideAction.Net
 
 
SOURCE:  New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
 
References:
 
 
1) August 2000 letter from NJ Assemblyman Kelly to Senator Robert Smith http://www.fluoridealert.org/fda.htm
 
 

3)  Press Release August 19, 2005, “EPA Unions Call for Nationwide Moratorium on Fluoridation, Congressional Hearing on Adverse Effects, Youth Cancer Cover Up,” Contact: Dr. William Hirzy, Vice-President NTEU Chapter 280