The history of the discovery of fluoride and how it became applicable in preventative dentistry is both a fascinating read and a lesson in politics. I can highly recommend reading it at Fluoride History, with links regularly updated. It is far too involved to put it up here.
But let me ask you were you aware of the this?
Fluoride damages bones
Since 1990, five major epidemiological studies from three countries – USA, UK and France – have been reported in leading peer-reviewed journals showing a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated regions than unfluoridated regions. Although two of these reports were published as letters, the first was a correction to a refereed publication and the second was a supplement to a refereed publication about a prospective study which took account of major individual risk factors.
In addition, a prospective study from USA shows a higher rate of hip fractures in a naturally fluoridated region with 4 ppm F in drinking water than in a comparison region with 1 ppm. Although there are a few studies which find no difference between fluoridated and unfluoridated regions, they are either limited to small samples or the women were not exposed to F during the time of their lives when F would be expected to affect bone most, i.e. before menopause.
In 3-4 decades, when people in artificially fluoridated areas have accumulated F in their bones from birth to old age, the increased rates of hip fractures and skeletal fluorosis will be larger.
Thus, there is a consistent pattern of evidence – on hip fractures, skeletal fluorosis, the effect of F on bone structure, F levels in bones and osteosarcomas – together pointing to the existence of causal mechanisms by which F damages bones.
Did you know there is Negligible benefit from Fluoride ingestion?
Recent research on the mechanism of action of F in reducing the prevalence of dental caries (tooth decay) in humans shows that F acts topically (i.e. at the surface of the teeth) and that there is negligible benefit in actually ingesting it. This is supported by experiments on laboratory rats: a slow-release source of F fixed in the mouth reduced dental caries, but when the mouth was bypassed by placing the source under the skin, there was no detectable reduction.
The lack of observed systemic benefit from ingesting fluoridated water at concentration 1 ppm is not surprising, since the resulting level of F in the saliva is only around 0.01 ppm.
The evidence that there is negligible systemic benefit from fluoridation is accepted by eminent dental researchers and at least one leading US proponent of fluoridation, Professor Brian Burt. Therefore proponents must come to grips with a serious ethical question: Is it right to put F in drinking water and to mislead the community that F must be ingested, when any small benefit is due to the topical action of F on teeth.
Is there a Bias of health authorities?
In our view, the above evidence indicates that fluoridation entails real health risks and at best very small benefits. Therefore the fluoridation of water supplies should be terminated forthwith. Yet, both in Australia and New Zealand, health authorities appear to be redoubling their efforts to fluoridate the remaining towns which have so far managed to hold fluoridation at bay.
Some further facts discovered in a Q & A style
Frequently Asked Questions about Fluoride
1) I heard fluoride is a poison. Is this true?
Yes. Fluoride is an acute toxin with a rating higher than that of lead. According to “Clinical Toxicology of Commercial products,” 5th Edition, 1984, lead is given a toxicity rating of 3 to 4, and Fluoride is rated at 4 (3 = moderately toxic, 4 = very toxic). On December 7, 1992, the new EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for lead was set at 0.015 ppm, with a goal of 0.0ppm. The MCL for fluoride is currently set for 4.0 ppm – that’s over 250 times the permissible level of lead.
Fluoride used in water fluoridation is also a toxic waste product — which means it contains other heavy metals. It is the most bone seeking element known to mankind. The US Public Health Service has stated that fluoride makes the bones more brittle and dental enamel more porous.
2) How much fluoride am I taking in?
Current total intake is now estimated to be between 5 and 7 mg/day in “optimally fluoridated” areas. Current fluoride intake is equally divided between drinking water (in fluoridated areas), food, other beverages, and dental products, meaning that even if you don’t live in a fluoridated area, fluoride is endangering your health. Average fluoride content in juices is 0.02 to 2.80 parts per million, in part because of variations in fluoride concentrations of water used in production. Children’s ingestion of fluoride from juices and juice-flavored beverages can be substantial and a crucial factor in developing fluorosis. Grape juice has been found to contain up to 6.8 mg/L of fluoride, a can of chicken soup up to 4 mg of fluoride. Fluoride can be found in water, toothpaste, mouthwash, Dentist’s treatment, fluoride pills, juice, soft drinks, canned food, commercial fruit and vegetables, Teflon and Tefal coated items (such as frying pans), etc. (Note: No “optimal” fluoride intake has ever been scientifically documented.)
3) How much is too much?
As little as 0.04 mg/kg of body weight per day has been proven to cause adverse health effects. Retention of 2 mg a day will produce crippling skeletal fluorosis in one’s lifetime.
4) Does fluoride accumulate in the body?
Yes. Approximately half of each day’s fluoride intake will be retained. This is what makes it so dangerous. “The dose makes the poison.” All sides agree to the fact that healthy kidneys can eliminate only about 50% of daily fluoride intake. The rest gets stored in calcified tissues, like bones and teeth.
The National Academy Of Sciences (NAS) stated in 1977 that, for the average individual, a retention of 2 mg/day would result in crippling skeletal fluorosis after 40 years. Considering the above mentioned intake level, it is likely that skeletal fluorosis already affects many millions of people in the United States.
Children, the elderly and any person with impaired kidney function (which includes many AIDS patients), are in the high risk group for fluoride poisoning and must be warned to monitor their fluoride intake. Also at high risk are people with immuno-deficiencies, diabetes and heart ailments, as well as anyone with calcium, magnesium and Vitamin C deficiencies. (At the level of 0.4 ppm renal (kidney) impairment has been shown.) (Junco, L.I. et al, “Renal Failure and Fluorosis”, Fluorine & Dental Health, JAMA 222:783 – 785, 1972)
5) How does fluoride get into the water?
Most often as a byproduct from the fertilizer, aluminum and other industries, who manage to sell this toxic waste to municipalities nationwide for human consumption — incredible, but a fact.
6) What about my toothpaste?
Studies show that adults can absorb up to 0.5 mg per “TV ribbon” brushing. Small children, even if pea-size amount is used, will still absorb the same, more if the child is younger and has less swallowing control skills. Half a tube of toothpaste can kill a child. Current content of sodium fluoride in toothpaste in Canada and the US is up to 0.4% = 4000 ppm (parts per million). Bubblegum-flavored dentifrice obviously is especially inviting for children. Since April 1997 all toothpaste in the US must carry a warning label, advising parents what to do if their child swallows more than the pea-size brushing amount. Wholesale containers carry the poison symbol of skull and crossbones.
7) What about the fluoride treatment at the dental office?
Fluoride treatments can contain between 10,000 to 20,000 ppm. There is no regulated dose requirement. There are cases known of children dying in the dentist’s chair. (New York Times, Jan.20, 1979: “$750,000 Given in Child’s Death in Fluoride Case” about a three year old child killed by fluoride treatment in the Dentist’s office.)
8) How can my dentist say that it’s good for my teeth?
By receiving limited training on the subject and being misinformed on purpose by the American Dental Association. Figures in ADA pamphlets contain an incredible amount of untruths, and outright fraudulent claims. If you check the references cited and numbers listed in your local libraries, you will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion.
Some fluoridation endorsements are listed which prove fraudulent when checked. Most dentists never bother to take the time to study both sides of the fluoride issue. Consider this statement by the ADA in 1979: “Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non-participation is overt neglect of personal responsibility.”
There are NO reliable studies, conducted under ethical research guidelines, which prove the benefits of fluoride supplementation. The FDA admits this! There are more than 500 peer-reviewed studies documenting the adverse effects.
Furthermore, dentists make higher profits in fluoridated areas and through fluoride use. As a result of mottled enamel, many more restorative measures are necessary, such as braces, bridges, etc. For the American and Canadian Dental Associations, this condition is a real money-maker, because cosmetic dentistry is far more lucrative than cavity repair.
In addition, there is an abundance of evidence in the scientific literature indicating that fluoride causes a delay in the normal shedding of the “baby” teeth, and their replacement by permanent teeth. This delay has been shown to increase the number of children with malpositioned teeth. Again, braces are far more expensive than fillings.
(Note: In a 1972 report by the American Dental Association, it is stated that dentists make 17% more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.) (Douglas et al., “Impact of water fluoridation on dental practices and dental manpower”, Journal of the American Dental Association; 84:355-67, 1972) In 1993 the National Academy of Sciences warned, “dental fluorosis…might be more than a cosmetic defect if enough fluorotic enamel is fractured and lost to cause pain, adversely affect food choices, compromise chewing efficiency, and require complex dental treatment.”
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity.
The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is no proof of safety or effectiveness. The FDA does not consider fluoride an essential nutrient.
The fluoride issue is, in my opinion, a “sanity test” for anyone who claims to know anything about health. Mike Adams. Read what Mike has to say by clicking on the link above.
Four major studies involving 480,000 children (US, 39,000; Japan, 22,000; India, 400,000; Tucson, 29,000) comparing fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas showed no significant difference in decay rates. Proven is that a higher intake of fluoride will actually cause MORE cavities, especially for children with low dietary calcium intake.
References with more information for you to read
New Evidence on Fluoridation Mark Diesendorf*, BSc, PhD
Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures. University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
To be continued in part three……………
I appreciate your thoughts and knowledge, please do contribute to the comments.