The fluoridation of our public water supply

[Peace Voyager]

Greetings,

I hope you will attend this most important meeting which the Sonoma County Water Coalition is presenting on the effects of fluoridation in drinking water.

From what I have heard, the Sonoma County Water Agency is not eager to include fluoride in its treatment process; but is under pressure from the CA Dept. of Health to add it to the water supply.

This meeting will provide information to support the safety of the water supply for users, and ultimately the health of the habitat where the water & wastewater are discharged.

Additionally, it's important to have professionals from the health care and dental sectors in attendance to examine the internal health risks from ingesting fluoride through the water supply.

I encourage the Regional Water Quality Control Board to investigate this issue in order to help support all California water agencies to confront the CA Dept. of Health with their findings of fluoride's impact on the watershed, as it is that this is the agency requiring the use of fluoride in our water supply.

The reduction of mercury, another toxic contaminant in our water supply and watersheds, may be achieved more quickly if state and local agencies worked with the dental profession through resources such as the one Dr. McGuire is involved in - The Dental Wellness Institute, www.dentalwellness4u.com.

It is unfortunate that the risks from ingesting mercury and fluoride remain controversial. I hope you appreciate the Water Coalition's effort to explore the truth on fluoride, and that your experience and questions and will benefit us all.

Please forward this invitation to those you think may wish to join this discussion.

Thank you,

Colleen Fernald

[email protected]

Sonoma County Water Coalition
www.scwatercoaltion.org

Russian River Watershed Council
www.rrwc.net

******************************************

This month's SCWC tech session will focus on fluoridation of our public water supply.

Guest speakers will be David Smith, a Santa Rosa pediatrician and member of the Sonoma County Oral Health Access Coalition, and Michael Lipelt, a Sebastopol naturopath, acupuncturist and dentist associated with the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology.

We hope to cut through the anecdotal evidence and identify the key issues facing our communities.

Discussion of this topic between the cities of Sonoma County and the Sonoma County Water Agency has recently resumed.

Please forward this email to friends living in town.

We hope to see you on March 25 at 7:00 pm at the Environmental Center at 55 Ridgway Ave, in Santa Rosa (west of the freeway).

[nyscof]

Fluoridation Opposition: Scientific, Respectable & Growing

Over 2,190 professionals urge 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: https://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html.

Also, eleven Environmental Protection Agency employee 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. (1a)

Last election day, 53 US cities rejected fluoridation joining a growing list of communities saying "No," to fluoridation. (1)

Since the professionals' statement was first issued (Aug 2007), the following occurred:

-- The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Canada’s leading voice on environmental health issues, released a statement opposing fluoridation. (2)

-- The National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation support replacing it with this caution: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.” (3)

-- Researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (4)

-- “A qualitative review of ...studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ,” concluded Tang el al., in "Fluoride and Children’s Intelligence: A Meta-analysis” in Biological Trace Element Research (5)

-- Scientific American editors wrote in January 2008, "Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland"

-- Dr. A. K. Susheela, a leading fluoride expert, explains in a video why US physicians overlook fluoride as a possible cause of diseases commonly caused by fluoride. https://tinyurl.com/Susheela

-- A study in the Fall 2008 Journal of Public Health Dentistryreveals that cavity-free teeth have little to do with fluoride intake. Researchers report, "The benefits of fluoride are mostly topical…while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake."

A Tennessee State legislator who is also an MD is urging all Tennessee Water Districts to stop fluoridation, reported a Tennessee newspaper on 11/29/08. At least 30 Tennessee water districts have already complied with his request.(6)

On 1/5/09, the Burlington Board of Health recommended that Burlington cease fluoridation because fluoridation can harm some people. (7)

On 1/6/09, a Canadian town, Drayton, stopped fluoridation, not to save money, but because it was in the best interests of residents, said the Mayor. (8)

On 2/10/2009 Skagit County, WA officials reversed their 2007 fluoridation decision. (9)

On 3/3/2009, Plainfield, Vermont bans fluoridation. (10)

The Arkansas Oral Health Director is accused of giving eight "false or misleading statements" on fluoridation to an Arkansas legislative Committee. (12)


Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on FAN's web site, https://congress.fluorideaction.netand over 19,000 individuals have signed so far.

Fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data presented in a 2006 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth. (11) At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water.

“The NRC fluoride reportdramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride's health risks," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added.

The Professionals’ Statement also references:

-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.
-- The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic.
-- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.
-- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
-- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.”
Adverse health effects of fluoride: https://www.FluorideAction.Net/health


END


References:
(1a) Fluoride Press Release 2005 NTEU 280
(1) Communities which have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990
(2) Sept 2008: Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment - Statement on drinking water fluoridation
(3) National Kidney Foundation, “Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease,” April 15, 2008
https://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf
(4) "Adding fluoride to water supplies," British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007


(5) Fluoride and children's intelligence: a meta-analy...[Biol Trace Elem Res. 2008] - PubMed Result

(6) Tennessee: Lawmaker Campaigns Against Fluoride Bill

(7) Burlington Board of Health: Water Fluoridation Should End | swabvt.org

(8) Town cuts fluoride from water supply - Drayton Valley Western Review - Alberta, CA

(9) Skagit County's News and Information Source | goskagit.com

(10) Plainfield, Vt., bans fluoride from tap water | burlingtonfreepress.com | The Burlington Free Press

(11) National Research Council (2003-2006): Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards
National Research Council -- Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards

(12) "State oral health director challenged over comments about fluoridation," March 10, 2009,by Kathryn Lucariello, Carroll County News

Carroll County News: Story: State oral health director challenged over comments about fluoridation

SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network Fluoride Action Network

[RussianRiverRattina]

*Gulp* I'm afraid to say this around here ... but ... ummm ...

I actually WANT fluoride in our public water supply.

I do understand, respect, & agree with people's concerns about all the potential effects of various chemicals in our water supply & general environment (whether introduced intentionally or unintentionally).

But -- unlike many of the man-made chemical compounds contaminating our water supply -- fluoride's benefits outweigh the potential harm.

Fluoride is proven to reduce cavities & tooth decay -- especially in children whose teeth are still growing. That's why local pediatricians routinely prescribe fluoride tablets & parents continue paying $10 per month for the danged things.

Fluoridation only costs 93 cents per person per year & saves $35 per person per year in dental costs. Since dental work is extremely expensive (even for folks blessed with dental insurance) & children from low to middle-income families often require state-subsidized dental services, it totally makes sense for the State of California to encourage communities to adopt the simple, economical, & highly effective preventative practice of fluoridation.

The fact that so many people care enough about our collective well-being to research & express their concerns about fluoridation is highly admirable, & I am grateful to you all. But, when push comes to shove, having sufficient time to raise these concerns is a luxury that many folks do not have.

Water fluoridation was originally introduced to ensure that low-income children lacking access to good nutrition & preventative medical & dental care would have a better chance at avoiding painful & detrimental tooth decay. For the most part, this policy has proven successful: Compared to most of the world, Americans generally do have strong, healthy teeth.

I strongly support fluoridation of our drinking water because those of us blessed with sufficient resources to devote time to caring about such things can probably afford to purchase water filters & whatever resulting dental services we or our children may require. Those who can't afford water filters & dental care can drink the proverbial Kool Aid (with its attendant chemicals) & have a better shot at keeping all of their teeth intact.

I know some folks will scoff at me for saying this, but having a full set of intact teeth is REALLY important in this day & age. Actually, the possession of a full set of intact teeth is pretty much the main thing which enables us to consider ourselves "middle class".

Most of us think of ourselves as "middle class" even though living standards & job stability have declined so drastically, that the age-old & comfortable qualities of life associated with "middle class-dom" no longer apply to many of us. We can lose our jobs, homes, & cars & still consider ourselves to be middle class. We can stop our college studies due to lack of funds, & still consider ourselves to be middle class.

But once a tooth falls out & you can't replace it, all pretenses are over & done. You are no longer "Middle Class". Employers won't hire you, because the missing tooth makes you look rather raffish. Admission Officers at local colleges won't give you the time of day. Neighbors start regarding you as white trash.

So, ANYway, I WANT & TOTALLY SUPPORT fluoridation of our water. Our property taxes, water, & other utility bills are astronomical. Paying an additional $10 per month for fluoride tablets (i.e. something that is included with the water bill in most communities) really ticks me off.

When you oppose fluoridation of our water, you oppose a chance for little kids to have normally-developing teeth. Is this really what you want? Are you willing to foot the often-unecessary tax bill for children who do not receive sufficient amounts of fluoride from their parents?

Does fluoride in the water supply strike you as an egregious form of social engineering? If so, how is opposing the addition of fluoride in the water supply NOT a form of social engineering?

Is it not still a way of telling people what they can & cannot have?

[Dynamique]

Well then... you and other parents who buy into the flouride myth can spike your children's water or whatever with flouride, or they can get flouride treatments at the dentist. Poisoning everybody to questionably benefit children during the first 4 years of life is absurd.

Also, what happens to all that flouride in water that is used for irrigation, bathing, etc? It gets out into the environement, that's what.

You're right about the benefits of a healthy, complete set of teeth. However, the primary cause of tooth loss in adults is periodontal disease (gingivitis, etc.) from improper dental hygiene.

*Gulp* I'm afraid to say this around here ... but ... ummm ...

I actually WANT fluoride in our public water supply.

[RussianRiverRattina]

"Fluoridation myth"? Ouch, that cuts to the quick. Now that you've got me all figured out, I'll confess ... Yes, I HAVE been brainwashed by a shadowy, global "fluoride cult" which seeks to poison -- first Sebastopol -- and then --- the WORLD! MWA HA HA HA!

WE also work closely with evil FBI agents diguised as pediatricians who administer so-called "vaccinations" to ensure that more of our children have autism so they'll be better suited for the pointless, repetitive tasks required by their future employers.

Although we weren't expecting such determined resistance to our "vaccinations" programs, WE are pleased to see increasing numbers of people suffering from various good-old-fashioned diseases for which WE maintain a nostalgic fondness, like Whooping Cough, Tuberculosis (back in the day, we called it "consumption"), Polio, Measles, & Mumps.

-- Cheers, everyone!

Well then... you and other parents who buy into the flouride myth can spike your children's water or whatever with flouride, or they can get flouride treatments at the dentist. Poisoning everybody to questionably benefit children during the first 4 years of life is absurd.

Also, what happens to all that flouride in water that is used for irrigation, bathing, etc? It gets out into the environement, that's what.

You're right about the benefits of a healthy, complete set of teeth. However, the primary cause of tooth loss in adults is periodontal disease (gingivitis, etc.) from improper dental hygiene.

[sharingwisdom]

I'm going to disagree with you. Your facts are incorrect, and the ADA propaganda is politically generated. Below is an article that I wrote in this forum, I believe, over a year ago. Please take the time to read it. Thank you, jd

I was a dental hygienist for 26 years and did a tremendous amount of research on fluoride back in the 70's and have continued to study this subject. I was certainly bucking the ADA “good ol’ boys” years ago when I decided to talk to mother's groups, educating them to stop giving fluoride tablets and treatments to their children. I saw children vomit after fluoride treatments and refused to give them after realizing the toxic affect that was occurring. I was lucky enough to work for holistic dentists in Sonoma County that supported my research. I, myself, have dental fluorsis (mottled teeth) from growing up in a fluoridated area on the East Coast.

Fluoride development is very political. I actually have books from the 1940's talking about the dangers of fluoride by dentists who hadn't been taken over by the Alcoa Aluminum Industry. Fluoride was used in the Nazi concentration camps to keep the prisoners docile and compliant. How convenient to put it in our water.
https://www.befreetech.com/fluoridation.htm

Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defence contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the American A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show. Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive US study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water, conducted in Newburgh, New York, from 1945 to 1955. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F", they secretly gathered and analysed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens with the cooperation of New York State Health Department personnel. The original, secret version of a study published by Program F scientists in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association1 sh! ows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)-considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies-for reasons of "national security". The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester-site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mindset, in which "national security" was paramount.
https://www.rense.com/health/alertflo.htm

Calcium fluroide is NOT absorbed in the body the same as Stannous or Sodium Fluoride. The types of fluoride used to treat water systems, fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride, are actually untreated hazardous waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Sodium Fluoride is rat poisoning. It comes with the skull and cross bone symbol right on the bottle. It is even listed in the Merck manual (standard manual used by physicians on disease and toxins) as a lethal poison.

We are exposed to fluoride via far more sources than just drinking water. Many of the processed foods and beverages sold in the U.S. contain high levels of fluoride because they are made using fluoridated water supplies. Further, the processing these foods undergo often has the effect of concentrating the fluoride. Food types with particularly high levels of fluoride include processed cereals, juices from concentrate, and soda. Mechanically deboned chicken is also a key source of concern. That’s because fluoridated ! water used on farms and to process animal feeds accumulates in animal bones, and chicken bones are especially brittle. As chicken is mechanically deboned, the deboning machine grinds significant portions of these fragile bones into a powder which then infiltrates the finished product. As a result, processed chicken products often have elevated levels of fluoride. (Mechanically deboned turkey and beef products aren’t nearly as much of an issue because their bones are much stronger.) Researchers studying the problem found that chicken-based infant foods have the highest fluoride levels found in this category of food, followed by chicken nugget/finger-type products, lunch meats, and canned meats.

Remarkably, fluorinated drinking water has not been shown to have any effect on tooth decay or the incidence of cavities. Tooth decay rates in Western Europe , where 98% of the population drinks unfluoridated water, have declined as much and even more in some locales as rates in the U.S. since fluoridation began. British Columbia , where about 10% of the population drinks fluoridated water compared to 40-70% in the other provinces, has the lowest rates of tooth decay in Canada . In the largest fluoridation study ever undertaken, the National Institute of Dental Research tracked 39,000 children between the ages of 5 and 17. The results? No statistically significant differences in the dental health between children serviced by unfluoridated and fluoridated water systems. Though fluoridation advocates commonly point out that public dental health in the U.S. has improved markedly since fluoridation began, many experts attribute this positive development not to treated water supplies but to increased public education and greatly improved dental hygiene practices being adopted by more and more Americans.
https://www.fluoridealert.org/

I highly recommend this excellent video by BBC correspondent, Christorpher Bryson and author of The Fluoride Deception.
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4336262446047063653&q=The +Fluoride+Deception&total=34&start=0&num=10&so=0 &type=search&plindex=4

*Gulp* I'm afraid to say this around here ... but ... ummm ...

I actually WANT fluoride in our public water supply. ...

[RussianRiverRattina]

Sharing Wisdom, your research citations sound very interesting. But what I REALLY want to see is a longitudinal study (i.e. 5, 10, & 20 years later) of patient outcomes (number of cavities, crowns required, etc.) starting with with a comparison between patients treated by the "holistic" dentists you worked for during your 26 years as a dental hygienist and "regular" dentists who use FLUORIDE.

I laughed at the end of your post, which referred readers to a video clip by Christopher Bryson, BBC correspondent & author of "The Fluoride Deception." I mean, have you ever traveled abroad & actually seen what British (& other European) people's TEETH look like? Yeesh [shudder]. You mention elsewhere that fluoridation is uncommon in Europe. For me, that's another argument in favor of fluoridation.

There's a point where fear & concern about chemicals gets to be too much. As Grace Slick once sang in "Eat Starch Mom":

You say nothing's right but natural things
Ah, you fool
Poison oak is a natural plant
Why don't you put some in your food

I'm going to disagree with you. Your facts are incorrect, and the ADA propaganda is politically generated. Below is an article that I wrote in this forum, I believe, over a year ago. Please take the time to read it. Thank you, jd

I was a dental hygienist for 26 years and did a tremendous amount of research on fluoride back in the 70's and have continued to study this subject. I was certainly bucking the ADA “good ol’ boys” years ago when I decided to talk to mother's groups, educating them to stop giving fluoride tablets and treatments to their children. I saw children vomit after fluoride treatments and ...

[MsTerry]

You say nothing's right but natural things
Ah, you fool
Poison oak is a natural plant
Why don't you put some in your food

Funny that you mention that!
I eat poison oak on a regular basis, I pluck the new leaves and chew them.
Poison oak doesn't give me the rash effects as a result.

[nyscof]

To RRR

You might not realize that the fluoride chemicals that are used for fluoridation are not only man-made but they are man's contaminated waste products.

Fluoride emitting industries must capture their fluoride emissions before they get into the atmosphere because they have killed farm animals and crops.

The phosphate fertilizer industry scrapes it's fluoride from their smokestacks then sells the residue to fluoridating communities.

NSF International the regulartory body over water additives allowsome some lead, arsenic, mercury and other toxins to remain in this industrial waste-product.

See:
https://www.nsf.org/business/water_d...Fact_Sheet.pdf

It is true that calcium fluoride is found in nature. But that is not used for fluoridation. And just because it's natural doesn't mean it's safe. People experience crippling skeletal fluorosis in Communities in ndia and other countries where the water is naturally high in fluoride

New York State Department of Health statistics show that fluoridation has not equalized tooth decay rates between the haves and have nots. Also highly fluoridated NYS counties do not necessarily have less tooth decay.
There is no positive correlation between fluoridation and tooth decay in New York State. See chart https://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/NYS%20Cavities%203rd%20grade%20county%20and%20%20fluoridation.jpg

This is true when all the states are plotted in a similar graph

Tooth decay crisis is occuring in all fluoridated cities and states. See: https://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com

There is no evidence that fluoridation is safe and effective. If that is not true, please provide the scientific references that prove otherwise. And I don't mean endorsements. I'd like to see valid research which ever showed that artificial fluoridation at 1 ppm reduced tooth decay.

[RussianRiverRattina]

Fascinating! That's what King Mithridates of Pontus did to avoid being poisoned by his relatives (rival claimants to power) ... he consumed small doses of every known type of poison on a regular basis to make himself immune to them.

Funny that you mention that!
I eat poison oak on a regular basis, I pluck the new leaves and chew them.
Poison oak doesn't give me the rash effects as a result.

[RussianRiverRattina]

... Alas, I'm too scared to nibble on tender, young poison oak leaves, so I'll continue my current practice of poisoning myself with fluoride toothpaste & non-organic food.

Fascinating! That's what King Mithridates of Pontus did to avoid being poisoned by his relatives (rival claimants to power) ... he consumed small doses of every known type of poison on a regular basis to make himself immune to them.

[wulfworks]

How about putting fluoride in your OWN water and leaving OUR water as close to the way nature created it as possible. Most of the chemicals they add to water can be easily filtered out, but fluoride takes an expensive reverse osmosis filter. Why is it that people think it is okay to force their choices on the rest of society? Even if I thought fluoride was good for us, which I DON'T, I would never dream of forcing everyone else to take it. This is supposed to be a free country. Having chemicals added to my water is not freedom!

[Peace Voyager]

Fluoridation has historically been "sold" using photos of rampant Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup Tooth Decay (BBTD) even though the photos are misleadingly described as ordinary "dental decay" and even though fluoridated water does not kill the bacteria that, 1) colonize on tooth surfaces, 2) thrive and multiply on sugars, and 3) pass their acidic waste onto the dental enamel causing the damage we call tooth decay.

In other words, Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup tooth decay is caused by high levels of strep mutans bacteria that thrive and multiply on the steady sugars supplied by sipping fluids rather than drinking out of a cup. The bacteria's acidic waste first ravages the primary teeth and continues right on with the permanent teeth.

In January 2000, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Senior Scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Analysis, reviewed the 1993-94 California Oral Health Needs Assessment for the City of Escondido and stated in her critique:

1) "Any study of the effectiveness of a particular measure in preventing dental caries must control for the presence of dental sealants, or the results will be meaningless." and,

2) For preschool children, "Š any evaluation of the effectiveness of various measures must control for the occurrence of BBTD vs. other types of decay." and,

3) "In addition, if children with BBTD are thought to be more prone to developing caries in other teeth (Dental Health Foundation, 1997, p 9 ) then history of BBTD vs. caries incidence should be examined for preschool and elementary children."

Note: and elementary children! The dental literature is clear that elementary school children with a history of BBTD are indeed more prone to decay in permanent teeth. Controlling or adjusting for history of BBTD in elementary school children should be the norm but is never done! By not making this adjustment, studies can and do show a (false) fluoridation benefit for elementary children!

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

Documentation from the published dental literature supporting the above statements:

J H Shaw. "Causes of Dental Caries; Microbial Agents" New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 317 No 16, Oct. 15, 1987.

When rats are delivered by cesarean section and maintained under sterile conditions, they can be kept in a germ-free state for generations. Carious lesions do not develop when germ-free rats are fed a caries-producing diet.

Bacteriocin typing of S. mutans has indicated that the mother is a major source of oral infection in her infant. ŠWhen all carious lesions in pregnant women were restored and they followed good dietary practices, their salivary S. mutans counts decreased to low levels. When these low counts were maintained during their infants' early lives, their salivary counts of S. mutans were also low and they acquired fewer carious lesions than other children of comparable age. When children in the same study became infected with S. mutans before the age of two years, they had approximately eight times as many carious lesions as children in whom S. mutans was not detected until the age of four.


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

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

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


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

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


Weinstein P et al. Mexican-American parents with children at risk for baby bottle tooth decay: Pilot study at a migrant farmworkers clinic. J Dent for Children; 376-83, Sept-Oct, 1992.
Overall, 37 of the 125 children (29.6 percent) were found to have BBTD. Compliance in putting fluoride drops in bottle once a day was identical between BBTD and non BBTD groups.


Von Burg MM et al. Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: A Concern for All Mothers. Pediatric Nursing; 21:515-519, 1995.
"Data from Head Start surveys show the prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay is about three times the national average among poor urban children, even in communities with a fluoridated water supply."

Tiberia MJ, et al. Risk factors for early childhood caries in Canadian preschool children seeking care. Pediatr Dentistry 2007 May-Jun;29(3):201-8. PMID: 17688016 [PubMed - in process]
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine family characteristics, beliefs, and habits that contribute to early and severe caries in young children in Canada. METHODS: A survey was administered to: (1) parents of 139 children diagnosed with early childhood caries (ECC) in 5 pediatric dentistry practices in Canada over a 33-month period (group 1); and (2) parents of all normal referrals (carious and noncarious children) in one of the practices over a 3 month period (group 2). Group 2 prevented studying an exclusive or polarized population, and allowed direct comparison between children with decoy and without decoy. The survey responses were compared with caries rates in the children, determined by dental examination, to detect important correlations of family and child factors with the disease level. Chi-square and logistic regression analyses described the strength of the relationships. RESULTS: Parent responses provided information on: (1) demographics; (2) economic status; (3) birth order; (4) parental education; (5) payment methods; (6) feeding and weaning history; (7) fluoride history; (8) food habits; (9) hygiene; (10) behavior; and (11) medication use. Caries presence and severe caries was linked to: (1) leaving the bottle with a child while sleeping; (2) having problems brushing a child's teeth; (3) prolonged holding of liquids in the mouth; and (4) being Caucasian. The authors did find that bottle use in general and having a difficult child were protective influences against decay. CONCLUSIONS: The factors providing the most caries risk are: (1) being left with a bottle while sleeping; (2) parents having problems brushing the child's teeth; (3) holding liquids in the mouth for prolonged times; and (4) ethnicity.


Pit and Fissure Tooth Decay and Fluoridation

"Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits and fissures (grooves), mainly on the chewing surfaces of the back teeth. Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces only comprise about 15% of all permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay in U.S. children in 1986-87."
The Oral Health of California's Children A NEGLECTED EPIDEMIC: Selected
Findings and Recommendations from the California Oral Health Needs Assessment
of Children, 1993-94.


"Because the surface-specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent of the remaining decay is found in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of children's teeth; those surfaces that are not as affected by the protective benefit of fluoride."
Letter, August 8, 2000, from Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H. Director Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Atlanta GA to Congressman Kenneth Calvert,
Chair, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Wash DC.


"Nearly 90 percent of cavities in school children occur in the surfaces of teeth with vulnerable pits and grooves, where fluoride is least effective."
Facts From The National Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent Marshall,
Minnesota. May 28, 1992.


"Let me begin by saying that fluorides are most effective in preventing decay on the smooth surfaces of teeth. However, the chewing surfaces of posterior are not smooth. They have crevices and pits and it is our experience that fluorides don't really get access to these pitted areas."
Hearings: Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives.
March 1984. Dr. Harald Loe, Director of the National Institute of Dental Research.


"Fluoridation and the use of other fluorides have been successful in decreasing the prevalence of dental caries on the smooth surfaces of teeth. Unfortunately, these efforts have much less effect on dental caries that occur in the pits and fissures of teeth (particularly on the biting surfaces of teeth) where more than 85 percent of dental caries now occur."
Toward Improving the Oral Health of Americans. Public Health Reports. 108: 6, Nov '93


"The program focused on four caries-prevention techniques: sealants, a plastic-like coating applied to the chewing surfaces of back teeth and to pits and fissures on the sides of teeth (these surfaces are most prone to decay and ones which fluorides cannot protect adequately)".
Dental study upsets the accepted wisdom. Science News. Vol. 125, No. 1. Jan.7, 1984.


"It is estimated that 84% of the caries experience in the 5 to 17 year-old population involves tooth surfaces with pits and fissures. Although fluorides cannot be expected appreciably to reduce our incidence of caries on these surfaces, sealants can."
Preserving the perfect tooth. Editorial. J American Dental Assn Vol. 108. March 1984.
"The type of caries now seen in British Columbia's children of 13 years of age, is mostly the pit and fissure type. Knudsen in 1940, suggested that 70 percent of the caries in children was in pits and fissures. Recent reports indicate that today, 83 percent of all caries in North American children is of this type. Pit and fissure cavities aren't considered to be preventable by fluorides, they are prevented by sealants."
Fluoridation: Time For A New Base Line? A.S. Gray, DDS, FRCD(C), J Canadian Dental
Asso. No. 10, 1987.


"Even though half of all kids are cavity-free today, 80% of the decay that does occur appears on the chewing surfaces of their back teeth, where fluoride isn't as effective."
Dr. Stephen Moss, chairman of pediatric dentistry at New York University. Tooth
Report, American Health March 1989.


"Although systemic and topical fluoride use has been shown to be highly effective in prevention of caries on smooth surfaces, enamel surfaces with pits and fissures receive minimal caries protection from either systemic or topical fluoride agents."
Pediatric Dentistry Infancy Through Adolescence, Third Edition, p. 485. Sr Editor J R Pinkham, DDS MS (Head of Pediatric Dentistry, U of Iowa College of Dentistry) Published by WB Saunders Co. 1999 ISBN 0-7216-8238-3.


"It has been recognized for years that fissured occlusal surfaces are the most vulnerable to caries. With the continuing caries decline among children, caries is becoming a disease of the fissured surfaces as the rate of approximal caries development continues to decline faster than that of overall caries experience. Occlusal surfaces are also those least protected by fluorides, so the case for sealant as a complementary procedure to fluoride is even stronger. As of the early 1990s, at least 83% of all decayed or filled surfaces in the permanent teeth of 5-17-year-olds were in pit-and-fissure surfaces.
Dentistry, Dental Practice, and the Community 5th Edition. Brian A Burt BDS MPH PhD
and Stephen A Eklund DDS, MHSA, DrPH, WB Saunders Co. 1999 ISBN
0-7216-7309-0


"The most effective prevention of caries on the smooth surfaces of teeth is fluoride. However, the chewing surfaces of molars are most vulnerable to cavities because they can be hard to clean, and difficult for fluoride to penetrate. Dental sealants are the most effective means of caries prevention on these surfaces."
Schaefer J et al. Open Mouth Survey of Third Graders, Nebraska Health and Human
Services System, Nebraska 2005.


"Regardless of the degree or perfection of calcification of the enamel of the teeth examined, the decays as found are practically limited to the pits and fissures; or, put in another way, to those areas upon which there are interruptions in the surface continuity." Note: Of the 733 cavities counted and tabulated by McKay in Pima Indian School at Sacaton Arizona, Bruneau Idaho, and Towner Colorado, ninety five percent (95%) were in the pits and fissures.
Frederick S. McKay, DDS. Original Communications, Dental Cosmos August 1929.


Compiled and sent by Maureen Jones, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water 408 297-8487.

[Dynamique]

Gee, your sarcasm is really helpful.

Folic acid supplementation is recommended for women of childbearing age, especially if planning to get pregnant. Inadequate levels of folic acid in the mother's bloodstream causes nasty birth defects like spina bifida and cleft palate, most of which occur in early pregnancy. Do you support spiking the water supply with folic acid as a blanket prophylactic measure for the entire population?

Comparing flouridated water with vaccinations is a fallacious argument. While superficially they are both touted as preventative measures, with vaccinations they are applied directly and specifically to the individual at the time when needed. There is also the issue of choice and informed consent, which one gets with vaccinations but does not get with flouridated water. Spiking the water supply is chronic exposure rather than a discrete dose administered at a specific point in time.

"Fluoridation myth"? Ouch, that cuts to the quick. Now that you've got me all figured out, I'll confess ... Yes, I HAVE been brainwashed by a shadowy, global "fluoride cult" which seeks to poison -- first Sebastopol -- and then --- the WORLD! MWA HA HA HA!

WE also work closely with evil FBI agents diguised as pediatricians who administer so-called "vaccinations" to ensure that more of our children have autism so they'll be better suited for the pointless, repetitive tasks required by their future employers.

Although we weren't expecting such determined resistance to our "vaccinations" programs, WE are pleased to see increasing numbers of people suffering from various good-old-fashioned diseases for which WE maintain a nostalgic fondness, like Whooping Cough, Tuberculosis (back in the day, we called it "consumption"), Polio, Measles, & Mumps.

-- Cheers, everyone!

[phooph]

Have you ever read the OSHA Materials Safety Data Sheet on sodium fluoride? Here is an example for your perusal:
MSDS :: Sodium Fluoride

Quote from another MSDS on SF:
"DANGER! MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. AFFECTS RESPIRATORY SYSTEM, HEART, SKELETON, CIRCULATORY SYSTEM, CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AND KIDNEYS. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. IRRITATION EFFECTS MAY BE DELAYED. "

Consider that sodium fluoride is a bioaccumulative toxin, which means it builds up in your body the more you are exposed to it. It is illegal to dump into lakes, streams and estuaries for this reason. Once upon a time industries had to spend a lot of money for safe disposal. Now they can sell it to municipalities to poison their water supplies. Disposal problem solved and a new income stream replaces disposal cost.

Tea contains naturally occuring fluoride and some heavy tea drinkers have developed fluoride poisoning. If they are making it with fluoridated water they are doubly in danger.

Poor people buy toothpaste. They can buy fluorodated toothpaste if they are concerned about cavities, although the data on sodium fluoride preventing cavities is questionable and new studies are calling the whole thing into question. Or they can drink tea. Tea is cheap.

*Gulp* I'm afraid to say this around here ... but ... ummm ...

I actually WANT fluoride in our public water supply.

I do understand, respect, & agree with people's concerns about all the potential effects of various chemicals in our water supply & general environment (whether introduced intentionally or unintentionally).

But -- unlike many of the man-made chemical compounds contaminating our water supply -- fluoride's benefits outweigh the potential harm.

Fluoride is proven to reduce cavities & tooth decay -- especially in children whose teeth are still growing. That's why local pediatricians routinely prescribe fluoride tablets & parents continue paying $10 per month for the danged things.

Fluoridation only costs 93 cents per person per year & saves $35 per person per year in dental costs. Since dental work is extremely expensive (even for folks blessed with dental insurance) & children from low to middle-income families often require state-subsidized dental services, it totally makes sense for the State of California to encourage communities to adopt the simple, economical, & highly effective preventative practice of fluoridation.

The fact that so many people care enough about our collective well-being to research & express their concerns about fluoridation is highly admirable, & I am grateful to you all. But, when push comes to shove, having sufficient time to raise these concerns is a luxury that many folks do not have.

Water fluoridation was originally introduced to ensure that low-income children lacking access to good nutrition & preventative medical & dental care would have a better chance at avoiding painful & detrimental tooth decay. For the most part, this policy has proven successful: Compared to most of the world, Americans generally do have strong, healthy teeth.

I strongly support fluoridation of our drinking water because those of us blessed with sufficient resources to devote time to caring about such things can probably afford to purchase water filters & whatever resulting dental services we or our children may require. Those who can't afford water filters & dental care can drink the proverbial Kool Aid (with its attendant chemicals) & have a better shot at keeping all of their teeth intact.

I know some folks will scoff at me for saying this, but having a full set of intact teeth is REALLY important in this day & age. Actually, the possession of a full set of intact teeth is pretty much the main thing which enables us to consider ourselves "middle class".

Most of us think of ourselves as "middle class" even though living standards & job stability have declined so drastically, that the age-old & comfortable qualities of life associated with "middle class-dom" no longer apply to many of us. We can lose our jobs, homes, & cars & still consider ourselves to be middle class. We can stop our college studies due to lack of funds, & still consider ourselves to be middle class.

But once a tooth falls out & you can't replace it, all pretenses are over & done. You are no longer "Middle Class". Employers won't hire you, because the missing tooth makes you look rather raffish. Admission Officers at local colleges won't give you the time of day. Neighbors start regarding you as white trash.

So, ANYway, I WANT & TOTALLY SUPPORT fluoridation of our water. Our property taxes, water, & other utility bills are astronomical. Paying an additional $10 per month for fluoride tablets (i.e. something that is included with the water bill in most communities) really ticks me off.

When you oppose fluoridation of our water, you oppose a chance for little kids to have normally-developing teeth. Is this really what you want? Are you willing to foot the often-unecessary tax bill for children who do not receive sufficient amounts of fluoride from their parents?

Does fluoride in the water supply strike you as an egregious form of social engineering? If so, how is opposing the addition of fluoride in the water supply NOT a form of social engineering?

Is it not still a way of telling people what they can & cannot have?

[Yubajeff]

Will this fluoridation debate never end?
How about a discussion about putting acyclovir in the water supply? This would likely end herpes virus I&II, including the many serious, life-threatening cases of congenital herpes in infants, cold sores, genital herpes, and mitigation of chickenpox and shingles-reducing the need for these vaccines. There is a definite possibility we would see a reduction of the rate of cancer as well.
Acyclovir appears to be less toxic than fluoride according to the info so expertly compiled by folks on this thread. It is generally considered safe for daily use in standard doses, and it is already FDA approved for this purpose. I suspect a subtherapeutic dose administered globally would exert a significant effect, perhaps not reaching the 90% plus level of efficacy seen in clinical use with standard dosing, but significant even at a lower level.
Teeth are important, sure, but preventing death, cancer, painful genital and oral ulceration, congenital injury and deformity are as well.
Or is this out of the box thinking too much for you'all to swallow?
No sarcasm intended Dynamique!

L'Chaim!

Gee, your sarcasm is really helpful.

Folic acid supplementation is recommended for women of childbearing age, especially if planning to get pregnant. Inadequate levels of folic acid in the mother's bloodstream causes nasty birth defects like spina bifida and cleft palate, most of which occur in early pregnancy. Do you support spiking the water supply with folic acid as a blanket prophylactic measure for the entire population?

Comparing flouridated water with vaccinations is a fallacious argument. While superficially they are both touted as preventative measures, with vaccinations they are applied directly and specifically to the individual at the time when needed. There is also the issue of choice and informed consent, which one gets with vaccinations but does not get with flouridated water. Spiking the water supply is chronic exposure rather than a discrete dose administered at a specific point in time.

[markfassett]

New Scientific Data Forces Government [US HHS & EPA] to Reverse Its Stance on Fluoride in the Water Supply

March 6, 2012

https://www.anh-usa.org/new-scientif...-water-supply/

Why are some states simply ignoring the latest studies, and passing new laws that will hurt your teeth and harm your health? Action Alert!Water fluoridation was introduced to the United States in the 1940s as a way to use waste product from the manufacture of aluminum, a waste product that was expensive to dispose of and which was harming cattle and farmland. Since then, the federal government has taken the stance that the fluoridation of drinking water, which conveniently disposed of the waste, is vitally important to help prevent tooth decay; the CDC called it one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. But the the latest scientific studies have finally made the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) change their tune on how much fluoride is safe.

The data indicates that dental fluorosis—damage to the teeth from fluoride, ranging from lacy white markings or spots on the enamel to staining and pitting of the tooth surface—happens when fluoride levels are too high. Water is only one of several sources of fluoride. Other common sources include dental products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, prescription fluoride supplements, fluoride applied by dental professionals, and exposure through our food, which is often sprayed with fluoride-based pesticides.

Today the fluoride in your water mostly comes from the phosphate fertilizer industry—but it’s still toxic waste, containing other byproducts such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. And two studies show that fluoride increases the accumulation of lead in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich tissues, transporting heavy metals into areas of your body they normally would not be able to go—like your brain.

Another study revealed that prolonged, high intake of fluoride can increase the risk of brittle bones, fractures, and crippling bone abnormalities. Longtime readers may recall our 2008 article on the effects of fluoride on teeth and bones (harming kidney patients worst of all); we also noted that fluoride is a known neurotoxin, and can have detrimental effects on the thyroid, which could affect intelligence.

Moreover, fluoride can combine with other chemicals in the water to make them even more harmful. For example, when chloramines combine with the fluoride in water, they work together to extract lead from old plumbing systems, which leads to the accumulation of lead in the water supply.

EPA and HHS now recommend the level of fluoride in drinking water to be set “at the lowest end of the current optimal range”—that is, no more than 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water instead of the current recommended range which goes as high as 1.2 milligrams.

Despite studies so compelling that the federal government has started back-pedaling, the states of New Jersey and Vermont are attempting to mandate the fluoridation of water supply. Unfortunately, the New Jersey bill is very close to being passed. By contrast, Illinois and New Hampshire have introduced bills to prohibit fluoride in drinking water.

In New Jersey, both S959 in the Senate and A1811 in the Assembly are on red alert—they have been reported out of committee and are already on the floor, so they can be voted upon at any time. These bills mandate the fluoridation of water. At minimum, this is a freedom of choice issue—citizens should be able to choose whether they want to ingest fluoride or not. Write your legislators and ask them to oppose these bills—take action now!

In Vermont, H615 (currently in the Health Care Committee) contains many provisions to do with oral care—so we are specifically opposing section 108a, which mandates fluoridation of water. It requires that any municipality, government agency, or other entity that owns or controls a water system shall maintain fluoride in the water supply. Write your representative and request an amendment to strike out that part of the bill—take action now!

In New Hampshire: HB1529 would amend current law to say, “No fluoride, nor any chemical containing fluoride, shall be introduced into the public water supply,” as well as other specific provisions against the the use of herbicides within ten miles upgradient (that is, uphill) from a water intake of a domestic water supply. Write your representative and express your strong support for this bill—take action now!

In Illinois: HB5383 would do one thing: repeal the current fluoridation mandate. The bill is now in the Environmental Health Committee. Write your representative and express your strong support for this bill—take action now!

[Peace Voyager]

Please post your comments to KSRO's website poll on this issue!

https://www.ksro.com/Programs/KSROAM...tryID=10356235

Water Fluoridation Expert Says Further Study Needed Posted 3/6/2012 9:01:00 AM Dr. John Doull talks with KSRO's David Wesley Page about fluoridating drinking water. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is currently examining the option of adding fluoride to much of Sonoma County’s drinking water.
Dr. John Doull is the Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology and Toxicology in the Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics at the University of Kansas Medical School, and chaired the 2006 Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water.

[Mudwoman]

No fluoride in our water. EVER.

I'm glad this interview was done, but doing "more studies" is a waste of time/money. Really. There is plenty of evidence already available on the long term harm drinking fluoridated water causes.

PLEASE take effective action. Use your time to email ALL the supervisors as I have already done myself. We need to let them know, we DO NOT WANT fluoride in our water.

Thanks!

Please post your comments to KSRO's website poll on this issue!

https://www.ksro.com/Programs/KSROAM...tryID=10356235

Water Fluoridation Expert Says Further Study Needed Posted 3/6/2012 9:01:00 AM Dr. John Doull talks with KSRO's David Wesley Page about fluoridating drinking water. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is currently examining the option of adding fluoride to much of Sonoma County’s drinking water.