New York - May 2007 - Contrary to belief, fluoridation is damaging teeth with little cavity reduction, according to a review of recent studies reported in Clinical Oral Investigations.(1) Fluoride chemicals are added to 2/3 of U.S. water supplies in an attempt to reduce tooth decay and is in virtually 100% of the food supply. Yet, the Centers for Disease Control reports cavities are rising in our most fluoridated generation - toddlers. (1a) Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studiespublished from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridatedcommunities suggest that [fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention..." They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in "optimally" fluoridated communities. Dental fluorosis is white-spotted, yellow, brown-stained and/or pitted teeth. Fluoridation began in 1945 when dentists thought that ingested fluoride incorporated into children's developing tooth enamel to prevent cavities. However, Pizzo's group reports that fluoride ingestion confers little, if any, benefit and fails to reduce oral health disparities in low-income Americans. Also, any difference in fluoride tooth enamel surface concentration between fluoridated and low-fluoridated areas is minimal. And the relationship between higher enamel fluoride levels to less tooth decay was not found. "Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water... [and] foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas... Furthermore, the use of dietary fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing fluorosis," they write. Lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, "Recent news reports claiming fluoride-free bottled water caused the cavity increase trends in toddlers are implausible because rising fluorosis rates clearly indicate that children are over- fluoridated, not under-fluoridated." "There's no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth, actually making them more decay-prone. Research is indicated to see if fluoride is causing the cavity escalation," says Beeber. Some studies Pizzo reviewed focused on communities that stopped water fluoridation. "...after the cessation, caries prevalence did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further," writes Pizzo's group. "In most European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never been adopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades," they report. To avoid dental fluorosis, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise against mixing concentrated infant formulas with fluoridated water. "Fluoride is bone- and health-damaging as well," says Beeber. In 1999, researchers found that children in Connersville, Indiana, (2) consumed over recommended levels of fluoride even though their water supply wasn't fluoridated. Organised dentistry still successfully instigated fluoridation and the American Dental Association (3) bragged about it, carelessly putting more children at risk of developing dental fluorosis.
See also my earlier posts where I compare the cancer and dental caries against the fluoridation rates across the U.S. states. Some very surprising stats show up! Get it now (free, of course) at euesireland@eircom.net
References: 1) "Community Water Fluoridation and Caries Prevention: A Critical Review," Clinical Oral Investigations, by Giuseppe Pizzo & Maria R. Piscopo & Ignazio Pizzo & Giovanna Giuliana 2007 Feb 27; [Epub ahead of print] http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pizzo-2007.pdf 1a) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_248.pdf 2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10403089&dopt=Abstract 3) http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/us_fluoridation.pdf http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://www.FluorideAction.Net http://www.FluorideResearch.Org Fluoridation News Releases http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/_________________New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof Fluoridation News Releases http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/
Showing posts with label teeth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teeth. Show all posts
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Who Watches the Watchers?
Who Watches the Watchers?
Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy,National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280
Before The Subcommittee On Wildlife, Fisheries And Drinking Water,
United States Senate, June 29, 2000
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies.
Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C.
Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as “professionals.” The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for management’s use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy. I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then.
Summary of Recommendations
1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewer’s independent determinations be reported to this Committee.
2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man, woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime.
3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders.
4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.
National Review of Fluoridation The Subcommittee’s hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points:
1) excessive and uncontrolled fluoride exposures;
2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;
3) the results and implications of recent brain effects research;
4) the “protected pollutant” status of fluoride within EPA;
5) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon General’s Panel on fluoride;
6) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;
7) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;
8) the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and
9) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation
Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled
According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America’s children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.
Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a “cosmetic” effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Children’s bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water.
Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure.
In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means.
Cancer Bioassay Findings In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report says that there is, “equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats,” changed from “clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats.”
The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation.
We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the “review commission” members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings.
Brain Effects Research
Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the “optimal” dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brain’s pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (6).
Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work.
Fluoride As A Protected Pollutant
The classic example of EPA’s protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940's and 1950's as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA’s then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer manufacture as,
“...an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride...”In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter.
Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received.
We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances.
Surgeon General’s Panel on Fluoride
We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon General’s panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon General’s panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride.
Kingston and Newburg, New York Results
In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.
We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis.
Findings of Fact by Judges
In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.
In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland, New Zealand wrote the following about the case:
“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. . . .
“Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”
In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”
Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.”
The significance of Judge Flaherty’s statement and his and the other two judges’ findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.
Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.
I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled “Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies." Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas).
We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases.
Hydrofluosilicic Acid
There are no chronic toxicity data on the predominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used to fluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate a link between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead in children’s blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors of these studies has been submitted by them independently.
We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation.
Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk
In recent years, two prominent dental researchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published his reasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change of views, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Limeback’s publications.
We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions.
Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions.
REFERENCES: DR. HIRZY'S PRESENTATION
1. Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E et al, J . Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997)2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992)2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEERS) Program. National Cancer Institute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. 1991: F1-F7.3. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J. et al, Neurotoxicol Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995) 4a. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality [editorial] New Engl. J. Med. 322 845-6 (1990) 4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hip fracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst. Health. April 10, 1991.5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994)6. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R. et al, JADA 52 296-306 (1956)7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmo University, Sweden. URL: www.whocollab.odont.lu.se/countriesalphab.html8. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries on fluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W. Hirzy, P.O Box 76082 , Washington, D.C. 20013.9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt, B.A., Keels., Heller, K.E., J. Dent. Res.2000 Feb; 79 (2): 761-9.10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991) 11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B. et al, Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S. et al, Fluoride 28 (1995)13. Chronic administration of aluminum - fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A. et al, Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998)14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan et al, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998)15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.16. Transcript of proceedings - Surgeon General's (Koop) ad hoc committee on non-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD. 17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. et al, New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. et al, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law.19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. et al, Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999)20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 1-16 (1997)21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto. 22. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990.
The media didn't cover Dr. Hirzy's testimony. Hydrofluosilicic acid is the primary substance used to fluoridate drinking water in the United States; it contains fluoride, arsenic, cadmium, polonium-210, and lead. There are no scientific studies that demonstrate hydrofluosilicic acid is safe for human consumption. Dr. Hirzy stated:
"Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children. Another paper shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the 'optimal' dosage of flouride, viz. one part per million. And another (article) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other papers. . . ."
Recent academic testing of U.S. students reveals:
". . . U.S. fourth-graders performing poorly, mid-school students worse, and high school students are unable to compete (with foreign students-ed) . . . 'we appear to be the bottom' at the high school level. . . . People have a tendency to think this picture bleak, but it doesn't apply to their own school. Chances are, even if your school compares well in SAT scores, it will still be a lightweight on an international scale." [1]
Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy,National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280
Before The Subcommittee On Wildlife, Fisheries And Drinking Water,
United States Senate, June 29, 2000
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to present the views of the union, of which I am a Vice-President, on the subject of fluoridation of public water supplies.
Our union is comprised of and represents the professional employees at the headquarters location of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C.
Our members include toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and others defined by law as “professionals.” The work we do includes evaluation of toxicity, exposure and economic information for management’s use in formulating public health and environmental protection policy. I am not here as a representative of EPA, but rather as a representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union. The union first got involved in this issue in 1985 as a matter of professional ethics. In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our opposition has strengthened since then.
Summary of Recommendations
1) We ask that you order an independent review of a cancer bioassay previously mandated by Congressional committee and subsequently performed by Battelle Memorial Institute with appropriate blinding and instructions that all reviewer’s independent determinations be reported to this Committee.
2) We ask that you order that the two waste products of the fertilizer industry that are now used in 90% of fluoridation programs, for which EPA states they are not able to identify any chronic studies, be used in any future toxicity studies, rather than a substitute chemical. Further, since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man, woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing a MCL that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that the MCL be protective of the most sensitive of our population, including infants, with an appropriate margin of safety for ingestion over an entire lifetime.
3) We ask that you order an epidemiology study comparing children with dental fluorosis to those not displaying overdose during growth and development years for behavioral and other disorders.
4) We ask that you convene a joint Congressional Committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.
National Review of Fluoridation The Subcommittee’s hearing today can only begin to get at the issues surrounding the policy of water fluoridation in the United States, a massive experiment that has been run on the American public, without informed consent, for over fifty years. The last Congressional hearings on this subject were held in 1977. Much knowledge has been gained in the intervening years. It is high time for a national review of this policy by a Joint Select Committee of Congress. New hearings should explore, at minimum, these points:
1) excessive and uncontrolled fluoride exposures;
2) altered findings of a cancer bioassay;
3) the results and implications of recent brain effects research;
4) the “protected pollutant” status of fluoride within EPA;
5) the altered recommendations to EPA of a 1983 Surgeon General’s Panel on fluoride;
6) the results of a fifty-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities;
7) the findings of fact in three landmark lawsuits since 1978;
8) the findings and implications of recent research linking the predominant fluoridation chemical with elevated blood-lead levels in children and anti-social behavior; and
9) changing views among dental researchers on the efficacy of water fluoridation
Fluoride Exposures Are Excessive and Un-controlled
According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America’s children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of over-exposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis (1). That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980's and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher.
Centers for Disease Control and EPA claim that dental fluorosis is only a “cosmetic” effect. God did not create humans with fluorosed teeth. That effect occurs when children ingest more fluoride than their bodies can handle with the metabolic processes we were born with, and their teeth are damaged as a result. And not only their teeth. Children’s bones and other tissues, as well as their developing teeth are accumulating too much fluoride. We can see the effect on teeth. Few researchers, if any, are looking for the effects of excessive fluoride exposure on bone and other tissues in American children. What has been reported so far in this connection is disturbing. One example is epidemiological evidence (2a, 2b) showing elevated bone cancer in young men related to consumption of fluoridated drinking water.
Without trying to ascribe a cause and effect relationship beforehand, we do know that American children in large numbers are afflicted with hyperactivity-attention deficit disorder, that autism seems to be on the rise, that bone fractures in young athletes and military personnel are on the rise, that earlier onset of puberty in young women is occurring. There are biologically plausible mechanisms described in peer-reviewed research on fluoride that can link some of these effects to fluoride exposures (e.g. 3,4,5,6). Considering the economic and human costs of these conditions, we believe that Congress should order epidemiology studies that use dental fluorosis as an index of exposure to determine if there are links between such effects and fluoride over-exposure.
In the interim, while this epidemiology is conducted, we believe that a national moratorium on water fluoridation should be instituted. There will be a hue and cry from some quarters, predicting increased dental caries, but Europe has about the same rate of dental caries as the U.S. (7) and most European countries do not fluoridate (8). I am submitting letters from European and Asian authorities on this point. There are studies in the U.S. of localities that have interrupted fluoridation with no discernable increase in dental caries rates (e.g., 9). And people who want the freedom of choice to continue to ingest fluoride can do so by other means.
Cancer Bioassay Findings In 1990, the results of the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay on sodium fluoride were published (10), the initial findings of which would have ended fluoridation. But a special commission was hastily convened to review the findings, resulting in the salvation of fluoridation through systematic down-grading of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The final, published version of the NTP report says that there is, “equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats,” changed from “clear evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats.”
The change prompted Dr. William Marcus, who was then Senior Science Adviser and Toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water, to blow the whistle about the issue (22), which led to his firing by EPA. Dr. Marcus sued EPA, won his case and was reinstated with back pay, benefits and compensatory damages. I am submitting material from Dr. Marcus to the Subcommittee dealing with the cancer and neurotoxicity risks posed by fluoridation.
We believe the Subcommittee should call for an independent review of the tumor slides from the bioassay, as was called for by Dr. Marcus (22), with the results to be presented in a hearing before a Select Committee of the Congress. The scientists who conducted the original study, the original reviewers of the study, and the “review commission” members should be called, and an explanation given for the changed findings.
Brain Effects Research
Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children (11,12). Another paper (3) shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the “optimal” dosage of fluoride, viz. one part per million (13). And another (14) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other paper from that journal. Another publication (5) links fluoride dosing to adverse effects on the brain’s pineal gland and pre-mature onset of sexual maturity in animals. Earlier onset of menstruation of girls in fluoridated Newburg, New York has also been reported (6).
Given the national concern over incidence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism in our children, we believe that the authors of these studies should be called before a Select Committee, along with those who have critiqued their studies, so the American public and the Congress can understand the implications of this work.
Fluoride As A Protected Pollutant
The classic example of EPA’s protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940's and 1950's as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA’s then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer manufacture as,
“...an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride...”In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere. I am submitting a copy of her letter.
Other Federal entities are also protective of fluoride. Congressman Calvert of the House Science Committee has sent letters of inquiry to EPA and other Federal entities on the matter of fluoride, answers to which have not yet been received.
We believe that EPA and other Federal officials should be called to testify on the manner in which fluoride has been protected. The union will be happy to assist the Congress in identifying targets for an inquiry. For instance, hydrofluosilicic acid does not appear on the Toxic Release Inventory list of chemicals, and there is a remarkable discrepancy among the Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances.
Surgeon General’s Panel on Fluoride
We believe that EPA staff and managers should be called to testify, along with members of the 1983 Surgeon General’s panel and officials of the Department of Human Services, to explain how the original recommendations of the Surgeon General’s panel (16) were altered to allow EPA to set otherwise unjustifiable drinking water standards for fluoride.
Kingston and Newburg, New York Results
In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, New York (fluoridated) were published (17). In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the un-fluoridated city.
We believe that the authors of this study and representatives of the Centers For Disease Control and EPA should be called before a Select Committee to explain the increase in dental fluorosis among American children and the implications of that increase for skeletal and other effects as the children mature, including bone cancer, stress fractures and arthritis.
Findings of Fact by Judges
In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.
In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland, New Zealand wrote the following about the case:
“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. . . .
“Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”
In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”
Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.”
The significance of Judge Flaherty’s statement and his and the other two judges’ findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.
Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.
I am submitting a copy of the excerpted letter from Judge Flaherty and another letter referenced in it that was sent to Judge Flaherty by Dr. Peter Sammartino, then Chancellor of Fairleigh Dickenson University. I am also submitting a reprint copy of an article in the Spring 1999 issue of the Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law by Jack Graham and Dr. Pierre Morin, titled “Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies." Mr. Graham was chief litigator in the case before Judge Flaherty and in the other two cases (in Illinois and Texas).
We believe that Mr. Graham should be called before a Select Committee along with, if appropriate, the judges in these three cases who could relate their experience as trial judges in these cases.
Hydrofluosilicic Acid
There are no chronic toxicity data on the predominant chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid and its sodium salt, used to fluoridate American communities. Newly published studies (19) indicate a link between use of these chemicals and elevated level of lead in children’s blood and anti-social behavior. Material from the authors of these studies has been submitted by them independently.
We believe the authors of these papers and their critics should be called before a Select Committee to explain to you and the American people what these papers mean for continuation of the policy of fluoridation.
Changing Views on Efficacy and Risk
In recent years, two prominent dental researchers who were leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. The late Dr. John Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand, and he published his reasons for changing sides in 1997 (20). In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, announced his change of views, then published a statement (21) dated April 2000. I am submitting a copy of Dr. Limeback’s publications.
We believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernest Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a Select Committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions.
Thank you for you consideration, and I will be happy to take questions.
REFERENCES: DR. HIRZY'S PRESENTATION
1. Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Heller, K.E et al, J . Pub. Health Dent. 57 136-43 (1997)2a. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992)2b. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEERS) Program. National Cancer Institute. In: Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. 1991: F1-F7.3. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J. et al, Neurotoxicol Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995) 4a. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality [editorial] New Engl. J. Med. 322 845-6 (1990) 4b. Summary of workshop on drinking water fluoride influence on hip fracture and bone health. Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B. Natl. Inst. Health. April 10, 1991.5. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994)6. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R. et al, JADA 52 296-306 (1956)7. WHO oral health country/area profile programme. Department of Non-Communicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmo University, Sweden. URL: www.whocollab.odont.lu.se/countriesalphab.html8. Letters from government authorities in response to inquiries on fluoridation status by E. Albright. Eugene Albright: contact through J. W. Hirzy, P.O Box 76082 , Washington, D.C. 20013.9. The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. Burt, B.A., Keels., Heller, K.E., J. Dent. Res.2000 Feb; 79 (2): 761-9.10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991) 11. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Zhao, L.B. et al, Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)12. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S. et al, Fluoride 28 (1995)13. Chronic administration of aluminum - fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A. et al, Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998)14. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan et al, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998)15. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.16. Transcript of proceedings - Surgeon General's (Koop) ad hoc committee on non-dental effects of fluoride. April 18-19, 1983. National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD. 17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. et al, New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18. Highlights in North American litigation during the twentieth century on artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. Graham, J.R. et al, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 14 195-248 (Spring 1999) Florida State University College of Law.19. Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. Masters, R.D. et al, Intern. J. Environ. Studies 56 435-49 (1999)20. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 1-16 (1997)21. Letter. Limeback, H. April 2000. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto. 22. Memorandum: Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division Office of Drinking Water. May 1, 1990.
The media didn't cover Dr. Hirzy's testimony. Hydrofluosilicic acid is the primary substance used to fluoridate drinking water in the United States; it contains fluoride, arsenic, cadmium, polonium-210, and lead. There are no scientific studies that demonstrate hydrofluosilicic acid is safe for human consumption. Dr. Hirzy stated:
"Since 1994 there have been six publications that link fluoride exposure to direct adverse effects on the brain. Two epidemiology studies from China indicate depression of I.Q. in children. Another paper shows a link between prenatal exposure of animals to fluoride and subsequent birth of off-spring which are hyperactive throughout life. A 1998 paper shows brain and kidney damage in animals given the 'optimal' dosage of flouride, viz. one part per million. And another (article) shows decreased levels of a key substance in the brain that may explain the results in the other papers. . . ."
Recent academic testing of U.S. students reveals:
". . . U.S. fourth-graders performing poorly, mid-school students worse, and high school students are unable to compete (with foreign students-ed) . . . 'we appear to be the bottom' at the high school level. . . . People have a tendency to think this picture bleak, but it doesn't apply to their own school. Chances are, even if your school compares well in SAT scores, it will still be a lightweight on an international scale." [1]
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Russian Website - Healthy Drinks for Teeth Blog
Teeth - Healthy Drinks For Your Children
Choose the right container for drinks.
Its very important for overall health and particularly for teeth care of your child to choose the right container for drinks for each situation. You can use only one, but it will be not so healthy. Try to remember or right down when and what should you use for your child in order to save teeth healthy.
BABY CUP — ages 6 months to 2 years milk, 1/2 cup of 100% fruit juice a day, water with fluoride at all other times“I sit up, I use a cup”
KIDS CUP — ages 2 years and up milk at meals, 1/2 cup of 100% fruit juice a day, water with fluoride at all other times“I sit down to eat and drink”
BABY BOTTLE — newborn to 1 year breast milk is best, formula or water with fluoride (read comments below)“I am ready to stop the bottle at one year old”
TRAVEL MUG water with fluoride only for traveling“I save my travel mug for car trips”
Parents — You can keep your child cavity free.
Brush morning and night with fluoride toothpaste
Limit sweet and sticky foods to meal times
Have regular dental check ups
by Tea and Healthy Drinks
And remember: whats good for children cant be bad for adults.
-->
4 Responses to “Teeth Healthy Drinks For Your Children”
1. EUES Ireland Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 12:23 pm Visit EUES Ireland
BABY BOTTLE — “newborn to 1 year breast milk is best, formula or water with fluoride”
The above statement is criminal in its ignorance of the recent ADA and CDC advisories NOT to use fluoridated water for babies under 1 year of age. Ref. Dr. Stephen Levy’s, Ohio, research showing the first 12 months of a baby’s life determines the appearance and level of fluorosis in PERMANENT teeth.
2. nyscof Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pm Visit nyscof
The American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control now advise that no child under one year of age should be given fluoridated water.
Without fanfare or public announcement, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) posted a new fluoride caution on their website - avoid mixing fluoridated water into concentrated infant formula to prevent discolouring babies’ new teeth. (1)This came after the American Dental Association issued this alert to its members, but not the public, on November 9, 2007(1a) and after the Food and Drug Administration’s similar announcement (1b).
There is no dispute that too much fluoride causes dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow or brown and sometimes pitted enamel. The CDC now admits that babies can ingest too much fluoride when fluoridated water is mixed into their concentrated infant formula and foods. Fluoride is added to 2/3 of public water supplies based on a disproved theory that fluoride ingestion prevents cavities.
“Where’s the media alert so that the parents, caregivers, healthcare workers and legislators know about this,” asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.(NYSCOF).
A New Hampshire newspaper reports the federal Women, Infant and Children (WIC) program still encourages mothers to mix formula with fluoridated water. (2)
“The CDC leaves it up to groups like ours to share the bad fluoride news,” says Beeber, “And then they will probably criticize us for doing so as they have in the past.” (2a)
This is what the CDC’s website says (1):
“It now appears that the amount of the fluoride contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a child’s risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child’s sole source of nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula.”
“If tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride (0.7 mg/L or higher), a parent may consider using a low-fluoride alternative water source. Bottled water known to be low in fluoride is labeled as purified, deionized, demineralized, distilled, or prepared by reverse osmosis.”
“Using only water with low fluoride levels to mix formula will not eliminate the risk of enamel fluorosis…Other factors that contribute to developing fluorosis include swallowing of toothpaste and use of dietary supplements that include fluoride (tablets or drops).”
The CDC reports that, “formula itself has low amounts of fluoride,” [and] “when infant formula concentrate is mixed with fluoridated water and used as the primary source of nutrition, it may introduce fluoride at levels above the amount recommended to minimize the risk for fluorosis.”
What is recommended?
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (3), to avoid moderate fluorosis (yellow or brown teeth), the adequate daily intake of fluoride, from all sources, should not exceed:
– 0.01 mg/day for 0 – 6-month-olds– 0.5 mg/day for 7 through 12 months
– 0.7 mg/day for 1 – 3-year-olds
Babies, under one year, consume over their adequate intake from the water supply alone at the so-called optimal concentrations (0.7 - 1.2 mg/L), according to the March 2006 NAS’ National Research Council (NRC) fluoride report (4).
The CDC reports, “one-third (33%) of children aged 12 to 15 years in the United States have very mild to mild forms of this condition.” However, the CDC omits that about 4% have moderate or severe fluorosis, according to the same reference. And up to ½ of all schoolchildren have fluorosis when the “questionable” category is included. (5)
The American Dental Association’s Fluoridation Facts describes questionable fluorosis as “A few white specks or white spots.” (6)
The CDC admits that “More cosmetically objectionable forms of this condition can occur when young children consume excess fluoride from all sources during critical periods of tooth development [up to age 8].”
Also alarming is that bottled water with added fluoride is now sold with the now-contraindicated instructions to mix into infant formula.(7)
Also little publicized is that the NRC report reveals that some people risk thyroid dysfunction and bone damage from drinking even low levels of fluoride; and studies linking fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible.
Few know that too much fluoride can actually decay teeth.(7a) And that the most widely used fluoridation chemicals, silicofluorides, are linked to higher rates of tooth decay.(7b)
“Parents also need to be taught the fluoride content of foods in easy-to-understand language, so it’s possible to tally daily fluoride intake and to be taught fluoride’s adverse health and dental effects,” says Beeber.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has compiled fluoride content of foods. (8)
NYSCOF warned the public about a research review published in 2000 showing infant formula mixed with fluoridated water leads to fluorosis.(2a) Many published studies link infant formula to fluorosis.(9)
A Tennessee legislator who is also a medical doctor asked all water departments in Tennessee to shut off the fluoride because of health concerns.(10) In Oregon, a fluoridation bill is stalled by a doctor and nurse in the legislature citing health concerns.(11)
References:
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
Accessed 1/18/07
(1a) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/epubs/egram/egram_061109.pdf
1b) US FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, October 14, 2006, “Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flfluoro.html
(2) “Formula, fluoride mix may discolor infants’ teeth,” By Mark Hayward, Union Leader, Jan 11, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/35ot7c
(2a) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg10.php3
(3) The National Academies of Science, “Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride,:1997
(4) The National Academies of Science, Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” March 2006
(5) US Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s403a1t23.gif
(6) http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf (page 28)
(7) http://www.nurserywater.com/home.html
(7a) “Dentistry, Dental Practice, and the Community,” 5th edition 1999 Burt/Eklund
(7b) http://tinyurl.com/yq8y66
(8) http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/Fluoride.html
(9) http://tinyurl.com/y58bfc
(10) http://www.fluoridealert.org/press/hensley.htm
(11) http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=116915487295110600
3. AleS Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm Visit AleS
I’ll change it immediately. Because I wasn’t sure about fluoride at all, but needed confirmation. Thanks!
4. EUES Ireland Says:
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 am Visit EUES Ireland
Dear AleS,Congratulations on taking such prompt action and correcting the earlier mistake. For concerned parents and citizens, who may like to note that there is deep controversy concerning the fluoridation of public drinking water in general, here are a few links to relevant sites where they can inform themselves.
SUGGESTED READING FOR THE INTERESTED & CONCERNED:Christopher Bryson – The Fluoride DeceptionBarry Groves – Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death?
WEBSITES:www.kildare.ie/healthfitness/2006/12/fluoride_in_water.html -very interesting look at all the physical effects of fluoridehttp://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html - A Doctors View -in plain Englishhttp://www.fluoridealert.org/http://www.voiceireland.org/ - lots of baby postings
Choose the right container for drinks.
Its very important for overall health and particularly for teeth care of your child to choose the right container for drinks for each situation. You can use only one, but it will be not so healthy. Try to remember or right down when and what should you use for your child in order to save teeth healthy.
BABY CUP — ages 6 months to 2 years milk, 1/2 cup of 100% fruit juice a day, water with fluoride at all other times“I sit up, I use a cup”
KIDS CUP — ages 2 years and up milk at meals, 1/2 cup of 100% fruit juice a day, water with fluoride at all other times“I sit down to eat and drink”
BABY BOTTLE — newborn to 1 year breast milk is best, formula or water with fluoride (read comments below)“I am ready to stop the bottle at one year old”
TRAVEL MUG water with fluoride only for traveling“I save my travel mug for car trips”
Parents — You can keep your child cavity free.
Brush morning and night with fluoride toothpaste
Limit sweet and sticky foods to meal times
Have regular dental check ups
by Tea and Healthy Drinks
And remember: whats good for children cant be bad for adults.
-->
4 Responses to “Teeth Healthy Drinks For Your Children”
1. EUES Ireland Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 12:23 pm Visit EUES Ireland
BABY BOTTLE — “newborn to 1 year breast milk is best, formula or water with fluoride”
The above statement is criminal in its ignorance of the recent ADA and CDC advisories NOT to use fluoridated water for babies under 1 year of age. Ref. Dr. Stephen Levy’s, Ohio, research showing the first 12 months of a baby’s life determines the appearance and level of fluorosis in PERMANENT teeth.
2. nyscof Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pm Visit nyscof
The American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control now advise that no child under one year of age should be given fluoridated water.
Without fanfare or public announcement, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) posted a new fluoride caution on their website - avoid mixing fluoridated water into concentrated infant formula to prevent discolouring babies’ new teeth. (1)This came after the American Dental Association issued this alert to its members, but not the public, on November 9, 2007(1a) and after the Food and Drug Administration’s similar announcement (1b).
There is no dispute that too much fluoride causes dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow or brown and sometimes pitted enamel. The CDC now admits that babies can ingest too much fluoride when fluoridated water is mixed into their concentrated infant formula and foods. Fluoride is added to 2/3 of public water supplies based on a disproved theory that fluoride ingestion prevents cavities.
“Where’s the media alert so that the parents, caregivers, healthcare workers and legislators know about this,” asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.(NYSCOF).
A New Hampshire newspaper reports the federal Women, Infant and Children (WIC) program still encourages mothers to mix formula with fluoridated water. (2)
“The CDC leaves it up to groups like ours to share the bad fluoride news,” says Beeber, “And then they will probably criticize us for doing so as they have in the past.” (2a)
This is what the CDC’s website says (1):
“It now appears that the amount of the fluoride contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a child’s risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child’s sole source of nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula.”
“If tap water is fluoridated or has substantial natural fluoride (0.7 mg/L or higher), a parent may consider using a low-fluoride alternative water source. Bottled water known to be low in fluoride is labeled as purified, deionized, demineralized, distilled, or prepared by reverse osmosis.”
“Using only water with low fluoride levels to mix formula will not eliminate the risk of enamel fluorosis…Other factors that contribute to developing fluorosis include swallowing of toothpaste and use of dietary supplements that include fluoride (tablets or drops).”
The CDC reports that, “formula itself has low amounts of fluoride,” [and] “when infant formula concentrate is mixed with fluoridated water and used as the primary source of nutrition, it may introduce fluoride at levels above the amount recommended to minimize the risk for fluorosis.”
What is recommended?
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (3), to avoid moderate fluorosis (yellow or brown teeth), the adequate daily intake of fluoride, from all sources, should not exceed:
– 0.01 mg/day for 0 – 6-month-olds– 0.5 mg/day for 7 through 12 months
– 0.7 mg/day for 1 – 3-year-olds
Babies, under one year, consume over their adequate intake from the water supply alone at the so-called optimal concentrations (0.7 - 1.2 mg/L), according to the March 2006 NAS’ National Research Council (NRC) fluoride report (4).
The CDC reports, “one-third (33%) of children aged 12 to 15 years in the United States have very mild to mild forms of this condition.” However, the CDC omits that about 4% have moderate or severe fluorosis, according to the same reference. And up to ½ of all schoolchildren have fluorosis when the “questionable” category is included. (5)
The American Dental Association’s Fluoridation Facts describes questionable fluorosis as “A few white specks or white spots.” (6)
The CDC admits that “More cosmetically objectionable forms of this condition can occur when young children consume excess fluoride from all sources during critical periods of tooth development [up to age 8].”
Also alarming is that bottled water with added fluoride is now sold with the now-contraindicated instructions to mix into infant formula.(7)
Also little publicized is that the NRC report reveals that some people risk thyroid dysfunction and bone damage from drinking even low levels of fluoride; and studies linking fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible.
Few know that too much fluoride can actually decay teeth.(7a) And that the most widely used fluoridation chemicals, silicofluorides, are linked to higher rates of tooth decay.(7b)
“Parents also need to be taught the fluoride content of foods in easy-to-understand language, so it’s possible to tally daily fluoride intake and to be taught fluoride’s adverse health and dental effects,” says Beeber.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has compiled fluoride content of foods. (8)
NYSCOF warned the public about a research review published in 2000 showing infant formula mixed with fluoridated water leads to fluorosis.(2a) Many published studies link infant formula to fluorosis.(9)
A Tennessee legislator who is also a medical doctor asked all water departments in Tennessee to shut off the fluoride because of health concerns.(10) In Oregon, a fluoridation bill is stalled by a doctor and nurse in the legislature citing health concerns.(11)
References:
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
Accessed 1/18/07
(1a) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/epubs/egram/egram_061109.pdf
1b) US FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, October 14, 2006, “Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flfluoro.html
(2) “Formula, fluoride mix may discolor infants’ teeth,” By Mark Hayward, Union Leader, Jan 11, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/35ot7c
(2a) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg10.php3
(3) The National Academies of Science, “Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride,:1997
(4) The National Academies of Science, Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” March 2006
(5) US Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s403a1t23.gif
(6) http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf (page 28)
(7) http://www.nurserywater.com/home.html
(7a) “Dentistry, Dental Practice, and the Community,” 5th edition 1999 Burt/Eklund
(7b) http://tinyurl.com/yq8y66
(8) http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/Fluoride.html
(9) http://tinyurl.com/y58bfc
(10) http://www.fluoridealert.org/press/hensley.htm
(11) http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=116915487295110600
3. AleS Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm Visit AleS
I’ll change it immediately. Because I wasn’t sure about fluoride at all, but needed confirmation. Thanks!
4. EUES Ireland Says:
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 am Visit EUES Ireland
Dear AleS,Congratulations on taking such prompt action and correcting the earlier mistake. For concerned parents and citizens, who may like to note that there is deep controversy concerning the fluoridation of public drinking water in general, here are a few links to relevant sites where they can inform themselves.
SUGGESTED READING FOR THE INTERESTED & CONCERNED:Christopher Bryson – The Fluoride DeceptionBarry Groves – Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death?
WEBSITES:www.kildare.ie/healthfitness/2006/12/fluoride_in_water.html -very interesting look at all the physical effects of fluoridehttp://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html - A Doctors View -in plain Englishhttp://www.fluoridealert.org/http://www.voiceireland.org/ - lots of baby postings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)