March 2018 - information
See item 9
Sections 1 to 6 are copied or extracted from reports from Fluoride Action Network who have produced several important reports and releases m in recent weeks
1. Video link from FAN
Conference video: Michael Connett on the legal action now under way.Why TSCA? What EPA has been doing. What is the basis of the case under TSCA: the hazard and the risk of harm. A MUST SEE video, app. 22 minutes.
2 The dangers of fluoridation by Robert C. Dickson, and Hardy Limeback.
Dr. Dickson and Dr. Limeback ‘s OpEd includes: fluoride’s impact on IQ, the costs of the practice versus the potential benefits, and the ongoing concerns about fluoride’s effect on IQ and the cost of fluoridation that far exceeds its claimed benefit
The fluoridation debate is still very much alive in Calgary, where pro-fluoridation advocates have had a field day, citing claims that seemingly support their position. Many of those claims are either misleading or completely incorrect.
A recent letter in the Calgary Herald signed by 22 dentists, doctors, academics and periodontists claimed, “more than 3,000 peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that fluoridation is effective and support its safety.”
In fact, not a single properly conducted drug trial (randomized, double-blinded) has ever been conducted on fluoridation. The globally respected Cochrane Collaboration found a meagre 19 valid non-randomized studies, all with weaker designs. Only three of those were conducted since 1975.
The letter also claimed “fluoride is 26 to 44 per cent effective in reducing cavities.” This is based on old, weak science. At most, the benefit from fluoridation is perhaps one filling saved per person over 40 years.
Calgary city council decided in 2011 to eliminate fluoridation, a decision that was supported by four previous plebiscites.
The move is both a cost-saver and good for children. It would cost Calgarians at least $50 million to fluoridate for 40 years. That’s about $450 in taxes per filling, much more than the cost of a filling. And worse, many children will end up with dental fluorosis (in the U.S., where fluoridation is common, fluorosis in teens has skyrocketed to 58 per cent), a problem that local dentists state can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Thus, the cost of fluoridation far exceeds its claimed benefit.
Fluoridation advocates also claimed fluoride occurs naturally in Calgary water at concentrations of 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million (ppm), and that fluoridation merely entails topping it up to 0.7 ppm. If Calgary’s water supply already contains up to 0.4 ppm naturally, then ‘topping it up to 0.7 ppm’ will do little to prevent cavities, especially when there are so many other proven sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste, dental treatments and inexpensive prescriptions.
These claims are based on research led by Dr. Lindsay McLaren, published in February 2016. But that research was unable to show an effect of fluoridation cessation after 2011 in Calgary. The study itself noted it had many limitations.
Why, then, do some dentists and orthodontists in Calgary claim that things are much worse since fluoridation was discontinued? Such a claim is anecdotal and unscientific, and not all dentists agree with it. Policy should be made not on claims but on properly conducted clinical study.
There are also concerns about fluoride’s effect on IQ.
A study published on Sept. 19, 2017, and funded by the National Institutes of Health, showed pregnant mothers in Mexico, with fluoride consumption at similar levels as pregnant mothers when Calgary was fluoridated, had offspring with significantly lowered IQ. This carefully controlled study raises serious questions about the safety of fluoridation for infants.
Dentists in Alberta – who are not toxicologists – continue to push for fluoridation when nearly all communities in B.C., Quebec and Europe have eliminated the practice. Perhaps citizens and professionals in those jurisdictions know something Calgary dentists don’t.
In fact, more than 4,000 professionals worldwide have publicly called for an end to fluoridation.
Well-intentioned fluoridation proponents say they’re helping children and the poor. Ironically, and sadly, it’s infants, kids, the underprivileged, the chronically ill, elderly and people of colour who are most susceptible to harm from fluoridation.
Medical science has frequently made errors. Medical and dental associations have endorsed smoking, asbestos, lead, BPA, mercury, thalidomide, Vioxx and many others. Just as they were wrong then, they’re wrong again.
Fluoride, after all, is not necessary for any body function, unlike calcium, vitamins B and D, or iodine, which are essential to health, or chlorination, which kills organisms before they reach our bodies.
Let’s roll up our sleeves and create the equivalent of Scotland’s Child Smile program, which has shown spectacular results since 2001 in improving dental health and overall health for their children.
Together we can make a major impact on the well-being of our children without medicating our water.
Robert C. Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP, is a community physician in Calgary and is the founder of Safe Water Calgary (www.safewatercalgary.com). Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, is the recently retired head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto.
*Original article online at http://troymedia.com/2018/01/28/fluoride-pointless-health-risk/
January 29, 2018, The Bulletin, Journal of Downtown Toronto
3 Second major setback for EPA in fluoride lawsuit under TSCA
Court rebuffs attempt to limit scope in review of citizen petition A federal judge has handed the US EPA its second defeat, in a lawsuit that could end up setting precedent for how the judiciary handles citizen petitions for chemical regulation under TSCA.
The lawsuit, brought by a group of NGOs demanding the EPA ban the addition of fluoride to drinking water, asks the court to examine the EPA's dismissal of their petition.
The latest ruling rebuffed the agency's demand to limit the scope of the court's review to information originally presented to it in administrative proceedings. The decision allows plaintiffs to offer a broad range of evidence to bolster their case, and to demand that the EPA provide additional information, things it argued they should not be allowed to do....
Learned comment from the National Law Review
Federal Court Issues Key Decision on NGO Challenge to Use of Fluoride in Water
and FAN'.s comment
Lawsuit Update Mar 2
More exciting news for the concerned citizens around the world working tirelessly to educate Municipal Councillors and Government officials on the dangers of ingested fluoride aka Hydrofluorosilicic Acid added to the drinking water supply....
...Re: February 7, 2018: Order Denying Defendant’s [EPA] Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record
Our attorney, Michael Connett, noted: “If you look at the legislative history, Congress wanted a robust mechanism for citizen oversight over EPA. This court’s decision highlights for environmental groups that Congress created a powerful tool.” (Inside EPA, Feb 20,2018)
...We can now include the major 12-year study by Bashash et al. published in September 2017. This study is critical in demonstrating that fluoride is neurotoxic and has no place in the public water supply.
4 The Second in- utero IQ Study
This study by Valdez Jiménez et al. was published in March 2017 in the journal Neurotoxicology and titled: In utero exposure to fluoride and cognitive development delay in infants. This study, like the Bashash study, was done in Mexico with mother-child pairs. Some of the differences between the two studies are:
this study had fewer participants (65 mother-baby pairs vs 300 mother-child pairs)the IQ testing took place between the ages of 3 to 15 months (vs 4 years and 6-12 years of age)Unlike the Bashash study, this study took place in an area with high naturally occurring levels of fluoride in the drinking water (called endemic hydrofluorosis areas). Over 81.5% of the samples of tap water were above 1.5 mg/l with the highest value of 12.5 mg/.33.8% of the births were pre-term. The authors stated, “We found higher levels of F in urine across trimester in premature compared with full term.” There was no mention of pre-term births in the Bashash study. (See more on preterm, Gurumurthy et al. 2011; Susheela et al. 2010; Hart et al. 2009).
Results: The authors state, “In this study near to 60% of the children consumed contaminated water and the prevalence of children with IQ below 90 points was 25% in the control group (F urine 1.5 mg/g creatinine) in comparison with the 58% of children in the exposed group (F urine >5 mg/g creatinine)…Our data suggests that cognitive alterations in children born from exposed mothers to F could start in early prenatal stages of life.”
5 The Bashash study
It is difficult to overstate the importance of this study, especially since it was funded by these U.S. agencies: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA.
The authors from several universities in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, followed over 300 mother-child pairs in Mexico City for a 12-year period. They found a strong relationship between the mothers’ exposure to fluoride (as measured in their urine) and lowered IQ in their offspring at 4 and again at 6-12 years of age. The urine levels of the pregnant woman in the study were the same as is found in pregnant women in the U.S. (0.5 to 1.5 mg/Liter, or ppm). At these levels the authors reported a loss of 6 IQ points.
The lead investigator of this study, Dr. Howard Hu from the University of Toronto, commented on the study in the Canadian National Post: “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children.”
This study adds another level of scientific rigor to our case. We should never deliberately expose an unborn child or bottle-fed infant to a known neurotoxic (i.e. brain-damaging) substance but that is precisely what we are doing every day with water fluoridation.
Our TSCA lawsuit is attempting to force the US EPA to end this reckless practice. As Michael Connett stated in response to EPA’s attempt to dismiss our case: “in a nation besieged by neurological disorders of poorly understood etiology, both in young children and the elderly, minimizing exposures to known neurotoxic substances must be a public health priority [page 4].”
6 Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico
Environmental Health Perspectives;
A reminder of the link to this crucial research
7 Fluorosis demonstrates toxicity
A FAN Press release on the 73rd anniversary of the start of the first scheme at Grand Rapids, Michigan, and National Children’s Dental Health Month February). With a request to read and share the Release
Children are fluoride overdosed, from all sources, at levels once thought to protect against dental fluorosis (discolored teeth), researchers report in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry, (December 2017), reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
Fluoride intake to prevent dental fluorosis was set in the 1930s and 40s when naturally fluoridated water was the predominant source, reports Bhagavatula et al. “The number of sources of fluoride has increased substantially and so has the prevalence of dental fluorosis,” they write.
Bhagavatula found 30% of 13-year-olds in the ongoing Iowa Fluoride Study had fluorosis including most who consumed fluoride at levels once considered “optimal” to prevent fluoride-discolored teeth. More children are probably afflicted since children with only one fluorosed tooth were excluded. Four of the 437 children had moderate or severe fluorosis.
Ninety-five percent were non-Hispanic white from higher socio-economic families. Fluorosis rates may be higher in the general population. Also, fluorosis is more prevalent in the black community.
Some children consumed over recommended doses but didn’t have fluorosis, “indicating differences in susceptibility to dental fluorosis,” they report.
Adding fluoride to water--fluoridation--began 73 years ago, promising to substantially reduce tooth decay with perhaps 10% afflicted with very mild dental fluorosis.
“Both promises were broken. Many are ingesting too much fluoride as evidenced by an increase of moderate/severe dental fluorosis from 4% to 23% in one decade.” says Dentist Bill Osmunson, FAN Director.
Senator Bernie Sanders declared a dental health crisis in 2015 even though over 70% of US drinking water systems are fluoridated.
Osmunson says, “One size doesn’t fit all. Dental fluorosis, often dismissed as merely cosmetic, is really the visible evidence of fluoride toxicity. Coupled with new disturbing evidence that fluoride and/or fluorosis are linked to cognitive decline, it’s time to stop artificially fluoridating water supplies. Put fluoride back in doctors’ offices where it can be better controlled.”
Bhagavatula admits most researchers believe fluoride’s primary cavity-preventing mechanism is topical, not by ingestion.
However, fluoride ingestion causes fluorosis.
Osmunson says, “We have to reduce our fluoride exposure. HHS recommendation to reduce fluoride concentration in water was a good start, but inadequate."
Bhagavatula writes, “The clinical presentation of dental fluorosis ranges from almost imperceptible white lacy striations in milder forms to brownish discoloration and/or confluent pitting in severe cases.”
Osmunson adds, “Increased dental caries occurs with moderate/severe fluorosis.”
Further comment to the New York Times Science Staff on their indifference to Fluoridation
As Aldous Huxley pointed out, the tragedy of science is that a beautiful hypothesis can always be destroyed by an ugly fact. In the case of water fluoridation many ugly facts have emerged over the last 25 years, including 52 IQ studies.
... the study by Bashash et al. (2017), funded by U.S. government agencies has... reported an astonishing loss of 5 to 6 IQ points which correlated with fluoride urine levels ranging from 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L in pregnant mothers. These are the same levels in adults reported in U.S. communities with fluoridated drinking water (0.6 and 1.5 mg/L)...
8 Featured letters
First, an excellent experience-based letter in response to an earlier article from Delta Discovery, Anchorage, Alaska
Feb 1 “Imagine” writes Angelica Afcan in Speak Your Mind, December 13, 2017. Imagine no front teeth she writes. Sad to say, the truth is dental health is a serious concern to rural Alaskan residents. Her solution is based on myths that somehow fluoride ingestion remineralizes the surface of the teeth. This myth is a not universally accepted by researchers who say topically fluoride might help, but the concentration of ingested fluoridated water and resulting saliva fluoride levels is much too low by a factor of 95,000X. Latest studies show CWF has not helped Australian children as she claims. Many communities are discontinuing water fluoridation there. Worldwide, 97% of populations do not contaminate their water with fluoride industrial waste. MYTH: a widely held but false belief or idea. Unbiased science challenges the myths of which we all have had many: Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and (I respectfully ask you to consider to include) Community Water Fluoridation (CWF). CWF was promoted in the 1940’s as a miracle dental treatment and determined ‘safe and effective’ long before sufficient honest data was collected. Studies included those paid for by the sugar, dental, fertilizer, and nuclear power industries have continued to support the CWF myth. Money perpetuates the fluoride myth. Fluoride is a known toxin, accumulates in bones (not just teeth) lifelong. I know because at 64 years old, daughter of a military dentist who enthusiastically supported fluoride consumption. My bone fluoride, measured from hip replacement in 2013, was 1500Xthe concentration of fluoride in water. I have suffered many ailments from overexposure to fluoride starting with dental fluorosis proceeding to GERD, hyperparathyroidism, thyroid goiter, kidney stones etc. My health has improved as documented in lab reports by avoiding fluoride. My accumulative fluoride body level was never monitored by the cities practicing CWF, my dentist, or employer at water treatment plant. With CWF, you have no idea of your actual dose depending on how much you drink, how much food eaten prepared with fluoridated water and dosed with fluoridated pesticides, or how much you are consuming in drugs and dental products. Ms. Afcan was educated by institutions that are still perpetuating the antiquated CWF myth. Much of her article is directly out of their mind set. The truth is loss of front teeth or baby bottle mouth is a result of bottles of sugary juices or milk left in an infants’ mouth increasing food available for microbes that cause dental decay to flourish. Microbes can infect the child from food fed them that was chewed by others with active dental decay. Your dental professional telling you baby bottle mouth is caused by lack of CWF are incorrect. Their advice is in error if it does not emphasis brushing and better nutrition and limiting contact with sugars and processed foods. You are being done a disservice by any medical professional that remains mired down in mythology about fluoride.
With their poor advice repeated by Ms. Afcan about the “miracle” of CWF you might be less inclined follow better advice. You may feel you have an excuse to blame the poor dental health of your child on lack of CWF, when you need to take responsibility for their wellbeing.
We must do all we can to give our babies the best chance of health. Good nutrition and proper brushing are known to give our children good oral health. Mother’s milk has hundreds of times less fluoride than fluoridated water. Nature has deemed low fluoride is best. Breast feeding is best even when commercial interests tried to convince you formula is more scientific (another industrial myth). Children should not even have fluoridated toothpaste under 6 years old because it causes increased risks of unsightly dental fluorosis. Recent credible research links consumption of fluoride in pregnant women to reduced IQ in infants. Any lower dental decay rates in children with CWF is from impaired thyroid function causing delay of tooth eruption into the oral cavity, delaying exposure to decay. Decay rates are comparable after 17 years with or without CWF as evident comparing national rates with and without CWF. Shame on Ms. Afcan living in Hooper Bay, Alaska, site of the May 1992 CWF accident that killed Dominic Smith and sent about 300 there to the hospital. Perhaps Ms. Afcan should talk to current residents that still think their chronic kidney ailments resulted from that event. Fluoride is a poison: fluoride kills acutely, sickens at high doses, and chronically poisons in any amount, harming infants the most.
Don’t fall to Ms. Afcan’s reiterated industrial myth, “Fluoride in small amounts will only add the benefit of preventing cavities for our people.” She dismisses current research based on her notion CWF is in a much lower range, I testify as a professional chemist certified in fluoride analysis, she is wrong in this assessment. We are being overexposed by fluoride in the US as evidenced by increasing rates of dental fluorosis which is the reason the recommended level of CWF was lowered from 1.2 to 0.7 ppm in 2011.
Do not believe in imagined myths based on distorted research funded by industry, seek the facts and act now to stop (never start) Community Water Fluoridation. https://www.facebook.com/groups/fluoridefreealaska/; https://www.facebook.com/groups/nofluoridebarrow/ Susan Kanen, Biochemist Anchorage, Alaska
Next, a good simple letter from Jack Crowther, followed by much trolling. From the Rutland Herald ( Vermont) February 23, 2018
Fluoridation can be solved . Here’s the thing: Fluoridation is not Rutland’s biggest problem, but it is Rutland’s most cheaply and easily solved problem.
Economic development, the tax burden, education, population decline, infrastructure, drugs, rental housing costs, and workforce training, to name a few, are all issues that need our best efforts. Progress on these issues will create the proverbial tide that raises all boats.
By contrast, fluoridation of our public water supply is the undertow that works against many of our efforts to move forward. Though it seems like a single issue, fluoridation can and does influence others.
— May very well be costing our children IQ points and doing other neurological damage. Smarter, healthier kids will make a better Rutland.
— Is almost certainly disrupting the formation of tooth enamel in children, producing structurally weaker teeth and mottling and leading to dental expense later on. Any benefit of fluoride is more safely provided using fluoride toothpaste and then spitting it out. Better dental health is cheaper and improves the quality of life.
— Is almost certainly producing negative health effects, from reduced thyroid function, to gastrointestinal irritation, to hormonal and enzymatic disruption, to brittle bones. Healthier people are happier and more productive and have more disposable income.
— Is a systemic poison, affecting individuals in many ways over varying time frames, often escaping blame for the mischief it creates. Medicating a whole city with the drug fluoride without individuals’ informed consent is its own indictment.
All it takes to end fluoridation is turning off a valve. Let’s do that now and continue the collective effort to produce the tide that raises all boats.
(Candidate for alderman
Finally an extract from another good letter focusing on the lack of evidence found by Cochrane and the dangers including reminds us of the conclusion ,
...“It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the function of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” This corroborates results of the 2006 National Research Council’s review of fluoride, which revealed that fluoride harms bodily systems including musculoskeletal, reproductive, neurological, endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, hepatic, and immune, and also causes heart disorders and cancer.
Cathy Justus Pagosa Springs, CO
9 Burke and Yiamouyiannis revisited
Now here’s some good advice from an writer from Oberon Australian
. Check the link below
IF any Oberon resident still thinks that fluoridation of the town’s water supply is a good idea, I suggest you listen to what Dr Dean Burk had to say about it 50 years ago.
Who’s Dr Burk? He was the head of the National Cancer Institute in the United States of America. In the 1960s and 70s he gave a number of interviews, after researching cancer for around 40 years, in which he stated that fluoridation equates to murder on a grand scale, because of the massive increase in cancer rates caused by fluoridation
The chart mentioned is available from SWIS.
Remember that Burkes’s assertion of the cancer-producing effects of fluoridation was tested in law and completely accepted. See also the presentation by Yiamouyiannis shown at the recent UKFFFA conference, where the number of deaths were counted.
See chart at head of March Research and reports.
Go to ukfffa.org for the full list of films.
10.New Study on Fluoride's Negative Effect on Thyroid
Another study has been published on fluoride's negative effect on the human thyroid.. Distributed by Fluoride Free New Zealand, quoting From UK Against fluoridation: but the source is unclear at the moment.
...This finding is consistent with the Peckham study in England, which reported OR = 1.5 (CI 95%: 1.16–2) for hypothyroidism, where the maximum fluoride concentration was more than 0.7 mg/L. However, it is not clear due to the small difference in the concentration of fluoride, as can be seen from the correlation between fluoride in drinking water and the TSH hormone as shown in Table 232.
Conclusion and Recommendation
This paper compares measurements of the average amount of thyroid hormones (T3, T4, and TSH) in people with thyroid disease (specifically, hypothyroidism) and people without thyroid disease, with respect to fluoride concentrations in two levels 0–0.29 and 0.3–0.5 (mg/L) in drinking water and several other variables (gender, family history, water consumption, exercise, other disease conditions).
The major finding of this study is that TSH values are higher with a higher fluoride concentration in the drinking water, even for generally low fluoride concentrations. This is seen both in cases of untreated hypothyroidism and in controls..