To the Editor:
Your recent article about the proposal before the New Jersey legislature to fluoridate the water in every town in the state was gravely incorrect in many ways. It stated that fluoridation was such benefit to mankind there wouldn’t be a dentist who would criticize the proposal. As a member of the International Academy of Oral and Medical Toxicology I can tell you that you would find a tremendous number of dentists who would argue that there are far better ways to prevent the decay in teeth than by adding this toxin (your article cited mottling of enamel as a downside of fluoridation, I would point to the clusters of testicular cancer in adolescent males as a worse side effect) to the water supply. If skin cancer was to be combated, would you add SPF 50 to the water supply? Of course not, its action is topical. So too is the action of fluoride on enamel. Why put it in water to make sure it goes to every organ system in the body? For those who want to learn more, I would suggest the following websites:
www.FluorideAction.net www.DentalWellness4u.com and a section of my website which has links to the Scientific American article of January 2008 which also found that fluoride has been of little benefit, since introduced, in reducing dental decay: http://www.cent4dent.com/html/treatment/fluorosis.html The conclusory paragraph of that article states: “Some longtime fluoride researchers, however, remain unimpressed by the evidence of effects beyond teeth and bones, and they continue to push for an expansion of water fluoridation in the U.S. and elsewhere. Their view remains the official position of the American Dental Association and the U.S. Public Health Service. “We feel there are enough communities out there with high caries rates to justify additional fluoridation,” says Jayanth V. Kumar, director of oral health surveillance and research at the New York State Department of Health and a member of the NRC panel who dissented from some of its findings. He acknowledges, however, that the argument for water fluoridation is not as strong in affluent areas with good nutrition and dental care. “Today it depends on what the caries level is in the community. If the disease is low, the return on investment [for fluoridation] may not be all that great.””
This is therefore an issue of diligence. If parents are more diligent about what their children ingest; if parents are diligent about brushing their children’s teeth; diligent about getting kids to the dentist regularly from the time they can talk, this discussion would be “Why are government officials dumping surplus toxic waste (fluoride) into our water supply?”
Finally, did it trouble you that there was not a single general dentist south of Trenton in your “Top Dentists in New Jersey” article? I would strenuously question whoever did your mailing about what zip codes were on the list. Is it a theory similar to that of New Yorkers, that the world ends at the Hudson River? Does your exclusion of Southern NJ Dentists mean that New Jersey ends at I 195?
If space allows, I would ask you to consider the following quotes from the Scientific American article, and would suggest that concerned parents and individuals contact your local state representatives by forwarding this message on to them.
The endocrine system is yet another area where some evidence exists that fluoride can have an impact. The NRC committee concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid—the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism. Although researchers do not know how fluoride consumption can influence the thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influenced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee: “The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored.”
Bone is an obvious place to look for fluoride’s fingerprints because so much fluoride is stored there. What is more, studies of patients with osteoporosis—a bone disease that increases the risk of fractures—have shown that high doses of fluoride can stimulate the proliferation of bone-building osteoblast cells, even in elderly patients. The exact mechanism is still unknown, but fluoride appears to achieve this by increasing the concentrations of tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins, which are involved in biochemical signaling to osteoblasts. As with tooth enamel, however, fluoride not only stimulates bone mineralization, it also appears to alter the crystalline structure of bone—and in this case, the effects are not merely aesthetic. Although fluoride may increase bone volume, the strength of the bone apparently declines.
The even bigger question looming over the fluoride debate is whether these known cellular effects in bones and teeth are clues that fluoride is affecting other organs and triggering other diseases besides fluorosis. The biggest current debate is over osteosarcoma—the most common form of bone cancer and the sixth most prevalent cancer in children. Because fluoride stimulates the production of osteoblasts, several researchers have suggested that it might induce malignant tumors in the expanding cell population. A 1990 study conducted by the U.S. government’s National Toxicology Program found a positive dose-response relation for osteosarcoma incidence in male rats exposed to different amounts of fluoride in drinking water (all those amounts, as is typical for animal studies, were far above the actual exposures found in fluoridated communities).
After spending more than two years reviewing and debating hundreds of studies, a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) released a report in 2006 that gave a tinge of legitimacy to some longtime assertions made by antifluoridation campaigners. The report concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency’s current limit for fluoride in drinking water—four milligrams per liter (mg/L)—should be lowered because of health risks to both children and adults. In children, consistent exposure to fluoride at that level can discolor and disfigure emerging permanent teeth—a condition called dental fluorosis. In adults, the same fluoride level appears to increase the risk of bone fracture and, possibly, of moderate skeletal fluorosis, a painful stiffening of the joints. Most fluoridated water contains much less fluoride than the EPA limit, but the situation is worrisome because there is so much uncertainty over how much additional fluoride we ingest from food, beverages and dental products. What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study.
Currently, there is no federal agency that can control the admisitration of fluoride to the water supply. It is up to the individual municipalities, and that is fraught with other potential problems. You might enjoy this artlicle: http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000716_fluoride_water_supply_accident.html and other recent articles about fluoride toxicity from my blogsite: http://cent4dent.com/blog/?cat=7
Steve Markus
The Centre for Dentistry at Haddon
209 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
856 546 0665
www.SmileSouthJersey.com