Just last week there was some interesting insight, which I have yet to post, but will share here. Read to the end, there’s links on how to subscribe to Aesthetics. Also this article is strongly refuted by one of our colleagues who sites extreme bias on the part of the researcher. The article in the Washington Post states:

Federal investigators and Harvard University officials are probing whether a Harvard professor buried research suggesting a link between fluoridated tap water and bone cancer in adolescent boys.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which funded Chester Douglass’s $1.3 million study, and the university are investigating why the Harvard School of Dental Medicine epidemiologist told federal officials he found no significant correlation between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer. Douglass, who serves as editor in chief for the industry-funded Colgate Oral Care Report, supervised research for a 2001 doctoral thesis that concluded boys exposed to fluoridated water at a young age were more likely to get the cancer. Read the whole article.

The controversy is another embarassment to our profession. Proper diet is the answer. There’s been no dramatic improvement to the DMF rates after 60 years of fluoridation in our country. There are also pockets of cancer, mostly in adolescent boys, because of the way Fl, the most electronegative ion bonds to testosterone. Where is testosterone at its highest? Adolescent boys. Fortunately, in my area, there was a guy who I considered a quack 30 years ago, who was successful in preventing fluoridation. I have taken up his mantle, but not as voiciferously.

Study finds no link between fluoride and osteosarcoma
By Kathy Kincade, Editor in Chief

July 28, 2011 — There is no significant association between bone fluoride levels and osteosarcoma risk, according to a new study in the Journal of Dental Research (July 28, 2011).

There has been ongoing controversy as to whether there is a link between bone fluoride levels and osteosarcoma. An inconclusive animal study conducted 20 years ago first raised the question of an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Since that time, other studies have examined the issue; however, this new study, using actual bone to measure fluoride levels in individuals with and without osteosarcoma, is considered by researchers to be the best science to date because a more accurate and reliable scientific method was used to measure exposure from all sources of fluoride, according to Raymond Gist, DDS, president of the ADA.

“This new study adds to an already strong base of scientific evidence that fluoride is safe and effective at preventing cavities,” Dr. Gist stated in a press release.

A team of researchers from Harvard University, the Medical College of Georgia and the National Cancer Institute analyzed hundreds of bone samples from nine hospitals over an eight-year period from patients with osteosarcoma and a control group to measure fluoride levels in the bone. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) approved the design of the study, which was led by Chester Douglass, DMD, PhD, of Harvard University, and funding for the research was provided by the NCI, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.

The study sample included incident cases of primary osteosarcoma and a control group of patients with newly diagnosed malignant bone tumors. Study participants were identified by physicians in the orthopedic departments from nine hospitals across the U.S. between 1993 and 2000. Specimens of tumor-adjacent bone and iliac crest bone were analyzed for fluoride content.

The researchers used logistic regression of the incident cases of osteosarcoma (n = 137) and tumor controls (n = 51) — adjusting for age, sex, and potential confounders of osteosarcoma — was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

They found no significant difference in bone fluoride levels between cases and controls. The odds ratio, adjusted for age, gender, and history of broken bones, was 1.33 (95% CI: 0.56-3.15).

“The controversy over whether there is an association between fluoride and risk for osteosarcoma has existed since an inconclusive animal study 20 years ago,” said Helen Whelton, vice president of the International Association for Dental Research, which publishes the Journal of Dental Research. “Numerous human descriptive and case-control studies have attempted to address the controversy, but this study of using actual bone fluoride concentrations as a direct indicator of fluoride exposure represents our best science to date and shows no association between fluoride in bone and osteosarcoma risk.”

Shelly Gehshan, director of the Pew Children’s Dental Campaign, agreed.

“I would say that this study can put peoples’ fears to rest because it shows no correlation between fluoride and osteosarcoma,” she told DrBicuspid.com. “In 2006, the National Research Council said that if fluoride might be linked to cancer, osteosarcoma would be the most plausible form of cancer. But now that’s been ruled out. We can now say that fluoride does not cause any kind of cancer.”

This was a very thorough and rigorous study done with three divisions of the National Institutes of Health, she added.

“Some people have asserted a link between fluoride and cancer, but prior to this there was not much of an evidence basis, and now we know for sure there isn’t one,” Gehshan said. “The Pew Children’s dental campaign focuses on policy change when there is a sound research basis, and community water fluoridation has a sound research basis. It improves health immeasurably and saves money, and it has been clear that this is a sound thing to do for a long time.”

Contacts:

Jeff Green, 
Plaintiff Spokesperson 

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water 
(800) 728-3833
greenjeff@cox.net keepers-of-the-Well.org

Kyle Nordrehaug, Attorney
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhomik
(858) 551-1223

Or visit the fluoridation pages of our website.

On Monday night the Fairbanks City Council held a public hearing and meeting on a fluoridation ordinance introduced by Mayor Jerry Cleworth on May 23. Cleworth introduced the ordinance after the Fairbanks Fluoride Task Force recommended an end to the cities’ fluoridation program. The task force’s recommendation was also supported over the weekend by the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, the local paper.

For years, local residents have been working to end fluoridation in the city. Several attempts have been made since 2008 to introduce ordinances before the City Council to end fluoridation, all without success. However, after a group of concerned residents, including Doug Yates, Ed Davis, and Coert Olmsted, organized Fluoride Free Fairbanks in 2010, and a strong public education campaign was implemented, a resolution was passed by the City Council forming a task force to research the safety of efficacy of their fluoridation program. It was this task force that made the aforementioned recommendation to the City Council.

This is a great example of what a group of dedicated citizens can accomplish when they work together to educate the community, the local media, and their decision-makers about the danger and ineffectiveness of fluoridation.

Congratulation Fairbanks on your wonderful victory!

Merilyn Haines, the director of the newly formed group FAN-Australia (Fluoride Action Network Australia), has found some startling statistics buried deep in official research material by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School) that could scuttle the water fluoridation program once and for all.

Haines has found in the ARCPOH statistics that the permanent teeth of children in largely unfluoridated (<5% before 2009) Queensland were erupting on average two years earlier than the children in the rest of Australia, which is largely fluoridated (see the figure below). A two-year delay would negate all the small reductions in tooth decay claimed by dental researchers since 1990. In other words fluoridation doesn't work. Any difference in tooth decay claimed to be due to fluoride is simply an artefact of the delayed eruption caused by fluoride.

cid:image003.jpg@01CBF298.9D636A00

Source – Published and unpublished data from 2003- 2004 Australian Child Dental Health Surveys

( unpublished data obtained by Freedom of Information application)

According to Professor Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, who is currently on a fluoride-tour of New Zealand, “Critics of fluoridation, like Dr. Hardy Limeback in Toronto , have long pointed out that any reduced tooth decay touted by promoters could easily be accounted for by the delayed eruption of the teeth . Even when this argument received strong experimental support from Komarek et al. in 2005, this has still has been ignored by those promoting fluoridation. But they cannot ignore it any longer: the figures of the dental department research team most associated with the promotion of fluoridation in Australia (and beyond) demonstrate that this delay is real.”

Less teeth erupted for any given age would mean less surfaces available for tooth decay to have taken place. A delayed eruption of one – two years would account for the small reductions claimed in ALL the US and Australian studies published since 1990 (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Slade et al., 1996; Spencer et al., 1996; Armfield et al., 2009; Armfield, 2010). These studies have found reductions ranging from 0.12 of one permanent tooth surfaces saved in Western Australia (Spencer et al., 1996) to 0.6 permanent tooth surface saved in the largest survey ever conducted in the US (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This is not very much when you consider that there are five surfaces to the chewing teeth and four to the cutting teeth, and by the time all the child’s teeth have erupted there are a total of 128 tooth surfaces. One tooth surface saved amounts to less than 1% of all the surfaces in a child’s mouth. Now even this small benefit has evaporated.

More on the history.

In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia’s peak Medical Research body, stated that, “ evidence exists that tooth eruption is delayed in fluoridated areas. It has been suggested that a proper comparison of caries rates should involve children one year older in fluoridated areas than in non- fluoridated areas.”

In 2000, the York Review pointed out that none of the studies that they had reviewed had controlled for "the number of erupted teeth per child” (McDonagh et al., 2000, p.24).

In 2005, Komarek et al. did control for eruption of teeth and reported no difference in decay between children living in Belgium receiving fluoride supplements (and those who weren’t) that was relatable to fluoride exposure (as measured by the severity of dental fluorosis).

In 2009, Peiris et al. reported that children in largely fluoridated Australia had a delay in "dental age" of 0.82 years compared to children in largely unfluoridated UK. However, the authors did not discuss the possible reasons for this delay and the number of children involved in the study (about 80 in each country) was not very large.

2011. Now the bombshell – the delay has been found and it is in the official statistics. ARCPOH has failed to respond to several inquiries on this matter. According to Haines, “Surely, this must end water fluoridation. If it doesn't work what's the point of putting this toxic substance into the drinking water and what reason can they possibly have for forcing it on people who don’t want it?”

However, this isn't just about teeth. The finding could be even more significant than that. If fluoride causes a delayed eruption of the teeth then the most likely mechanism for doing so is fluoride's ability to lower thyroid function (see chapter 8 in the 2006 National Research Council review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water.” According to Connett, “Lowered thyroid function in infants would mean slower growth of their tissues and could explain the 24 studies that have found an association between lowered IQ in children and exposure to moderate levels of fluoride in China, India, Iran and Mexico .”

It also raises the possibility that millions of people in fluoridated countries suffering from hypothyroidism have had this condition caused, or exacerbated, by exposure to fluoridated water. Haines’ asks “If ingesting fluoride delays tooth eruption for 1 to 2 years what other effects is it having on our bodies?”

Meanwhile, if swallowing fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, why would any reasonable person, decision maker or regulatory official continue to sanction adding fluoride to the public water supply?

Australian media contacts mobiles - 0418 777 112 and 0403029077

Media Release sent by Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc

Visit the Fluoride pages of our website by clicking here

Be sure to get more information about this and other health issues on our blog, and on our website.

In an obvious attempt to split hairs and hang on to the myth that water fluoridation is safe and effective, the Department of Health and Human Services today announced a new, finely shaved recommendation for fluoride levels in drinking water. The previous recommendation was for 0.7-1.2 milligrams per liter. Now, to reduce the likelihood of dental fluorosis, they are recommending a strict 0.7 milligrams per liter. This bears no resemblance to normal margin-of-safety practice, in the light of the 2006 National Research Council report that cast doubt on the EPA’s maximum safe limit of 4.0 milligrams per liter. How about zero?

To comment, e-mail them at CWFcomments@cdc.gov

——————————————————————————–

News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, January 7, 2011
Contact: OASH ashmedia@hhs.gov 202-205-0143
EPA isa.jalil@epa.gov or 202-564-3226

HHS and EPA announce new scientific assessments and actions on fluoride
Agencies working together to maintain benefits of preventing tooth decay
while preventing excessive exposure

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today are announcing important steps to ensure that standards and guidelines on fluoride in drinking water continue to provide the maximum protection to the American people to support good dental health, especially in children. HHS is proposing that the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water can be set at the lowest end of the current optimal range to prevent tooth decay, and EPA is initiating review of the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water.

These actions will maximize the health benefits of water fluoridation, an important tool in the prevention of tooth decay while reducing the possibility of children receiving too much fluoride. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named the fluoridation of drinking water one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.

“One of water fluoridation’s biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a community—at home, work, school, or play,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH. “Today’s announcement is part of our ongoing support of appropriate fluoridation for community water systems, and its effectiveness in preventing tooth decay throughout one’s lifetime.”

“Today both HHS and EPA are making announcements on fluoride based on the most up to date scientific data,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, Peter Silva. “EPA’s new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride.”

HHS and EPA reached an understanding of the latest science on fluoride and its effect on tooth decay prevention and the development of dental fluorosis that may occur with excess fluoride consumption during the tooth forming years, age 8 and younger. Dental fluorosis in the United States appears mostly in the very mild or mild form – as barely visible lacy white markings or spots on the enamel. The severe form of dental fluorosis, with staining and pitting of the tooth surface, is rare in the United States.

There are several reasons for the changes seen over time, including that Americans have access to more sources of fluoride than they did when water fluoridation was first introduced in the United States in the 1940s. Water is now one of several sources of fluoride. Other common sources include dental products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, prescription fluoride supplements, and fluoride applied by dental professionals. Water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste are largely responsible for the significant decline in tooth decay in the U.S. over the past several decades.

HHS’ proposed recommendation of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water replaces the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. This updated recommendation is based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects. These scientific assessments will also guide EPA in making a determination of whether to lower the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which is set to prevent adverse health effects.

The new EPA assessments of fluoride were undertaken in response to findings of the National Academies of Science (NAS). At EPA’s request, in 2006 NAS reviewed new data on fluoride and issued a report recommending that EPA update its health and exposure assessments to take into account bone and dental effects and to consider all sources of fluoride. In addition to EPA’s new assessments and the NAS report, HHS also considered current levels of tooth decay and dental fluorosis and fluid consumption across the United States.

The notice of the proposed recommendation will be published in the Federal Register soon and HHS will accept comments from the public and stakeholders on the proposed recommendation for 30 days at CWFcomments@cdc.gov. HHS is expecting to publish final guidance for community water fluoridation by spring 2011. You may view a prepublication version of the proposed recommendation at ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html. Comments regarding the EPA documents, Fluoride: Dose-Response Analysis For Non-cancer Effects and Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis should be sent to EPA at FluorideScience@epa.gov. The documents can be found at http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/fluoride_index.cfm

For more information about community water fluoridation, as well as information for health care providers and individuals on how to prevent tooth decay and reduce the chance of children developing dental fluorosis, visit http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation. For information about the national drinking water regulations for fluoride, visit: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm

At my request, he has written up a guest post outlining the arguments he and his co-authors make in much greater detail in “The Case against Fluoride” and says he will be checking the comments in case there are questions. So, without further ado, take it away Dad!

——————————————————————————–

Guest post by James S. Beck

Participants in this blog will be familiar with at least one struggle between science and science-deniers in the context of a man-made disaster, where material interests and greed and reluctance to face responsibility and fear of legal liability all lie in the background. That’s the drama of climate change. Well, here’s another one for us: fluoridation of public water supplies. The science is perhaps simpler and the solution certainly is easier but the parallels are nevertheless striking.

This drama got its start in North America in the 1940’s after a big effort on the part of industries that were faced with costly law suits over illness and death, things apparently caused by their industrial use of fluorine-containing chemicals. The government of the United States was also involved in fluorine use in its enrichment of uranium for fission bombs. The public became involved unknowingly in 1945 with the beginnings of trials of fluoride as a preventive of dental caries (cavities). These trials were imposed on large cities in Canada, the US and New Zealand without consent of their inhabitants. The goal of some of the actors was prevention of cavities. The goal of the pushers seems to have been to make fluoride look harmless and beneficial, thus making legal challenges hopeless of success. But these trials were imposed without prior tests for safety or effectiveness and fluoridation of public water supplies was approved and promoted by the US Public Health Service in 1950 – half-way through these ill-conceived and incompetently executed trials. After that other government agencies and some professional associations quickly got on the bandwagon. Currently about two-thirds of the population of the United States is using fluoridated water. In Canada usage varies with province but overall less than 40% of the population has it. In Europe the practice has been refused and stopped to the extent that over 90% of the people do not have it.

A brief review of three critical questions about fluoridation follows.

Is fluoridation effective in reducing the incidence of dental caries (cavities)?

Fluoridation of public water supplies has been in effect somewhere in the world for seven decades now. Over that time the prevalence of dental caries has fallen in industrialized countries. This has been taken by many to indicate efficacy. But research has consistently shown that the decrease has occurred in countries without fluoridation to the same or greater degree as in those with fluoridation. Furthermore it is observed that in jurisdictions where fluoridation has been discontinued the incidence of caries has not risen. And studies comparing caries experience of cities fluoridated with cities not fluoridated have shown no difference, except where the nonfluoridated cities do better.

The answer to this first question is clearly no.

Is fluoridation safe?

The most obvious toxic effect has been dental fluorosis. In mild cases it appears as mottling discoloration of tooth surfaces. In moderate and severe cases it involves discoloration, pitting and weakening of the enamel and has serious consequences. The treatment of this condition costs tens of thousands of dollars per patient. Even if this effect were only cosmetic, it would have serious negative effects on a child’s or teenager’s life. Aside from dental fluorosis, evidence uncovered over the last two decades has shown an association of fluoride in drinking water with lower IQ in children. There are over twenty published studies showing this association. In laboratory studies of animals and of aborted human fetuses an association with abnormalities of cells of the brain has been found. Also it has been shown that fluoridation is associated with high levels of lead, a known neurotoxin, in the blood of children.

And there’s more, including, but not limited to, the following:

Fluoride intake is a cause of impaired thyroid function. Indeed fluoride was once used medically to suppress thyroid function.
Deleterious effects on reproductive systems in humans have been found to be associated with fluoridation: in girls, early onset of menstruation; in men, low sperm counts.
We now have strong evidence of the association of osteosarcoma in boys and young adult males with fluoridation. Osteosarcoma is a bone cancer which is often fatal.
The possible incidence of bone fracture with fluoridation has been studied with mixed results. One of the strongest studies is presented in a paper by Li et al. published in 2001 which shows a rising prevalence of hip fracture correlated with a rising intake of fluoride starting with concentrations comparable with those used in fluoridation in North America. And this is just one example that suggests that hip fracture is caused by fluoridated water.
Fluoride adversely affects kidneys.
Two recent studies have shown adverse effects on the heart and the aorta.

Ironically, this multiplicity of demonstrated and possible toxicities has actually been cited by some proponents of fluoridation as discrediting the arguments of opponents. That tactic appears as an assertion that opponents are scaremongers, that nothing would cause so much trouble for so many body systems. But these effects of fluoride are not so surprising to anyone who recognizes that the element fluorine is the most reactive chemical element and that it reacts with many components of the human body. For example, fluoride has been used in thousands of laboratory investigations as an inhibitor of enzymes, the proteins that catalyze (facilitate) biochemical reactions. It is also well known that fluoride, in combination with other elements such as aluminum and with components of cell membranes, disrupts the normal signalling across the membanes of hormones and other messengers that activate or moderate cellular functions. Really, the multiple toxicities are to be expected rather than dismissed because there are so many.

All of this is backed up by scientific reports in peer-reviewed journals. I recognize that there are well educated proponents of fluoridation including scientists, physicians and dentists, but in my experience they have never offered evidence of safety or efficacy that stands up to careful scrutiny.

So the answer to the second question, “Is it safe?”, is clearly no.

Is fluoridation ethical?

Given the evidence that fluoridation is ineffective and that it is unsafe, the question of ethicality is easily answered in the negative. But even if it were effective, it would not be acceptable for the following reasons.

It is unethical to administer a substance or procedure to a person without the consent of that person, consent informed by a qualified professional who must answer questions from that person and who must inform the recipient of the reasons for the administration and of possible side effects. Such consent has never been sought from, much less given by, those whose tap water is fluoridated.

It is unethical to administer a substance or procedure that has not been approved by a qualified body. Dosage and/or intensity must be monitored and controlled and the effects on individuals must be monitored by a qualified professional (control of concentration in water does not control amount per unit body weight consumed by an individual). The recipient must be able to stop the administration at will. These are simple precepts of medical ethics, precepts clearly not adhered to in the case of fluoridation.

In short the substances used to fluoridate drinking water (mostly hexafluorosilicic acid) have not been tested or approved for use in humans; the dosage is not controlled; individual consent has not been obtained; the effects on individuals are not monitored; individuals can not stop the administration.

Fluoridation of public water supplies fails on all these ethical requirements.

For more information on this issue, such as which city water supplies are fluoridated and how you can get involved can be found at the Fluoride Action Network.

bill domb