50 Years of Fluoridation - Celebration or Shame?

This article is an excerpt of Dr. Richard G. Foulkes, M.D. excellent abstract on flouride in our water supplies and it's use in the dental profession. After reading this article you'll see that:

Did You Know?

Special money interest groups (fertilizer companies) are making money on our tax money while we consume a dangerous element?
Mild cases of flourisis (tooth mottling) is an irreversible condition and now afflicts up to 80% of U.S. children in fluoridated areas.
Fluoride makes dental enamel more porous, makes bone more brittle, and can lead to crippling arthritic deformities of the spine and major joints. Most authorities agree that excess fluoride leads to more dental decay?
Fluoride is not an "essential element" so far as human nutrition is concerned. It is not recognized as such by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has never been demonstrated as "essential" by animal experimentation?
Fluoride is known to be more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic?
Some methods of applying topical fluorides to the teeth of children may be life-endangering?
Without fluoridation, millions of tons of hydrofluosilicic acid would have to be funneled into holding ponds and treated at great expense, rather than have it turn a profit. Smelter operators, faced with legal suits concerning fluoride damage to the ecosystem, including humans, can shrug their shoulders and say "it's good for children's teeth, isn't it?"

The year, 1995, marks the 50th anniversary of fluoridation and the deliberate addition of fluoride to drinking water, for the avowed purpose of preventing tooth decay in children. Differences with orthodoxy are apparent in literature appearing from those in the dental profession and concerns over its viability as a social program are being expressed by its strongest supporters.

In 1987, Dr. Allan Gray, then Director, Division of Dental Health Services for the province of British Columbia, Canada, published an article in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association (vol 10, 763-764) pointing out that it was "time for a new baseline." He pointed to the finding that tooth decay, as measured by DMFT (Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth) rates were falling "drastically" in non-fluoridated areas as well as fluoridated areas.

Special Issue of Journal of Dental Research

In the same Special Issue, Doctors H. Kalsbeek and G.H.W. Verrips of the Netherlands Institute for Preventive Health Care reported on their studies of dental caries prevalence and the use of fluorides in different European countries. They stated (on page 731) that "no significant association was found between the availability of fluoridated water and fluoride dentifrice and the DMFT in 12 year-old children." They found, also, that "[I]n most European countries, the 12 year-old DMFT index is now (1985-1988) relatively low as compared with figures from 1970-1974."
Their findings agree with those found in the smaller population studied by Dr. Gray in 1987. Does this indicate a shift away from fluoridation on the basis of new scientific findings? Is science the nemesis of fluoridation?

Herschel S. Horowitz, of the National Institute of Dental Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland U.S.A., could appropriately be called a "crusader" for the cause of fluoridation. He summarized (p760-764) his concern regarding the many factors that could influence public acceptance of the procedure. Horowitz classifies the factors as "socio-political."

Dr. Horowitz expresses his exasperation with the democratic process. "In some localities," he writes, "politicians are empowered to make such decisions (i.e., to fluoridate) but, frequently, in order to protect their perceived reelection potential, they decide that a public vote should be held on community water fluoridation, which, in effect, transfers the responsibility to an uninformed or misinformed public."
His opinion of those professionals who do not possess his zeal for fluoridation is not much higher than his perception of the public. "The public and health care practitioners," he writes, "are ill-informed or misinformed about the value and appropriate uses of fluoride, and about the relative benefits produced by fluoride compared with other methods promulgated for the prevention of caries."
Dr. Horowitz's first point appears to be an admission that the fluoridaters have had, in the past, a potent way to bribe financially strapped communities to add fluoride to their water supplies. This "incentive" has worked well in the past to tie fluoridation in with Federal grants for upgrading community water systems. It is noteworthy that he is not mentioning any curtailment of Federal funds that are used to promote fluoridation both in the U.S. and abroad.

Dental fluorosis is a noticeable and undesirable cosmetic change due only to the influence of fluoride on developing teeth. Because it is associated with damage to the teeth and deposition of fluoride in the skeleton and soft tissues, it is an adverse effect with psychological as well as physical implications.

In countries such as China and India, that have large populations living in endemic fluorosis areas, the various degrees of dental fluorosis are seen as a continuum with accompanying bone deposition which leads, in many cases, to crippling skeletal fluorosis, paralysis and soft tissue disease.

THIS IS DENTAL FLUOROSIS, sometimes described as mottled teeth or mottled enamel. It is the visible proof that destroys the myth about fluoridation and dental health. Mottled enamel is more than a cosmetic problem. It is, in fact, a disease caused by fluoride -- a conspicuous sign of systemic poisoning during the tooth-forming years. Mildly mottled teeth generally appear to be whiter than healthy teeth, with lines, flecks, or an overall opaque white surface. In moderate to severe cases, stains and pits are visible, as shown above.

Mild cases of this irreversible condition now afflict up to 80% of U.S. children in fluoridated areas. Even in non-fluoridated areas, fluoride sources other than drinking water have caused the degree of mottling shown here. In fact, according to the U.S. Public Health Service, fluoride makes dental enamel more porous, makes bone more brittle, and can lead to crippling arthritic deformities of the spine and major joints. Most authorities agree that excess fluoride leads to more dental decay.

Take this preliminary

to see if your condition could respond to treatment.

THIS IS SKELETAL FLUOROSIS. This ten year-old boy named Shatap has been living in an area with significant fluorides in his drinking water. Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. In parts of China, India and Turkey where water is naturally high in fluoride, residents tend to age early and die before the age of 50, weak, arthritic and hunched over.
They drag themselves around, leaning on sticks; their bones shatter like glass when they fall. Women give birth to dead babies after pregnancies of only four months.

The earliest symptom of approaching skeletal fluorosis? Mottled and brittle teeth, a condition known as dental fluorosis. The condition weakens teeth, making them porous and thus easily stained. The mottled spots start off white but typically turn brown. It's permanent and recurring, and treating it is very costly.

This fourteen year-old giril, Krishna, has also been living in an area with significant fluorides in his drinking water. Very severe skeletal fluorosis has essentially ruined her life.

Dr. Hardy Limeback is a leading Canadian fluoride authority who is often cited by health officials in their defense of fluoridated water. He is also a long-standing consultant to the Canadian Dental Association and a professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto.

But in an April 1999 interview , he conceded that fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth and our overall health. Although he still believes fluoride in toothpaste is effective against tooth decay, he says it doesn't need to be added to our water and we may be taking unnecessary risks by doing so.

"There is no point swallowing fluoridated water. The only benefit comes with direct contact with the teeth.''

If dental fluorosis were to be "officially" recognized as an "adverse effect" by senior Government, it would be "game over" for fluoridation as a "safety factor" would be required that would lower the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for drinking water to 0.2 mg/L fluoride (from its present 4.0 mg F/L). This would be very much lower than the "optimal" concentration of 0.7-1.2 mg/L fluoride recommended for water fluoridation. This lower figure would be based on the 2.0 mgF/L concentration established (by EPA) as the level to produce dental fluorosis and a safety factor of 10. In actuality, dental fluorosis is related to total ingestion of fluoride of 0.75-1.0 mg fluoride per day (Whitford in The Metabolism and Toxicity of Fluoride, Karger, 1989).
It is of interest that a recent Canadian review, Inorganic Fluorides, carried out by the Ministries of Environment and Health under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and published in 1993, declined to assess either dental fluorosis or the beneficial effects of fluoride in the prevention of dental caries, the subject of Dr. Horowitz's third concern.

The injury to the enamel, described by Fejerskov, must predispose toward caries, not act as a preventive.

Dr. Horowitz and his pro-fluoridationist colleagues have good cause to be concerned about recent studies of effectiveness.

When studies based on large populations are reported honestly, "the truth will out." Such is the case with the 1986-87 oral health survey of U.S. schoolchildren (39,207 children ages 5-17 years). This, as Horowitz pointed out, showed a continuing decline in caries prevalence in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups. Analysis of the data (obtained through the Freedom of Information Act) by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, a well-known biochemist from Delaware, showed no significant differences in decay rates of permanent teeth or the percentages of decay-free children in fluoridated, partially fluoridated or non-fluoridated areas. This study was published in Fluoride, the journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research (vol 23, 2) in April 1990.

Prof. Y. Imai of Japan studied 22,000 schoolchildren in 1972 in naturally occurring fluoride areas (nat) and found increased caries with increased levels of fluoride. A study of 23,000 elementary schoolchildren in Tucson, Arizona, by Dr. Cornelius Steelink in 1992, showed increased caries with increased levels of fluoride (nat) in drinking water as did Prof. S.P.S. Teotia of India who reported on a study (nat) of 400,000 children from 1973 to 1993.

Dr. John Colquhoun found in a study of 26,405 12-13 year old schoolchildren in New Zealand, in 1989, that those living in artificially fluoridated areas had slightly more caries than those living in non-fluoridated areas. Furthermore, both Colquhoun and Steelink showed in their studies that there was a definite positive correlation between low family income and the prevalence of caries. This was independent of the level of fluoride in drinking water and whether it was artificially added or occurred naturally.

Why is the public not better informed about this? Why do Dr. Horowitz and his colleagues, especially in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, the major fluoridating countries, continue not only to hang on to this scientifically bankrupt procedure but also to promote it actively?

Fluoridation does not prevent tooth decay but it contributes to dental fluorosis and other adverse health effects that will be discussed later. Can it be perceived as environmental pollution?

Fluorine is the 13th most abundant element on earth. It is so volatile that it is found in nature as fluoride in combination with other elements, such as calcium, magnesium, phosphates etc.

Fluoride is not an "essential element" so far as human nutrition is concerned. It is not recognized as such by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has never been demonstrated as "essential" by animal experimentation. However, fluoride is essential for modern industry, the fluoride wastes of which are responsible for pollution of the air, land and water.

Fluoride is placed into the majority of drinking water supplies as a "solution" to removing the waste products of the phosphorous and phosphate fertilizer industries. These products are obtained to remove wastes that would, otherwise, cause atmospheric pollution.

One can truthfully state that "for every $1000 spent for fluoridation chemicals, less than fifty cents goes to children."

Fluoride is known to be more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic. Recently, in 1994, N.P. Gritsan, G.W. Miller and G.G. Shmalkov reported their study on the effect of various pollutants on abnormal plant development in Southeast Ukraine. They found that among 17 elements, including fluoride, cadmium, lead and aluminum, fluoride was the most toxic.

Since humans share the same enzyme systems and DNA mechanisms as other biota and fluoride is a proven enzyme and DNA repair inhibiting agent, why would anyone think that humans are immune from its toxic effects?

Dr. Horowitz appears to be more concerned about the "increase in public anxiety" that may lead to lack of public acceptance of fluoridation, than about the possible adverse effects of fluoride on humans.

In September 1994, the 20th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research was held in Beijing, China. This Conference was jointly sponsored by the Ministry of Health, People's Republic of China, the World Health Organization and The National Natural Science Foundation of China. In attendance were 200 researchers from the host country and about 150 from other countries.

The major area of concern was the prevalence of fluorosis in China. The "endemic fluorosis" areas of China contain a population of 100 million. Of these, 43 million people have dental fluorosis of all degrees of severity; 2.4 million have skeletal fluorosis, a severe crippling disease with bone deformities.

The Chinese presented papers using observations from studies of both experimental animals and humans showing the relationship between poor diet, especially calcium deficiency, repeated childbirth and duration of exposure, to the severity of the effects of chronic fluoride poisoning.

They presented evidence of increased fractures, poor fracture healing and bone outgrowths (exostoses) as some of the skeletal effects.

With regard to soft tissue involvement, studies were presented that dealt with neurological lesions. They ascribed paralysis to direct action of fluoride on the central nervous system. Studies also showed that thyroid dysfunction, heart disease and abnormal electrocardiograms and cerebrovascular disease were more prevalent in the endemic fluorosis areas.

An association was shown between chronic fluoride intoxication and lowered intelligence as measured by IQ tests; chromosomal abnormalities; decreased immunity; increased senile cataracts; and cancer.

The Chinese scientists also reported higher infant death rates due to congenital abnormalities and higher death rates generally in endemic fluorosis areas.

Studies from abroad have shown the same relationship between fluoridation and hip fractures. There are studies from India where endemic fluorosis is a major public health problem. Long before skeletal fluorosis becomes clinically obvious gastrointestinal discomfort presents itself.

Dr. A.K. Susheela and her co-workers at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, shows, by means of photographs taken through an endoscope, the unhealthy appearance of stomach mucosa (lining) when it is exposed to very low concentrations of fluoride. Those individuals and institutions that promote fluoridation have by their actions, created endemic fluorosis in the US, Canada and other countries.

How many tons of antacids are consumed by North Americans for "functional dyspepsia" (that is, stomach ulcer pain without demonstrable ulcers) caused by drinking fluoridated water and beverages? How many are misdiagnosed as "repetitive stress syndrome," "tendonitis" or "arthritis" of unknown type or cause?

That we do not have a full picture is due to two major factors.

The first, is that physicians (and other health professionals) have a low index of suspicion that fluoridation could be associated with disease. They have been assured by the promoters that fluoride is safe and they cannot find fluoride listed in the commonly used texts in the differential diagnosis of various related diseases; for example, articles dealing with "functional dyspepsia," thyroid dysfunction, arthritis etc. do not present fluorosis as a possibility.

Second, the reason that we, in the U.S. and Canada do not see as many of the deformed and damaged teeth and severe bone deformities as in countries such as China and India may be owing to our good fortune in having adequate dietary calcium, magnesium and vitamin C, the deficiencies of which have been demonstrated to increase severity of fluorosis.

In both countries, there is cause for concern about the relationship between poverty and poor nutrition and what we know about its increasing the severity of fluoride intoxication.

In the US, a Report issued January 30, 1995 by the privately funded National Center for Children in Poverty stated that "more than a quarter of American children under age 6 were living in poverty in 1992." This is 6 million children. How many of these live in fluoridated cities?

In Canada, the Canadian Institute for Child Health, a nonprofit organization funded in part by Health Canada, reported, in 1994, that 21% of Canada s children, 1.2 million, live in poverty.

Kalsbeek and Verrips presented a research article in 1989 where they found no significant relation between the decline in caries and the availability of fluoridated water or fluoride dentifrices. Other investigators have reported similar findings: Dr. M. Diesendorf, who presented a study in Nature (July 1986) involving eight developed countries over a period of 30 years; and, Dr. John Colquhoun who reported in New Zealand Environment in 1991 that study of dental caries over time in New Zealand showed that a sharp decline was in evidence before fluoridation and before the availability of fluoridated tooth paste.

Some methods of applying topical fluorides to the teeth of children may be life-endangering. A young child is expected to hold in his mouth a highly toxic Acidulated Phosphate Fluoride (APF) gel pured into 2 trays for 5 minutes. How many parents are told by the dentist that if the child were to swallow the APF gel, he could die?

If these facts concerning the possible adverse health effects of fluoride were to become known to the general public, it should increase the "public anxiety" that worries Dr. Horowitz and his fellow promoters. So far, little interest has been shown by the press.

The answer is simple: fluoridation does not prevent dental caries!

Dr. Rudolph Ziegelbecker, Director of the Institute for Environmental Research, Graz, Austria, ran through his computer the results of all published studies of the relationship between fluoride in water and dental caries. These studies included Trendley Deans' 21 cities and 23 others. He reported in Fluoride in 1981 that he found no relationship.

Ziegelbecker again contradicted the reports that there was an inverse relationship between dental caries incidence and water fluoride levels. His findings, reported in Fluoride (Vol 26, No4) October 1993 pointed out that in most countries the relationship tends to be direct rather than inverse; that is, dental caries increases as water fluoride increases.

This finding conflicts with the belief of the promoters of fluoridation; but it is in accord with other studies, such as those of Imai (Japan), Colquhoun (New Zealand), S.P.S. and M. Teotia (India) and Steelink (USA). Ziegelbecker adds the studies of S.K. Ray et al. in India (1981) and O. Chibole in Kenya (1988).

Let us return again to the A.D.A. press release. The manipulated numerical values (one hesitates to call them statistics) that are used in the press release are reminiscent of those seen in such advertisements as: "Three out of four Doctors prefer Camel cigarettes," or, more recently "choose Tylenol over Aspirin."

"Half of the children entering first grade today have never had a single cavity." This may be true; but as may be seen from studies of caries over time, this has nothing to do with either fluoridation or fluoride dentifrice.

When we know that fluoride does not prevent dental caries, cost-effectiveness is nill. To the contrary, fluoridation is costing us dearly, more than we can calculate at the present time, to treat its dental and other adverse effects.

Like any commercial product, fluoridation has been promoted over the past fifty years to the point that to millions it is "truth."

Built upon the early trumpeting of the power of fluoride to banish tooth decay, a number of applications have arisen over the past half century: oral fluoride tablets, drops and mouth rinses.

The companies manufacturing/marketing these products commission their own research and fund dental meetings on the subject. The list of corporate sponsors of the International Conference held in Pine Mountain, Georgia that has been referred to a number of times in this article, includes many familiar names: Chesebrough-Ponds; Unilever; Johnson and Johnson; Procter and Gamble; Colgate-Palmolive; Bristol Myers; and others.

One other name that has an interest and publishes a magazine for dentists is the Princeton Resource Center; this has nothing to do with the university of the same name but is financed by M&M/Mars.

Standing in the background letting others work for them are those industries that supply the raw materials used for fluoridation or who benefit from the image of fluoride as benign. Without fluoridation, millions of tons of hydrofluosilicic acid would have to be funneled into holding ponds and treated at great expense, rather than have it turn a profit.

Smelter operators, faced with legal suits concerning fluoride damage to the ecosystem, including humans, can shrug their shoulders and say "it's good for children's teeth, isn't it?"

Take this preliminary

to see if your condition could respond to treatment.