Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
no to Ecological Fluorosis
just say no
The following are articles from dentists in Oregon. I am totally
against fluoridation of the water commons and believe if people need
fluoridation then added into their bottle drinking water (make it an
option not a forced issue). Added to this there is no evidence that
that drinking fluoride helps as opposed to applying it on the teeth.
Added to that children under a certain again can develop dental
fluorosis to some doses. Then to make matters worse most studies are
only focused on human population and not ecological impacts. And then
to follow all that the fluoridation movement in the USA was spurred on
by aluminium companies using Edward Bernays' propaganda techniques:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4127471896206528068&q=fluoridation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=826102466230272021&q=fluoridation
so two articles (point-counterpoint):
Water fluoridation, a local issue
Bill Osmunson
May 17, 2007
House Bill 3099 would force major Oregon cities to add silicofluorides
to their drinking water even though several cities have specifically
voted against fluoridation. Failing to convince most Oregon voters,
promoters of fluoridation are pushing the Legislature to remove local
control.
As a dentist with a masters degree in public health for over 25 years,
I promoted water fluoridation and fluoride supplements. Current
research has shifted, finding fluoridation in developed communities
unnecessary. While the lack of fluoridation’s benefit is not the
prevailing view among U.S. dentists, most European dental
associations, the Nobel Medical Institute and the Pasteur Institute
along with 97 percent of Western Europe, and a growing number of U.S.
scientists no longer recommend fluoridation or fluoride supplements.
Dentists are puzzled and can’t explain why fluoridation no longer
appears to reduce dental decay. One theory is the total fluoride
intake from all sources, such as pesticides, dental and medical
products and post-harvest fumigants has reached high enough levels
even without the addition of fluoride in water to provide the
so-called “optimal” dose of fluoride. The significant increase in
dental fluorosis in children from 22 percent to 32 percent supports
this theory.
Another theory is fluoridation never did reduce tooth decay and flawed
historical studies failing to control for confounding factors are at
fault.
With limited or no benefit, the risks of fluoridation suddenly loom
ominous. In 2006, data from a major NIH-funded Harvard study confirmed
other studies and found a 500 percent increased risk of a bone cancer
in boys drinking fluoridated water.
In 2006, the National Academy of Science found current EPA contaminant
levels for fluoride were not protective, especially for infants,
seniors and certain subpopulations drinking more water. The minimal
margin of safety has disappeared.
In the wake of the 2006 NAS report, the Center for Disease Control,
American Dental Association, several state departments of health
(including ODHS) have quietly issued warnings against the use of
fluoridated water to mix infant formula. Formula made with fluoridated
water contains 250 times more fluoride than mother’s milk. To avoid
excessive fluoride exposure, an ADA representative recently testified
to the Oregon legislators that mothers should use bottled water to mix
infant formula. Boiling water and simple home filters do not remove
fluoride.
Bottled water is impractical for many low-income families, especially
those on public transportation. If the Legislature decides to force
fluoridation on Oregon communities, it will knowingly be giving
low-income children what even the promoters of this bill admit is an
excessive dose of fluoride. Furthermore, the idea that the Legislature
would make Oregon’s drinking water unusable for Oregon’s youngest
residents is inconsistent with the principle that drinking water
should be safe for everyone.
The right of local communities to decide whether fluoridation makes
sense has never been more important. If Oregonians want to retain
local control, it is definitely time to let your state representatives
and senators know.
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH of Lake Oswego is a dentist with Aesthetic
Dentistry of Lake Oswego. He can be reached at bill [at] teachingsmiles.com.
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070517/OPINION/70516048/1049
_____
Fluoride rant had wrong info
By Mary Lynn O'Brien, MD
, May 17, 2007
and
VIRGINIA FELDMAN, M.D. and ERIC BRODY, M.D.
The Oregonian said it best: “Oregon isn’t known for its movie star
teeth, unless you count horror movies.”
Two-thirds of the U.S. population drinks from fluoridated water
supplies and it has a 60-year history of safety and effectiveness. Yet
anti-fluoridationists like Dr. Osmunson continue to spread untruths.
Untruth No. 1 – European Dental Association no longer recommends
fluoridation.
Fact: Europeans are very pro fluoride, they just use different
vehicles to deliver fluoride to the public as many people do not drink
public water. So, using the public water system to provide fluoride
for public health doesn’t make sense. Examples are fluoridated salt at
200-250 parts per million, fluoridated chewing gum, and fluoride
varnish (at 22,600 parts per million concentration). In the UK, where
the water is mostly potable and people drink it, fluoridation is more
widespread. Ireland has a majority of its public water systems
fluoridated. Great Britain, while only 10 percent fluoridated, has
been discussing ways to increase fluoridation of its public water
supplies.
Untruth No. 2 – Harvard study links boys who drink fluoridated water
with an increased risk of bone cancer.
Fact: There is no proven association between fluoridated water and
bone cancer in the preliminary study by Bassin as part of her doctoral
thesis for the Harvard School of Dental medicine. In fact, an
accompanying letter by a faculty member of that institution cautions
against using the results of this preliminary study in formulating
public policy about fluoridation, because his larger study with a more
direct measure of biologic exposure to fluoride fails to confirm the
finding. Dr. Donald Austin of OHSU and an expert in
oncology/epidemiology reviewed Bassin’s thesis and agrees that there
is no connection.
Untruth No. 3 – New warnings on mixing infant formula with fluoridated
water.
Fact: Breast milk is best and new moms in Oregon rank No. 1 in the
U.S. for breastfeeding at 89 percent. There is a small increased risk
of the milder forms of fluorosis if powdered infant formula is given
as the primary source of nutrition. However, it is important to
understand that flourosis is not a disease and these children will
benefit from fluoride’s protection against cavities.This is not an
argument to avoid fluoridation for the other 79 years of people’s
lives. The most efficacious way to reduce cavities throughout our
lifespan is delivering frequent small amounts of fluoride to one’s
teeth via water.
“Some would have you believe that a public warning on this matter has
been issued, and that the ADA is now saying that fluoridation poses a
danger to children, which is flat out wrong,” states Dr. Pollick of
the UCSF School of Dentistry. “The public should know that both the
dental professional community and the scientific community continue to
support fluoridation based on an overwhelming number of juried
scientific studies and reviews.”
The facts are:
1) Virtually every major dental, medical, scientist and public health
organization in the U.S. recognizes water fluoridation as safe,
effective, economical, and socially equitable.
2) Fluoridation will reduce the rate of decay between 18 and 40
percent. This will save our state millions of dollars, especially in
Medicaid expenses for our low-income population.
3) Specifically, for every dollar spent for fluoridation, we will save
$38 in dental repair costs.
Lastly, we want to share a quote by former Surgeon General of the
United States, Dr. David Satcher:
“Fluoridation is the single-most-effective public health measure to
prevent tooth decay and improve oral health over a lifetime for both
children and adults”.
House Bill 3099 will be voted on soon in the House. We urge everyone
to contact their legislators to vote for this important public health
measure.
Mary Lynn O’Brien, MD
Lake Oswego
Virginia Feldman, MD
Portland
Eric Brody, MD
Lake Oswego
http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=117935114894723900
against fluoridation of the water commons and believe if people need
fluoridation then added into their bottle drinking water (make it an
option not a forced issue). Added to this there is no evidence that
that drinking fluoride helps as opposed to applying it on the teeth.
Added to that children under a certain again can develop dental
fluorosis to some doses. Then to make matters worse most studies are
only focused on human population and not ecological impacts. And then
to follow all that the fluoridation movement in the USA was spurred on
by aluminium companies using Edward Bernays' propaganda techniques:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4127471896206528068&q=fluoridation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=826102466230272021&q=fluoridation
so two articles (point-counterpoint):
Water fluoridation, a local issue
Bill Osmunson
May 17, 2007
House Bill 3099 would force major Oregon cities to add silicofluorides
to their drinking water even though several cities have specifically
voted against fluoridation. Failing to convince most Oregon voters,
promoters of fluoridation are pushing the Legislature to remove local
control.
As a dentist with a masters degree in public health for over 25 years,
I promoted water fluoridation and fluoride supplements. Current
research has shifted, finding fluoridation in developed communities
unnecessary. While the lack of fluoridation’s benefit is not the
prevailing view among U.S. dentists, most European dental
associations, the Nobel Medical Institute and the Pasteur Institute
along with 97 percent of Western Europe, and a growing number of U.S.
scientists no longer recommend fluoridation or fluoride supplements.
Dentists are puzzled and can’t explain why fluoridation no longer
appears to reduce dental decay. One theory is the total fluoride
intake from all sources, such as pesticides, dental and medical
products and post-harvest fumigants has reached high enough levels
even without the addition of fluoride in water to provide the
so-called “optimal” dose of fluoride. The significant increase in
dental fluorosis in children from 22 percent to 32 percent supports
this theory.
Another theory is fluoridation never did reduce tooth decay and flawed
historical studies failing to control for confounding factors are at
fault.
With limited or no benefit, the risks of fluoridation suddenly loom
ominous. In 2006, data from a major NIH-funded Harvard study confirmed
other studies and found a 500 percent increased risk of a bone cancer
in boys drinking fluoridated water.
In 2006, the National Academy of Science found current EPA contaminant
levels for fluoride were not protective, especially for infants,
seniors and certain subpopulations drinking more water. The minimal
margin of safety has disappeared.
In the wake of the 2006 NAS report, the Center for Disease Control,
American Dental Association, several state departments of health
(including ODHS) have quietly issued warnings against the use of
fluoridated water to mix infant formula. Formula made with fluoridated
water contains 250 times more fluoride than mother’s milk. To avoid
excessive fluoride exposure, an ADA representative recently testified
to the Oregon legislators that mothers should use bottled water to mix
infant formula. Boiling water and simple home filters do not remove
fluoride.
Bottled water is impractical for many low-income families, especially
those on public transportation. If the Legislature decides to force
fluoridation on Oregon communities, it will knowingly be giving
low-income children what even the promoters of this bill admit is an
excessive dose of fluoride. Furthermore, the idea that the Legislature
would make Oregon’s drinking water unusable for Oregon’s youngest
residents is inconsistent with the principle that drinking water
should be safe for everyone.
The right of local communities to decide whether fluoridation makes
sense has never been more important. If Oregonians want to retain
local control, it is definitely time to let your state representatives
and senators know.
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH of Lake Oswego is a dentist with Aesthetic
Dentistry of Lake Oswego. He can be reached at bill [at] teachingsmiles.com.
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070517/OPINION/70516048/1049
_____
Fluoride rant had wrong info
By Mary Lynn O'Brien, MD
, May 17, 2007
and
VIRGINIA FELDMAN, M.D. and ERIC BRODY, M.D.
The Oregonian said it best: “Oregon isn’t known for its movie star
teeth, unless you count horror movies.”
Two-thirds of the U.S. population drinks from fluoridated water
supplies and it has a 60-year history of safety and effectiveness. Yet
anti-fluoridationists like Dr. Osmunson continue to spread untruths.
Untruth No. 1 – European Dental Association no longer recommends
fluoridation.
Fact: Europeans are very pro fluoride, they just use different
vehicles to deliver fluoride to the public as many people do not drink
public water. So, using the public water system to provide fluoride
for public health doesn’t make sense. Examples are fluoridated salt at
200-250 parts per million, fluoridated chewing gum, and fluoride
varnish (at 22,600 parts per million concentration). In the UK, where
the water is mostly potable and people drink it, fluoridation is more
widespread. Ireland has a majority of its public water systems
fluoridated. Great Britain, while only 10 percent fluoridated, has
been discussing ways to increase fluoridation of its public water
supplies.
Untruth No. 2 – Harvard study links boys who drink fluoridated water
with an increased risk of bone cancer.
Fact: There is no proven association between fluoridated water and
bone cancer in the preliminary study by Bassin as part of her doctoral
thesis for the Harvard School of Dental medicine. In fact, an
accompanying letter by a faculty member of that institution cautions
against using the results of this preliminary study in formulating
public policy about fluoridation, because his larger study with a more
direct measure of biologic exposure to fluoride fails to confirm the
finding. Dr. Donald Austin of OHSU and an expert in
oncology/epidemiology reviewed Bassin’s thesis and agrees that there
is no connection.
Untruth No. 3 – New warnings on mixing infant formula with fluoridated
water.
Fact: Breast milk is best and new moms in Oregon rank No. 1 in the
U.S. for breastfeeding at 89 percent. There is a small increased risk
of the milder forms of fluorosis if powdered infant formula is given
as the primary source of nutrition. However, it is important to
understand that flourosis is not a disease and these children will
benefit from fluoride’s protection against cavities.This is not an
argument to avoid fluoridation for the other 79 years of people’s
lives. The most efficacious way to reduce cavities throughout our
lifespan is delivering frequent small amounts of fluoride to one’s
teeth via water.
“Some would have you believe that a public warning on this matter has
been issued, and that the ADA is now saying that fluoridation poses a
danger to children, which is flat out wrong,” states Dr. Pollick of
the UCSF School of Dentistry. “The public should know that both the
dental professional community and the scientific community continue to
support fluoridation based on an overwhelming number of juried
scientific studies and reviews.”
The facts are:
1) Virtually every major dental, medical, scientist and public health
organization in the U.S. recognizes water fluoridation as safe,
effective, economical, and socially equitable.
2) Fluoridation will reduce the rate of decay between 18 and 40
percent. This will save our state millions of dollars, especially in
Medicaid expenses for our low-income population.
3) Specifically, for every dollar spent for fluoridation, we will save
$38 in dental repair costs.
Lastly, we want to share a quote by former Surgeon General of the
United States, Dr. David Satcher:
“Fluoridation is the single-most-effective public health measure to
prevent tooth decay and improve oral health over a lifetime for both
children and adults”.
House Bill 3099 will be voted on soon in the House. We urge everyone
to contact their legislators to vote for this important public health
measure.
Mary Lynn O’Brien, MD
Lake Oswego
Virginia Feldman, MD
Portland
Eric Brody, MD
Lake Oswego
http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=117935114894723900
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$255.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
A more devastating issue is that long-term consumption of artificial fluoride, particularly in soft water cities lacking calcium where assimilation of the ion is then higher, leads to accumulation of fluoride into bone that is irreversible to thousands of times that in the water in only a few years time. And after lifetime consumption this significantly weakens bone (NRC, 2006) in spite of denials based on short-term consumption data by the OHD of the CDC. We now have an epidemic of hip fractures in the elderly in the U.S. with 1/3 million cases annually where many perish while waiting for bone to heal. I personally blame this on the widespread use of unnatural hazardous waste fluosilicic acid that is injected so widely now into public water supplies since WWII.
Fluoride is regarded as a drug by the FDA and it has never been FDA approved and for good reason. In fact toothpaste manufacturers are rightly forced to label 'not to be swallowed' or to even use in children under 6 and for good reason. Many children (5 published and documented I know of) have been slaughtered with fluoride gels in dental offices with quick heart attacks. This poisonous substance must be avoided, not sought after, even at what might be considered a 'safe low' dose. It is widely known to toxicologists as having the same lethal dose as arsenic and lead in tested animals at high doses (Merck Index), causing heart attack at 100 ppm. This also happened to humans in Hooper Bay, Alaska during an overfeed where the soft Yukon River water allowed artificial fluoride to corrode a feed line (Gessner, New England J. Medicine, 1994). At lower concentrations around 10 ppm in tested animals longer term, it requires several months to kill the animal (ATSDR, 2003). At 1 ppm it usually takes in humans perhaps 50 years before so much fluoride accumulates in bone to be lethal upon breakage wehre it cannot heal. I could go on, but it is best to examine the data repositories at ww.fluoridealert.org or my text 'Toxicity of Water Fluoridated Artificially' which is free online at http://www.lulu.com or many other textbooks that of course are denounced by fluoride promoters, such as the National Research Council Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006.
The city of San Diego in May, 2010 will for the first time in its history begin injecting this useless hazardous waste, and for the first time in the history of the U.S. will do so even though the people of the city voted against it in two separate elections! Strange but true, the fluoride religion cares less about facts and what people themselves want. To prove it, ask any promoter if they have bothered to read the excellent and well-controlled, prospective published studies by Phyllis Mullenix that demonstrate that 0.2 ppm blood fluoride incorporates into brain with alterations in behavior, particularly on memory, IQ and mental confusion under stress; and the studies recently translated at http://www.fluoridealert.org from foreign medical institutions proving fluoride water even at low concentrations around 2-3 ppm decrease IQ in children raised on it. You will usually get an answer of 'it's not good science' or something to that effect. I guarantee you the Mullenix studies are excellent and contained no bias, where data were collected from computer-controlled movie cameras and with hundreds of animals, always with the same adverse fluoride results.
These promoters have plenty of vested interest, but in the end are clueless and unrepentant and dealing with them is next to impossible, to the point of not even being something worth your time. Just don't consume artificial fluoridated water when clean non-drugged water is available. Brush your teeth after eating sugar. Fluoride absence does NOT cause cavities.
Right now the San Diego Chargers are the only non-water-fluoridated team in the NFL and they are not hurt at all by that. For a small market team they are doing just fine--none have more cavities than anyone else and they are not fluoride compromised in brain or bones. But they will not be able to make that claim after May, 2010 for the rest of their lives, because fluoride promoters forced the city to ignore the will of the people. These promoters in their self righteous attempt to help, actually care less about what it is YOU want, it's all about what THEY want.
Good luck to you.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D., Chemistry, University of CA, San Diego, currently Palomar College San Marcos, CA