FLUORIDE: ROOT OF CONTENTION

Transcription

1 FLUORIDE: ROOT OF CONTENTION by Nick Parkins First published in Australian Natural Health (April/May 2014); Reprint in Natural Health magazine (May 2014) The old adage there must be something in the water could actually be a real issue. Here I investigate the history and (to many) the unknown motives that lie behind the popular use of fluoride; most notably, its application in drinking water supplies, the potential risks and how it affects our health. 1940s America had everything: a world war, an atomic bomb, not to mention an off-world sortie at Roswell, New Mexico. Clearly something had found its way into the water. It also had Gerald Cox, a biochemist who spent his evenings fluoridating rats. In 1939 Cox went public to propose to a nation that the state should consider adding fluoride to its drinking water; to help target tooth decay. Cox however was not all that he seemed... He was in fact vested, right up to his interests. As a multiple fellow at the Sugar Institute Inc. (a trade association composed of cavity-causing companies) Cox was unlikely to recommended sanctions against the principal perpetrators; whose product and profits fuelled the decline in dental health nationwide. Cox was also an employee at the Mellon Institute which was founded and funded by Alcoa the third-largest aluminium company in the world. Curiously, a year later, fluoride waste-producing industries including Alcoa began advertising sodium fluoride openly to community fluoridation schemes. Alcoa subsequently profited not solely from sales of fluoride, but avoided fines otherwise incurred through safe and proper disposal. At the time fluoride gained its wholesome reputation as a public health safeguard thanks to the now flawed Grand Rapids fluoridation trial that led the US Public Health Service to sanction its adoption. 1

2 Worldwide, in the following decade, trials were exported. In New Zealand, the Hastings- Napier fluoridation trial which boasted a dramatic 78 per cent reduction in tooth decay was, officially at least, heralded a great success though not by all. One-time advocate dentist and historian Dr John Colquhoun smelled a rat. And upon placing a freedom of information request to the NZ Department of Health to view the Hastings protocol, Colquhoun was shocked to find that school dentists in Hastings had been instructed to change their method for diagnosing tooth decay. The study also failed to recognise the low incidence of caries (tooth decay) across the control city of Napier and the rest of the country. The die had been cast, it seemed, and the loaded attempt to misrepresent fluoride in the hearts and minds of the public had begun. Dr Colquhoun Fast forward several decades and supporters continue to promote fluoride as a supplement capable of counter-acting tooth decay. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call fluoridation one of the top medical achievements of the 20th century. Quite how fluoride [in whatever form] does this, advocates argue, is immaterial; the benefits that accrue to society through reductions in dental caries far outweigh health concerns and infringements to individual autonomy. 2

3 According to Karin Jacobs, a Physics Professor from Saarland University in Germany, all forms of fluoride show a strong protective effect against caries, while fluoride tablets and drinking fluoridated water, particularly in adults, is less effective since adult teeth are already developed. Jacobs believes that children markedly benefit from this form of medication. In growing teeth, fluoride ions replace hydrogen ions in tooth enamel, converting HAP, hydroxyapatite, into FAP, fluorapatite. FAP is far more resistant to acid erosion caused by bacteria, says Jacobs. Incorporating fluoride usually lowers the surface energy, so objects don t adhere. Ethics and decay Ultimately, Jacobs believes, the question over whether to fluoridate drinking water is a socio-political one. If everyone practises good oral hygiene, including regular use of fluoridated toothpaste or mouthwash, fluoridation of drinking water should not be necessary, she says. If not, it may be a good solution, especially in children. This solution fails to wash with many. Joel M. Kauffman, a professor at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, cites recent studies that support only possible slight benefits from water fluoridation for the deciduous teeth of five-year-old children. [1] Indeed, in poorer communities, food often takes priority over toothpaste and mouthwash. Does this mean that the poorest in society, and by implication the rest of us, waive the right to reject community water fluoridation? After all, it is impossible, short of purchasing expensive domestic filtration units, for individuals to opt out. A point made by Dr Howard Cohen and Professor David Locker in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, who consider the practice, in the absence of sufficient evidence regarding the benefits and risks posed, as possibly immoral. [2] So is water fluoridation a silver bullet or a lead buckshot? Shooting from the hip Official safe limits set for fluoride appear to depend on what language or dialect you speak rather than science. Currently, both Australian and UK government safe limits are set at 1.5 mg/l. [This is the same as the WHO s Guideline Value for fluoride.] In Australia, according to Department of Health figures, 90 per cent of the population currently consumes optimally fluoridated drinking water (otherwise in excess of 0.7 mg/l) as opposed to 10 per cent in the UK. INSERT: This practice continues despite concerns over fluorosis, a condition characterised by mottling and structural weakening of tooth enamel due to chronic poisoning by a fluoride compound. When fluoride in drinking water is elevated from a 3

4 'low' of 0.4 mg/l to 1 mg/l, additional fluorosis results in one of 6 people; of which 25 percent will have fluorosis of 'aesthetic' concern. [3] According to the Department of Health of Western Australia, chronic exposure to high levels beyond 1.5 mg/l may place young children at increased risk of dental fluorosis, but that otherwise, no adverse health effects result from drinking fluoridated water. [4] The US Environmental Protection Agency states that cosmetic and aesthetic changes can occur up to its non-enforceable secondary safe limit set at 2 mg/l. [5] Coincidentally, two thirds of the US population on public water supplies receive fluoridated water and 41 per cent of American adolescents aged 12 to 15 have dental fluorosis. [6] Beyond this limit, chronic exposure can heighten the risk of crippling changes associated with skeletal fluorosis pain and damage to bones and joints. In fact, research has shown that fluoride in drinking water may stress the pineal and entire glandular system. Government regulations that concentrate on holding fluoride to a set limit per litre consumed fail to recognise that actual water consumption rates vary naturally and markedly among members of the same population. Equally odd are the current, albeit seemingly insufficient, safeguards that relate to drinking water that suggest we live in a vacuum; that unregulated over-exposure to fluoride from other environmental sources can be ignored. The EPA lists Fluoride as a developmental neurotoxicant alongside arsenic, cadmium, methadone and thalidomide. Healthy profits The EPA database of developmental neurotoxicants lists fluoride alongside arsenic, cadmium, methadone and thalidomide. [7] Should we really trust a compound that 4

5 deserves its own EPA maximum contaminant rating? Or indeed those that say we should? Arguably worse in fact, is that sodium fluoride is no longer the go-to compound used for municipal water treatment. Today, primary compounds, fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6), are widely used to fluoridate water supplies. These compounds are not pharmaceutical grade; in fact they are described by Health Way House as industrial grade hazardous waste. Kaufmann agrees: Silicofluorides (SiFs) are not pure, he says. "They are recovered in crude form by scrubbing the gaseous emissions from the treatment of phosphate ores with sulphuric acid. As a result they contain variable amounts of lead, arsenic, beryllium, vanadium, cadmium and mercury. [8] What s more, according to Dr Myron Coplan, SiFs have never been tested or passed safe as water fluoridating agents. [9] That is not to say that they haven t been tested on animals. SiFs are routinely effective as a means of pest control an insecticide, rodenticide and as a veterinary treatment for lice. [10] We return to the question: whose notion of good is applied? Industries such as US Steel, DuPont, Alcoa, Allied Chemical, and the Florida phosphate fertiliser industry all profit from marketing fluoride-waste by-products they generate and re-market as fluoridating agents to water utilities. Were these fluoride by-products not sold to water municipalities, they would eat into industry profits upwards of tens of millions of US dollars under toxic waste disposal regulations every year. Coplan, a consultant in chemical engineering and chemical sciences and recognised in American Men of Science, holds 32 patents. Evidence published in peer-reviewed journals indicates that chronic ingestion of SiF-treated water is a cause of elevated blood lead in children, says Coplan. [11] According to the EPA, lead exposure is particularly dangerous to children, who risk permanent damage to both brain and nervous system; with debilitating effects on behaviour, learning and intelligence. Perversely, the EPA fails to list SiF-treated water as a factor contributing to environmental lead exposure. This evidence has been known by the EPA, CDC, and NIEHS since 1999, but they have disputed it with theoretical arguments and poor statistics, said Coplan. [12] 5

6 Ultimately, the sensible approach to dental health would be to target the cause of tooth decay, says Professor Aubrey Sheiham at the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, UCL, England. Additional fluoride to that currently available in toothpaste does not appear to be benefiting the teeth of the majority of people, says Sheiham. The main strategy to further reduce the level of caries is reducing the frequency of sugar intake in the diet. [13] The problem here of course is the elephant in the room. The average American adult consumes 22 teaspoons of (added) sugar a day. And selling sugar is like flogging fluoride: big business. And any solution would leave a sour taste in the mouths of transnational chemical and sugar conglomerates; for whom the status quo is perfectly sweet. Watch the full interview with Dr Colquhoun [press Ctrl + left mouse button to access] Something else to ponder... Tea is big business. Next to water it is the most widely consumed beverage of choice, with 165 million cups downed a day in the UK alone. The average consumption by tea drinkers, which is thought to average out at 4 cups per day, has recently raised concern following research led by Professor Aradhana Mehra at the University of Derby, England. Mehra and her team tested 38 tea products for the presence of fluoride. Infusions of economy black tea blends (that target less affluent consumers) registered an average 6 mg/l; equivalent to 1.5 mg per cup and 4 times official 'safe' limits set by both UK and Australian governments. When compared to the US National Academy of Sciences' daily dietary reference intake of 4mg/day average consumption rates of economy black tea blends account for per cent of the recommended daily fluoride intake. This research backs up campaigners who call out the policy of fluoridating drinking water to protect the poorest in society as cynically flawed. In fact by tea consumption alone poorer communities may far exceed maximum contaminant levels. In support Laura Chan, PhD student at the University of Derby cites cases, in both the UK and USA, of skeletal fluorosis in individuals who drank more than the average amount of economy tea. Mehra and her team offer a strong note of caution: There should not be a blanket fluoridation of water, irrespective of whether we drink tea or not." According to Mehra, 6

7 mottling of teeth, and skeletal and crippling fluorosis is reason enough. We should be very cautious especially in the case of children and the elderly. View her findings here [press Ctrl + left mouse button to access] FOOTNOTES: [1] Kauffman, J. M: Water Fluoridation: A review of recent research and actions [2] Cohen, H & Locker, D: The science and ethics of water fluoridation [3] McDonagh, M. et al (2000); A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation [4] Source: public.health.wa.gov.au/cproot/4320/2/fluoride%20in%20drinking%20water.pdf [5] Source: water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm [6] Source: cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm [7] Source: epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/files/summit/48p%20mundy%20tdas.p [8] Groves, B: Fluoride: Drinking ourselves to death [9] Coplan, M. J: Silicofluorides are harmful toxins [10] Source: New Jersey Department of Health/Hazardous Substances Fact sheet [11] Coplan, M. op. cit. [12] Coplan, M. Ibid. [13] Sheiham, A: Dietary effects on dental diseases Ref: 7