Should Windsor close the tap on fluoridation?

We’re not positively sure flouride helps prevent caries. But there’s no evidence at all it causes cancer.

.scribe/Flickr

Nothing showcases the human potential for creativity better than conspiracy theories. A search of “fluoridation” on YouTube gives a pretty good sense of the fantastically diverse views of anti-fluoridation campaigners, some of whom believe that adding more of the mineral to the water supply is akin to Nazi-inspired mass medication–and that it can cause all kinds of afflictions, from cancer to hip fractures and a diminished IQ.

A few cities across Canada (most recently Windsor) and the U.S. have been moving to phase out fluoridation. This, in turn, has spurred some commentators to squawk in dismay and defer to authorities like the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which touted fluoridation as “one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.”

Now, as much Science-ish likes to bust a dubious conspiracy theory, it also doesn’t like to rely on  authority alone to draw conclusions. So what does the science show?

The best-available study remains a systematic review of water fluoridation, published in the British Medical Journal in 2000. (There are some U.K. researchers working on an update of this review as you read this.) According to this synthesis of 214 studies, water fluoridation was associated with a reduction in dental caries as well as fluorosis—or mottled teeth—which is mostly an aesthetic concern. Importantly, the review found no adverse effects related to fluoridation.

Still, the researchers called for better evidence. “Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.” Estimates of the increase in the proportion of children without dental caries in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated areas varied widely: from five to 22 percent with a median difference of 15 per cent.

A more recent overview of the policy issues around fluoridation, published in the BMJ in 2010, similarly noted that there is little sound research in this area, particularly as it relates to one of fluoridation’s great promises: that it’s a social equalizer. “Water fluoridation aims to reduce social inequalities in dental health but few relevant studies exist. The quality of research was even lower than that assessing overall effects of fluoridation.”

Dr. Paul Wilson, a research fellow at the University of York and one of the authors on the 2000 systematic review, shared his views with Science-ish. What he had to say wasn’t very reassuring. “From the available evidence, it’s not possible to make confident statements about the extent to which water fluoridation may reduce the prevalence of tooth decay in children and adults.” He pointed out that what policymakers chose to do with the evidence “is really not for me to say but for local jurisdictions to decide for themselves about whether the available evidence is sufficient to justify a population-wide intervention.”

To get a better understanding of the delicate balancing act public health officials must make, Science-ish called Dr. David Mowat, medical officer at Peel Public Health, which made the unanimous decision last April to continue fluoridating the water supply. He reiterated Dr. Wilson’s point. “Putting aside massive amounts of allegations that aren’t based on evidence at all about the adverse effects of fluoride—cancer, hip fractures—the nub of the matter is really a policy decision based on values around risks and benefits, the benefit being a reduction in caries.”

The best medical officers can do, he added, is make policy decisions based on the best available evidence. This can be tricky with public health matters. Unlike drug trials, “there are no double-blind controlled trials (the gold standard of evidence) of fluoridation. When you’re talking about public health measures, that’s rarely achievable. With that standard, we would have to close down public health entirely. There would not be anything we do that would meet that standard, with the exception of giving vaccines.”

So while this dearth of high-quality evidence on fluoridation could be seen as ammunition to quit treating the local water supply, medical officers may read it another way. Like concerns over WiFi and cell phones, the weight of evidence shows no adverse effects, and, in the case of fluoridation, actual health gains. So though the science isn’t conclusive—leaving room for creative interpretations and conspiracy theories—at least in Canada, most jurisdictions have ruled that the benefits of fluoridation outweigh the harms. 

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, The Medical Post, and the McMaster Health Forum. Julia Belluz is the associate editor at The Medical Post. Got a tip? Seen something that’s Science-ish? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or on Twitter @juliaoftoronto




Browse

Should Windsor close the tap on fluoridation?

  1. It amazes me that people fret about flouride in their water, but never give a thought to all the crap their local water plant can’t filter out.

    • Such as…?

      • Antibiotics, heart drugs, pain killers, aspirins, anti-depressants…lots of things.

        •  The fluoride product used, hydrofluorosilicic acid, has contaminants such as arsenic, lead, mercury, radionuclides – these are things we INTENTIONALLY add to our water when we fluoridate. The things you mention (and there are much more than the few you list) should not be in our water – but your argument that we shouldn’t be concerned about fluoride because of these other things is a red-herring fallacy.  They’re both wrong and one is REAL EASY to fix – just turn off the tap :)

    • Dr. Paul Connett is recognized as the top international authority on fluoride and fluoridation. It is understandable that the proponents will never debate him because they don’t have the scientific information to counter his facts. It would indeed be informative to invite him to appear at your meeting.

      Read the truth produced in the best scientific information on fluoridation at this site: (www.fluoridealert.org). You will see a petition signed by over 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation.

      There are many large scientific studies there to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and other health problems.

       

      Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. It is one of the most poisonous substances on Earth. The chemical used (Hexafluorosilicic acid, which is an induatrial toxic waste chemical) cures nothing and heals nothing and has never been tested or approved by FDA or any government agency (in the USA) as safe and effective for human ingestion.

      The company CEO would be arrested immediately if this waste were dumped in a river. The only way they can dump it legally is to run it through the community drinking water system first. It is the defintion of insanity.

      • Well since I don’t intend to hold any meetings on the subject, Dr Connett’s presence is of no interest to me. But you might want to hook him up with the folks that oppose wi-fi….and of course the vast conspiracy of left-wing environmentalists, Democrats, liberals, non-Evangelical Christians, the media, and 99-percent of the world’s climate scientists who are concerned about climate change.

        Quack, quack.

        •  More red-herrings, and name calling, too!  That shows the value of your input.  When you have some science (not political endorsements from authorities) – let us know ;)

          • I have no idea where you’re getting that from, it simply means people are anti-science, and overly emotional.

            Connett is a chemist, not a physician, and he and his family make a great deal of money selling this kind of emotion.

          •  Actually people are INSISTING on science – no more political endorsements and abdicating to authority just because they say so – we want to see the toxicological studies and clinical data on hydrofluorosilicic acid – that is science – not emotion – emotion is the fear-mongering tactics that health officials try to use to bully communities into continuing with a worn-out practice, emotion is using appeal-to-authority arguments, doctors know best so we should just trust them and stop asking questions LOL.

            Attacking the Connetts or specific groups is a red-herring – which means you’re diverting the discussion away from what the actual topic is – fluoridation is the adding of industry’s waste to our water supply – waste that has never been tested for safety for humans to ingest – not to mention that 99% of it ends up in our environment even though it is ILLEGAL to dump hydrofluorosilicic acid anywhere.  These are the facts – you can keep attacking groups and resort to name-calling and quacking – but that shows the value of your input. 
            If there is science that proves ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe and effective – why are the fluoride lobbyists hiding it?
            Water admin admit that the fluoride chemical is industry waste that has never been tested for safety and the health authority knows this…these are facts, not emotion.

            source of fluoride: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKFuChX1Yl8
            No safety studies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ2GKw6zgPw
            In absence of safety studies take precaution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiCcOL3f1Mo

          • One aspirin can cure a headache, a bottle of aspirin can kill you.

            Flouride, like aspirin, depends on quantity.

            All of this is known science….in fact you can find the topic covered on Wikipedia.

            There are no conspiracies, no cover-ups, and it has improved dental health.

            When I was a kid, it was considered a communist plot….I’m not sure what it’s morphed into now, maybe aliens, but flouride in your drinking water is quite safe.

            No one will ever convince you of that, I’m sure….but for most people it’s not an issue.

          •  No ONE will convince me – science will – where are the STUDIES on hydrofluorosilicic acid?  You say this is KNOWN science – so where is it – what journal, what study? 
            I’ve contacted a scientist who did primary research on fluoride and he believes fluoridation isn’t safe and isn’t effective – but you’d rather cite wikipedia?  That’s funny.
            Why have the ‘safe’ levels been lowered over the course of this experiment?  What is our total fluoride exposure from all sources?
            Most people  that don’t have an issue with fluoridation believe the lies told by fluoride lobbyists – that this is naturally occurring calcium fluoride and that health authorities have tested it as safe and effective – both shown to be false.  No conspiracies, just false and misleading info.
            Today we aren’t as gullible as we were in the 1950′s – we require scientific evidence by way of toxicological studies and clinical data on the product we are being forced to drink – and as proven, there isn’t any. 

            This practice was started just like many other misleading campaigns 50 years ago – show them a picture of a fellow in a white coat and put some darling children in the ad – great marketing – industry was able to get rid of their waste at a profit instead of paying dearly to dispose of it properly…wake up to the facts and stop believing the rhetoric – demand proof by way of science – it is okay to question authority and ask them to prove what they’re trying to sell us – it is called critical thinking, and it won’t hurt you.

          •  No one is trying to medicate the water supply with aspirin, now are they?  Red-herring red-herring red-herring – stick to the facts – fluoride chemicals are industry’s waste – FACT. This waste has never been tested for safety – FACT.

            If you like the idea of your drinking water supply being used as a delivery vehicle for drugs and medicine – why not put vitamin D in it – sure to improve the health of all, including dental caries – but ahhh, there is no cheap industrial waste source for vitamin D. 

          • In this video we see Windsor/Essex Medical Officer of Health, Dr.
            Heimann, admit “”It is my responsibility to provide the information
            specifically to the questions and the issues with regards to safety and
            CERTAINLY, if that is not able to be done, then it is ABSOLUTELY
            appropriate with regards to the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.”

            Councillors asked for the toxicology safety studies on
            hydrofluorosilicic acid (chemical used as fluoride in your water), but these do not exist, as confirmed by Windsor
            Utilities Commission (WUC)

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HiCcOL3f1Mo

             

          • Like I said, no one and nothing will convince you, and there’s no point in trying, so I don’t intend to debate it with you. Enjoy yourself.

          •  Science will convince me – but you haven’t provided any.  And I don’t expect you to – the safety studies haven’t been done.  You’re asking me to believe wikipedia and decades old public policy – and I’m saying, I require science.  What is there to debate.  Peace to you ;)

        • The promoters of fluoridation actually have absolutely no valid science, just empty and unsupported endorsements and statements.

          The fluoridation cessation movement is the one that has all of the science. There is so much proof of harm from the use of fluorides that it is becoming overwhelming. Start by looking here: http://slweb.org/bibliography.html

  2. Baby Bottle Tooth Decay aka Early
    Childhood Caries:

     

    After decades
    of promoting water fluoridation for the sake of disadvantaged children, the
    University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry announced on
    December 18, 2008 they had received a record $24.4 million from the
    National Institutes of Health to fight early childhood caries, also known as
    “baby bottle tooth decay” or “nursing caries”. 

     

    Published dental literature has long
    noted fluoridation’s failure:

     

    1) Auge, K. 
    Denver Post Medical Writer. 
    Doctors donate services to restore little girl’s smile. The Denver Post,
    April 13, 2004.  (Note: Denver,
    CO has been fluoridated since 1954.)

    “Sippy cups
    are the worst invention in history. The problem is parents’ propensity to let toddlers bed down with
    the cups, filled with juice or milk. 
    The result is a sort of
    sleep-over party for mouth bacteria,” said pediatric dentist Dr.
    Barbara Hymer as she applied $5,000 worth of silver caps onto a 6-year-old with
    decayed upper teeth.  Dr. Brad
    Smith, a Denver pediatric dentist estimates that his practice treats up to
    300 cases a year of what dentists call Early Childhood Caries.  Last year, Children’s Hospital did
    2,100 dental surgeries, many of which stemmed from the condition, Smith said,
    and it is especially pervasive among children in poor families.

     

    2) Shiboski CH et al. 
    The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity Among California Preschool Children. J Pub Health Dent; Vol 63, No 1, Winter
    2003.

    Among 2,520
    children, the largest proportion with a history of falling asleep sipping
    milk/sweet substance was among Latinos/Hispanics (72% among Head Start and 65%
    among non-HS) and HS Asians (56%). Regarding the 30% and 33% resultant decay
    rates respectively; Our analysis did
    not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with  fluoridated water.

     

    3) California Department of Health
    Services, Maternal and Child Health Branch,
    1995; Our Children’s Teeth: Beyond Brushing
    and  Braces.

    33% of Head
    Start children and 13% of non-Head Start preschool children had Early Childhood
    Caries/Baby Bottle Tooth Decay (BBTD).   

    1) In non-fluoridated urban
    regions, 40% of Hispanic preschool
    children had BBTD. 

    2) In fluoridated urban
    regions, 45% of Asian Head Start
    preschool children had BBTD.

     

    4) Allukian, M. Symposium Oral Disease: The Neglected
    Epidemic – What Can Be Done? 
    Introduction:  Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 
    Vol. 53, No 1, Winter 1993.  “Oral
    Disease is still a neglected epidemic in
    our country, despite improvements in oral health due to fluoridation, other
    forms of fluorides, and better access to dental care.  Consider the following:
    50 percent of Head Start children have had baby bottle tooth decay.”
    (Bullet #5 of 8.)

     

    5) Barnes GP et al. 
    Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle Tooth
    Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children.  Public Health Reports; 107: 167-73, 1992.

    By either of the
    two criterion i.e., two of the four maxillary incisors or three of the four
    maxillary incisors, the rate for 5-year-olds was significantly higher than for
    3-year-olds.  Children attending
    centers showed no significant differences based on fluoride status for the
    total sample or other variables.

     

    6) Kelly M et al. 
    The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American
    Populations.  J Pub Health Dent;
    47:94-97, 1987.

    The prevalence
    of BBTD in the 18 communities of Head Start children ranged from 17 to 85
    percent with a mean of 53%.  The
    surveyed communities had a mixture of fluoridated and non fluoridated drinking
    water sources.  Regardless of
    water fluoridation, the prevalence of BBTD remained high at all of the sites
    surveyed.

     

    7) Watson MR et al. 
    Caries conditions among 2-5-year-old immigrant Latino children related
    to parents’ oral health knowledge, opinions and practices.  Community Dent Oral Epid; 27: 8-15,
    1999.

    The finding of
    47% of the children having experienced dental caries in their primary teeth
    does not differ greatly with other studies of low socioeconomic status and
    racial ethnic groups.  (Washington
    D.C. has been fluoridated since 1952.)

     

    8) Weinstein P et al. 
    Mexican-American parents with children at risk for baby bottle tooth
    decay:  Pilot study at a migrant
    farmworkers clinic.  J Dent for
    Children; 376-83, Sept-Oct, 1992.

    Overall, 37 of
    the 125 children (29.6 percent) were found to have BBTD.  Compliance in putting fluoride drops in
    bottle once a day was identical between BBTD and non BBTD groups.

     

    9) Bruerd B et al. 
    Preventing Baby Bottle Tooth Decay:  Eight-Year Results. 
    Public Health Reports: 111; 63-65, 1996.

    In 1986, a
    program to prevent BBTD was implemented in 12 Head Start centers in 10
    states.  In three years BBTD decreased
    from 57% to 43%.  Funding was
    discontinued in 1990.

     

    10) Von Burg MM et al. 
    Baby Bottle Tooth Decay:  A
    Concern for All Mothers.  Pediatric
    Nursing; 21:515-519, 1995.

    “Data from
    Head Start surveys show the prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay is about
    three times the national average among poor urban children, even in communities with a fluoridated water supply.”

     

    11) Blen M et al. 
    Dental caries in children under age three attending a university
    clinic.  Pediatric Dentistry;  21:261-64, 1999.

    Of 369
    children who attended the University of Texas-Houston Health Center  (Houston is fluoridated), 56% between
    2 and 3 years old had decay.  Among
    the 3 year olds, 46% had more than
    three decayed teeth.  The children
    without decay were weaned from the bottle at an average age of 10 months.  Those with severe decay were weaned at
    16.9 months.

     

    12) Kong D. 
    City to launch battle against dental ‘crisis’.  Boston Globe, Nov. 27, 1999.

    18% of
    children 4 years old and younger seen in the pediatric program at Tufts
    University School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby bottle tooth decay.  Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per
    child. Boston was fluoridated in 1978.

     

    13) Thakib AA et al. 
    Primary incisor decay before age 4 as a risk factor for future dental
    caries.  Pediatric Dentistry;
    19:37-41, 1997.

    In summary, initial primary incisor
    caries is a risk factor for developing future carious, extracted, and restored
    teeth.

               

    14) Duperon DF.  Early
    Childhood Caries:  A Continuing
    Dilemma.  CA Dent Assoc J; 23:
    15-25, 1995.

    The primary
    precipitating factor for this 100 year
    old problem is prolonged use of the bottle or breast past 9 to 12 months of
    age. North American Indians have reported an incidence of 53 percent, Inuit
    (Eskimo) children have shown a 60%-65% incidence and Mexican American migrant
    farm workers, 30%.

     

     

     

    PIT AND FISSURE TOOTH DECAY

     

    “Fluoride
    primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits
    and fissures (grooves), mainly on the chewing surfaces of the back teeth.  Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces
    only comprise about 15% of all permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of
    83% of tooth decay in U.S. children in 1986-87.”

    Selected Findings and
    Recommendations from the 1993/94 California Oral Health Needs Assessment.

     

    “Because the
    surface-specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent of the
    remaining decay is found in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of
    children’s teeth; those surfaces that are not as affected by the protective
    benefit of fluoride.”

    Letter, August 8, 2000,
    from Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H., CDC Atlanta GA.

     

    “Nearly 90
    percent of cavities in school children occur in the surfaces of teeth with
    vulnerable pits and grooves, where fluoride is least effective.”

    Facts From National
    Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent Marshall, MN, 5/92.

     

     

    THE DECEPTION

     

    Fluoridation
    has historically been “sold” to politicians and civic leaders by using photos
    of rampant Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup Tooth Decay (BBTD), a highly visible decay of
    the upper front teeth. The cause of the decay is high levels of strep mutan
    bacteria. Fluoridated water at 1 ppm does not kill this bacteria that, 1)
    colonize on tooth surfaces, 2) thrive and multiply on sugars, and 3) pass their
    acidic waste onto the dental enamel causing the damage we call tooth decay.

     

    50 percent of
    U.S. Head Start children have Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup tooth decay from high
    levels of strep mutans bacteria. A steady source of sugar is supplied to the
    bacteria by sipping fluids rather than drinking fluids from a cup. The
    bacteria’s acidic waste first ravages the primary teeth and then continues on
    to decay the permanent teeth.

     

    In January
    2000, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Senior Risk Assessment Scientist at SENES Oak
    Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Analysis, reviewed the 1993-94 California Oral
    Health Needs Assessment for the City of Escondido (Keepers-of-the-Well.org, #17
    Effectiveness) and stated in her critique:

     

    1) For
    preschool children,  … any
    evaluation of the effectiveness of various measures (fluoridation) must control
    for the occurrence of BBTD and,

     

    2) Any study
    of the effectiveness of a particular measure (fluoridation) in preventing
    dental caries must control for the presence of dental sealants, or the results
    will be meaningless.  and,

     

    3) In addition,
    if children with BBTD are thought to be more prone to developing caries in
    permanent teeth, then history of BBTD vs. caries incidence should be examined
    for both preschool and elementary
    children.

     

    The dental
    literature is clear that elementary school children with a history of BBTD are
    indeed more prone to decay in permanent teeth.  Therefore, controlling or adjusting for history of BBTD in
    elementary school children should be
    the norm but is never done!  By
    not adjusting for BBTD history and sealants, dental studies of elementary
    school children can claim a (false) fluoridation benefit!

    _______________

     

    Maureen Jones

    Citizens for
    Safe Drinking Water – http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org

    1205 Sierra
    Ave.

    San Jose, CA
    95126

    408 297-8487

     

    • Anti-fluoride rapid response team ever vigil.

      •  Someone responds with actual science and all you’ve got is ridicule – that is telling of the value of fluoride lobbyist’s input!!  Please check out the videos I posted above where the water supply administration ADMIT that the fluoridating agent is INDUSTRIAL WASTE, that has NEVER BEEN TESTED FOR SAFETY.

        What an oversight for 60 years. 

        Just like we were reassured by the ‘health authorities’ that thalidomide, lead, tobacco, asbestos etc etc (long list of fallible activity from this group!) – were all SAFE and Effective, so too will we soon all realize that fluoridation of industrial waste chemicals belongs in the same category of industry-supported and paid for science from the 1950′s leading us to accept unnecessary chemicals into our water and environment.

  3. Why raise the Conspiracy theory red herring? I guess because that’s the best way they can laugh off a serious subject.

    Contrary to this writers claims, adverse health effects are real. She did not do her homework. There are mountains of data now available. If you don’t look, you don’t find. Meanwhile, promoters continue to parrot one another’s claims of “safe and effective” without any valid proof but each other’s endorsements: no science, no proof, no credibility!

    Then there’s the problem that these promoters take absolutely no responsibility for the claims that they make. Would you buy a vehicle from a dealership that does not warranty them?

    If there is one web site that proves beyond any doubt that adverse health effects exist its Second Look at http://slweb.org/bibliography.html. Hundreds and hundreds of documented examples. The Fluorine atom in every fluoride compound is the most toxic element on the face of the earth. And they want us to swallow it with every gulp of water we drink? Plus, what kind of fluoride is it? Why, it’s usually hydrofluorosilicic acid, a contaminant banned by the EPA, a toxic stew that contains other contaminants, some of which are neurotoxic and/or carcinogenic.

    This acid has not been approved as a water additive, as a food additive, or as tooth medicine. It’s not purified of its toxic contaminants, it’s untested and unregulated, either by the U.S. EPA or Health Canada, therefore it’s illegal for use as intended.

    In the July 2000, volume 131, of the Journal of the American Dental Association, it was written: “The Science and Practice of Caries
    Prevention – Fluoride works via topical mechanisms,” so, why are we drinking it. It’s like drinking sun tan lotion to prevent sunburn. Both are toxic to our bodies. But wait,
    there’s more.

    We are looking at an unparallelled health, moral, ethical and legal nightmare by adding
    this toxic waste product from the fertilizer industry to our water supplies.

  4. What kind of double-speak is this?  You state that the best review is the BMJ review that shows fluoride has benefits but then report that the reviewers state: “From the available evidence, it’s not possible to make confident
    statements about the extent to which water fluoridation may reduce the
    prevalence of tooth decay in children and adults.”  The peer-reviewed science for fluoride cessation in communities shows that dental caries rates and dental fluorosis rates DECLINE after artificial water fluoridation ends.  There are no peer-reviewed cessation studies that show cavities increase after fluoridation ends (just biased un-published observations by pro-F folks, not science) – that’s pretty conclusive, but somehow ignored by health authorities that seem more interested in trying to save credibility rather than protect health.

    When fluoride lobbyists say ‘the weight of evidence’ doesn’t show harm – what they mean is – we haven’t actually tested the product for safety so there is NO EVIDENCE – nothing to weigh, doesn’t weigh much.  If you don’t look, you can’t see – how reassuring.
    But don’t believe me!  This water utility administration IN WINDSOR admitted that the product is industrial waste that has NEVER been tested for safety – see for yourself here:
    Source of fluoride in our drinking water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKFuChX1Yl8
    The product has never been tested for safety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ2GKw6zgPw

    And the medical officer of health ADMITTING that in the absence of safety studies PRECAUTION SHOULD BE TAKEN!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiCcOL3f1Mo

    Meanwhile, actual fluoride scientists (that do the PRIMARY RESEARCH), such as Dr. Hardy Limeback, are opposed to water fluoridation – because it isn’t safe and it isn’t effective.
    It also happens to be the INDUSTRIAL WASTE product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, of the phosphate fertilizer industry, even though fluoridation lobbyists often allude to it being the naturally occurring calcium fluoride.
    Why isn’t Health Canada doing its OWN STUDIES on the product, rather than saying other countries studies’, that show cause for concern with long-term ingestion of fluoride, are no good? Why hasn’t Health Canada done studies comparing similar fluoridated with non-fluoridated communities with respect to non-dental health outcomes? The data is available but our highly paid public health officials can’t be bothered to run these analyses…
    And WHY is our WATER SUPPLY allowed to be used a a method for delivering unregulated untested drugs and as a disposal for industry’s waste?  The Peel Region councillors, earlier this year, insisted Health Canada – test the product for safety – this is more recent information than what this author reports in this article. 
    It is time for this gone-too-long experiment to end.  People deserve to have the safest water possible and ending artificial water fluoridation is a really easy fix – just turn off the tap and let industry deal with its own waste product – instead of using our water supply and our children’s kidneys as their filters!

  5. Funny how proponents of fluoridation like to quote the “CDC’s top ten public health achievements” statement made over a decade ago and neglect to mention their more recent statements that should raise alarms to the public. For instance the CDC now advises parents NOT to administer fluoridated water to infants or use it to mix baby formula. The CDC also estimates that 41% of American children ages 12-15 have dental fluorosis which indicates OVER EXPOSURE to fluoride’s toxicity. Finally, even the CDC concedes that fluoride is more effective topically. Science-ish really should look more carefully at the science and not the endorsements.

  6. I can’t help but wonder why this author would link WINDSOR to a biased unsigned anonymous editorial rather than the FEATURE article written by Windsor Star reporter, Doug Schmidt – which does a much better service to the fluoride debate.  Wouldn’t sound journalism trump one-sided rhetoric?

    Anyone wishing to see Doug’s article (and I recommend you do, if you’re interested in balanced reporting by your media) visit here:
    http://www.windsorstar.com/health/Researchers+sink+teeth+into+fluoride+question/6173710/story.html

    And a follow-up blog by Doug: http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2012/02/27/more-doctors-smoke-camels/

    Both great pieces of journalism.

  7. “I” want to be the one to decide “if” and “when” I want to consume medication, not the state! Keep the fluoride out of my drinking water!

  8. Doctors have always pushed pills from big pharma and intervention in general, why would they not push fluoride?  That’s what they learn in med school.  Duh. 

    Conspiracies?  Yes, Virginia, there are conspiracies!  All companies have conspiracy departments.  Grads of Marketing 101.  Duh. 

    Just ask the folks that SELL FSA, the toxic waste sold as product.  But that would be asking too much of our investigative ostrich, Julia Belluz.  Duh. 

    Science-ish indeed. 

  9. Emuly writes:

    “I have no idea where you’re getting that from, it simply means people are anti-science, and overly emotional.

    Connett is a chemist, not a physician, and he and his family make a great deal of money selling this kind of emotion.”

    Emily, what kind of research did you undertake before you poisoned cyberspace with this comment? Have you for example read the book I co-authored with two other scientists( Dr. James Beck and Spedding Mickem D Phi), entitled “The Case Against Fluoride” (Chelsea Green, 2010)?

    What kind of research led you to claim that Connett and his family “make a great deal of money selling this kind of emotion.”

    Money may be your driving force but it is not ours. It is insulting that you make claims like this without any evidence whatsoever. Shame on you. Try reading something before you spout off in this insulting fashion.

    For the record I have spent 16 years researching this issue – Emily how long have you spent? 16 minutes?

    Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action network, http://www.FluorideAlert.org

     

    •  Dr. Connett, we sure do thank you and your family for all you’ve done.  Your intentions and integrity are evident to those interested in critical thinking and safe water!!

      The integrity of all the professionals that speak out against the policy of adding industrial waste to our water supply under the guise of it being good for our teeth, is commendable – it is obviously not an easy thing to speak the truth when these lies and bad science have been perpetuated for so long and have become widely spread myths. 

      The fact that some of our media (which we are supposed to rely on for balanced investigative journalism and truth) and our health authorities (that we’re supposed to rely on to protect our health and not the interests of industry) are the biggest proponents and perpetrators of these lies is surely a tragic thing for countries that claim to be advanced and free.

      Do your own research folks – the truth is not hard to find, if only you’d take the time to look!

    • Are you aware you on a Canadian website?

  10. Dear
    Julia.

    Obviously
    you do not mind drinking water into which a toxic waste product,
    hydrofluorosilicic acid, is added despite the fact there are no toxicology
    studies on the long term use of this hazardous waste that cannot be put in the
    air or water in Florida yet can be put in a tanker truck and added to the water
    you drink.  You drink 1%
    and the 99% goes into the water and the environment of where ever you
    live.  Smart way of getting rid of a
    hazardous waste that the phosphate fertilizer industry would have to pay a lot
    of money to dispose of. 

    I guess you do
    not mind being mass medicated with no informed consent, no dose control and no
    regulation.  This is not calcium fluoride
    they are putting in the water.  For a
    reporter I give you a F grade for not doing your due diligence.

     

    Watch
    what the Windsor Medical Officer of Health had to say about no safety studies
    and the precautionary principle:  http://tinyurl.com/8xbftoj 

     

    Have
    a look at this  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmuNorVrKpo  The Fluoride Deception, a 10 year investigation
    by a true journalist who wrote the book of the same name.

     

    Read
    Dr. Paul Connett’s book, “The Case Against Fluoride, How a Hazardous Waste Got
    Into Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It
    There” free on line at: http://tinyurl.com/6awmk4e

     

    To learn how Health Canada fraudulently prepared the
    Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2011, listen to this audio  http://tinyurl.com/3ks765k   from a University of Western Ontario radio
    show.

     

    Then ponder how it is that all the experts,
    doctors and dentists who promote fluoridation have a financial (MOHs get $300,000
    plus a year) and professional tie to fluoridation.  All the experts who want fluoridation stopped,
    PhDs, MDs (Calgary-Beck, MD, PhD, teaches in university) M.Sc, engineers,
    nurses, have no financial of professional tie to ending fluoridation and also
    donate their time, money and energy to the cause.

     

    When you have done all this, then write another
    article and get yourself a reverse osmosis water filter if you still live in a
    fluoridated city.

     

    Regards

     

    Kallie Miller

  11. The conclusion reached at the end of this article is inconsistent with current scientific facts.

    Government and industry sponsored studies are biased, loaded with Dental bureaucrats who know very little or nothing about toxicology and especially about fluoridation and its impact on health. They do a bait and switch by calling out the name fluoride but omit to explain that what is used is an unapproved, unregulated, unpurified toxic waste contaminant called hydrofluorosilicic acid that contains other very harmful contaminants that can not by law be added to the water supply in any amount: i.e. lead, arsenic and radioactive elements.

Sign in to comment.