Drinking Water and Fluoride
Posted on May 29th, 2008 - 10:30 AMAbout the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.
Lea la versión en español a continuación de esta entrada en inglés.
Some links exit EPA or have Spanish content. 
Among my duties as Hispanic liaison, I often conduct interviews in Spanish language media. Recently, I got a call from my cousin Lizette in Puerto Rico who had seen me on a Spanish TV morning show addressing the debate over tap water vs. bottled water. EPA sets the national standards for contaminants in drinking water and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets the standards for bottled water based on EPA standards.
While talking to my cousin, I mentioned—“luckily in the U.S. we have one of the safest supplies of drinking water in the world.” She was quick to remind me—“yes, but in Puerto Rico we have many water challenges. As a Puerto Rican working at EPA you should do more to create awareness of our drinking water which is not in compliance with national standards,” she admonished. She also pointed out that since Hurricane Hugo back in 1989 many people opted for bottled water because “our tap water simply doesn’t taste right.”
I admit that the Island has many water challenges. Nonetheless, I recall the poor conditions and foul smell of the Condado Lagoon at the heart of the tourist section back in the 60’s—a situation which has dramatically improved thanks to the work of EPA in Puerto Rico—just to name one of the Agency’s contributions to the Island’s health and environment.
During our phone call, my cousin mentioned another issue: the lack of fluoridation in the Island’s drinking water. “That’s why so many people on the Island have dental problems.” Given that her brother, my cousin, is a dentist, she had some evidence. Frankly, I had to do some research myself.
I found out that the decision to fluoridate drinking water in Puerto Rico or any other U.S. jurisdiction is a state and local decision. Our role is limited to ensuring that the concentration of fluoride in drinking water from natural or introduced sources does not exceed 4 mg/L. I found out that in 1998, Puerto Rico adopted a law to add fluoride to the water largely at the behest of the state dental association in order to promote dental health. Although the law might be on the books, currently the local utilities are not adding fluoride.
Even though I am not in a position to comment on the fluoride debate, I will urge consumers to learn more about their drinking water and to get involved! (PDF, 36 pages, 2.8 MB).
Agua potable y el fluoruro
Sobre la autor: Lina M. F. Younes ha trabajado en la EPA desde el 2002 y está a cargo del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Comunicaciones Multilingües. Como periodista, dirigió la oficina en Washington de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha laborado en varias agencias gubernamentales.
Entre mis responsabilidades como enlace hispana de EPA, frecuentemente hablo con medios hispanos. Recientemente, recibí una llamada de mi prima Lizette en Puerto Rico quien me había visto en un programa matutino de televisión hablando sobre el debate del agua del grifo y el agua embotellada. EPA establece los estándares nacionales para los contaminantes en el agua potable y la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos establece los estándares para el agua embotellada basada en los estándares de EPA.
Hablando con mi prima mencioné—“afortunadamente en EE.UU. tenemos uno de los suministros de agua potable más seguros del mundo”. Ella me indicó rápidamente—“Sí, pero en Puerto Rico tenemos muchos problemas de agua. Como puertorriqueña trabajando en EPA debes hacer más para crear conciencia sobre nuestra agua potable que no está en cumplimiento con los estándares nacionales”, amonestó. También señaló que desde el huracán Hugo en 1989 muchas personas han optado por tomar agua embotellada porque “el agua del grifo simplemente tiene mal sabor”.
Admito que la Isla tiene muchos desafíos de agua. No obstante, recuerdo las condiciones pésimas y el mal olor que emanaba de la laguna del Condado al seno del centro turístico de la Isla en los años 60—una situación que ha mejorado dramáticamente gracias a la labor de EPA en Puerto Rico—sólo un ejemplo de las muchas contribuciones de la Agencia a la salud y medio ambiente de la Isla.
Durante nuestra conversación telefónica, mi prima mencionó otro tema: la falta de fluoruración en el agua potable de Puerto Rico. “Por eso tanta gente tiene problemas dentales”. Dado a que su hermano, mi primo, es dentista, ella tiene alguna evidencia. Francamente, tuve que investigar el tema.
Encontré que la decisión de añadir fluoruro al agua potable en Puerto Rico o cualquier otra jurisdicción bajo la bandera americana recae en el estado y la localidad. Sin embargo, nuestro rol es limitado al asegurar que la concentración del fluoruro en el agua potable de fuentes potables o introducidas no debe exceder 4 mg/L. Encontré que en 1998, Puerto Rico adoptó una ley para añadir fluoruro al agua potable mayormente por el cabildeo del Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico. Sin embargo, en la actualidad los servicios de agua en la Isla no están administrando el fluoruro.
A pesar de que no estoy en posición para debatir sobre el fluoruro, insto a los consumidores a aprender más sobre el agua potable y cómo involucrarse (PDF 36 pp, 1.7 MB).
Tags: fluoridation, Spanish
| Permalink | TrackBack
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Follow us on Twitter
Question of the Week
May 30th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Editor’s note: The document cited below by the commenter was published on May 1, 1999. Time references like “now” and “recently” should be taken in that context.
WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS
OPPOSES FLUORIDATION
“Why EPA Headquarters’ Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation.”
The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.
The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride’s only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.
Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have “funky” teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.
We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.\1
Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.
In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers \2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers \3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan’s group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.
Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others \4 reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed “optimal” by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix’s finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is “seen” by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the “optimal” level of 1 ppm.
In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China\5,\6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.
Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke\7 has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston \8.
From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.
We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue\9 . The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.
The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal “trigger” mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.
Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997 \14. Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. \15a, b, c, d, e. Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.
Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.\16. The latest publication \17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.
John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important\18. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, “Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.” In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.
Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health \19, \20, \21. However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste\22. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.
In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.
So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media\23, that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America’s children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York\17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.
Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.
We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA’s risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.
The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry\24.
This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.
END NOTE LITERATURE CITATIONS
1.Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W. Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61.
2.Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995)
3. Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).
4. Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998).
5. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996)
6.. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 7. Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994).
8. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956).
9. Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW.
10. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).
11a. Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984).
11b. Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139 193-198 (1984).
11c. Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991).
11d. An increase in the number of Down’s syndrome babies born to younger mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46 (1985).
12. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992).
13. Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. National Cancer Institute in Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. F1-F7 (1991).
14. New evidence on fluoridation. Diesendorf, M., Colquhoun, J., Spittle, B.J., Everingham, D.N., and Clutterbuck, F.W. Australian and New Zealand J. Public Health. 21 187-190 (1997).
15a. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, ,T.P. et al. JAMA 264 500-502 (1990)
15b. Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. Danielson, C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992).
15c. The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2 617-626 (1992).
15d. Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly [letter]. Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273 775-776 (1995).
15e. Water fluoridation and hip fracture [letter]. Cooper, C., Wickham, C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991).
16. Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990).
17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47.
18. Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. And Medicine 41 1-16 (1997).
19. A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Limeback, H. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 62-71 (1999).
20. Fluoride supplements for young children: an analysis of the literature focussing on benefits and risks. Riordan, P.J. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 72-83 (1999).
21. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Featherstone, J.D. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 31-40 (1999).
22. Appendix H. Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. H1-H6 (1991).
23.Some young children get too much fluoride. Parker-Pope, T. Wall Street Journal Dec. 21, 1998.
24. Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983.
OTHER CITATIONS (This short list does not include the entire literature on fluoride effects)
a. Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Freni, S.C. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42 109-121 (1994)
b. Ameliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Vet. 78 75-91 (1988).
c. Milk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986).
d. Maternal-fetal transfer of fluoride in pregnant women. Calders, R., Chavine, J., Fermanian, J., Tortrat, D., and Laurent, A.M. Biol. Neonate 54 263-269 (1988).
e. Effects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Hoffman, D.J., Pattee, O.H., and Wiemeyer, S.N. Toxicol. Lett. 26 19-24 (1985).
f. Fluoride intoxication in dairy calves. Maylin, G.A., Eckerlin, R.H., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 77 84-98 (1987).
g. Fluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Holland, R.I. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 3 701-705 (1979).
h. An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Emsley, J., Jones, D.J., Miller, J.M., Overill, R.E. and Waddilove, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 24-28 (1981).
i. The effect of sodium fluoride on the growth and differentiation of human fetal osteoblasts. Song, X.D., Zhang, W.Z., Li, L.Y., Pang, Z.L., and Tan, Y.B. Fluoride 21 149-158 (1988).
j. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. Jope, R.S. J. Neurochem. 51 1731-1736 (1988).
k. The crystal structure of fluoride-inhibited cytochrome c peroxidase. Edwards, S.L., Poulos, T.L., Kraut, J. J. Biol. Chem. 259 12984-12988 (1984).
l. Intracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. Kay, A.R., Miles, R., and Wong, R.K.S. J. Neurosci. 6 2915-2920 (1986).
m. Fluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. Roholm, K. H.K. Lewis Ltd (London) (1937).
n. Toxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Isaacson, R.L., Varner, J.A., and Jensen, K. F. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 825 152-166 (1997).
o. Allergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Spittle, B. Fluoride 26 267-273 (1993)
http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
[Reply]
May 30th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Thank you for taking the time to provide the research paper in response to my blog entry. As I mentioned in my blog, I am not in a position to comment on the fluoride debate and that as a result of my conversation with my cousin, I had to do some fact-finding myself since I assumed, erroneously I might add, that all drinking water was fluoridated.
I hope that this entry will produce additional comments from a diversity of viewpoints. We can all benefit from this cyber-debate.
Spanish version–Gracias por tomar el tiempo en brindar este informe en respuesta a mi entrada en el blog. Como mencioné, no estoy en una posición para comentar sobre el debate sobre el fluoruro y que como resultado de mi conversación con mi prima, tuve que investigar el asunto ya que creía, equivocadamente debo hacer notar, que a toda el agua potable se le echaba fluoruro.
Espero que su entrada al blog genere comentarios adicionales de una diversidad de puntos de vista. Todos podemos sacar provecho de este debate cibernético.
[Reply]
June 1st, 2008 at 5:53 am
After researching “Floride” I’m no longer wondering if floride caused many of the problems I have with my bones and other health issues. I grew up in one of the first citys in America that put floride in our drinking water. I started breaking bones when I was 3 years old. I’ve broke my arms 9 times, my back twice, my foot 3times and my tailbone twice. I still have dental problems so it didn’t help there either. My orthopedist said he had trouble fixing my breaks because my bones were honeycombed inside. (at age 17) Then, I found there was a study that came out after 40 years that said “That floride may of hurt some childrens bones it still helped the majority of them with dental problems.” I wish they would quit messing with nature. My body is racked with pain when I try to move. I’m only 52 old. I grew up in Wyoming, Michigan in the U.S.A.
[Reply]
August 28th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Hmm interesting wording on the “natural and introduced sources.”
Would the introduced sources be refering to the fluoride from aluminum and fertilizer/pesticide producers that wish to publically pollute our water supply to off load their waste by-products so they don’t have to pay for its storage???
I’m opposed to fluoride.. because it is a personal choice, and my well water supply is being contaminated from the surrounding area’s mandatory fluoridated public water supply in Omaha, NE.
fluoridealert.org
[Reply]
August 29th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I find that flouride can only be beneficial to your dental care, but if it means sacrificing brain and kidney functionality is there really a question of what’s right?
[Reply]
November 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I can thank the members of the EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists and Senior Vice President, Dr. Bill Hirzy for educating me about the causes of my own health issues of the last 25 years. I can also thank http://www.FluorideAlert.org for its incredible database of information about this issue. Upon switching to distilled drinking water, I noticed better health within one week. I have now gone over one year with no sickness or health problems whatsoever. I’ve studied the issue very closely, and spoken with experts in toxicology who have studied the issue and science of fluoridation independently of political and commercial influence. Knowing what I now know, I would not use tap water nor would I use fluoride toothpaste. I have now become an activist to end the madness of fluoridation in the United States and hopefully the world. The idea of introducing a highly toxic, non-approved drug into public drinking water without public consent or prescribed dose is not only illegal, it is one more cause of the multiple health issues facing Americans from exposure to chemical substances that cause biological damage to our bodies. The ultimate insult to us is that the fluoride used in our water systems is taken from the pollution left over from the fertilizer industry. In other words, the public is charged for the convenient disposal of what would otherwise be an expensive disposal problem for industry. Stopping this practice is as simple as turning it off. However, there are many professionals whose careers depend upon maintaining the myth of fluoride’s safety. Getting the dental industry, the CDC, and the ADA to admit their mistake is proving to be quite difficult. The scientific research concerning fluoride’s adverse health effects continues to gather, and someday this practice will go the way of leaded gasoline and healthy smoking.
[Reply]
January 9th, 2009 at 2:45 am
I have now become an activist to end the madness of fluoridation in the United States and hopefully the world. The idea of introducing a highly toxic, non-approved drug into public drinking water without public consent or prescribed dose is not only illegal, it is one more cause of the multiple health issues facing Americans from exposure to chemical substances that cause biological damage to our bodies.
[Reply]