| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | CONCLUSION |
| INTRODUCTION | FLUORIDE CHRONOLOGY 1989-1997 |
| NEW DATA -- INCREASED RISK | CHRONOLOGY REFERENCES |
| ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS | REFERENCES FOR OPENING REMARKS |
| PEOPLE AT HIGH RISK OF FLUORIDE TOXICITY | APPENDIX I (people susceptible to fluoride toxicity) |
| DENTAL FLUOROSIS PANDEMIC | APPENDIX II (scientific debate discouraged) |
| SYSTEMIC versus TOPICAL FLUORIDE | APPENDIX III (suppression & persecution) |
New scientific research obliged fluoride promoters to relinquish their fifty-year-old unproven hypothesis that ingesting fluoride in the early tooth-forming years provided huge benefits to teeth. A significant paradigm shift has thus occurred in dentistry over fluoride's cariostatic role.
Recent large studies show little or no statistically significant and/or clinically relevant differences in decay rates of permanent teeth. According to fluoridation proponents' own literature, the impressive-sounding large percentage reductions in tooth decay that they claim for fluoridation, is a lifetime benefit of less than one tooth surface per child, or a fraction of one cavity.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists take stand against fluoridation, citing the preponderance of evidence which shows increased health risks (see Chronology).
Fluoride is one of the most bone-seeking elements known to man. Even "low" doses of fluoride intake is increasingly being linked to bone damage.
- Hip fracture rates in seniors are rising in fluoridated areas and are increasing more rapidly than can be accounted for by an aging population.
- Two studies show increased osteosarcomas in children (a rare, often fatal bone cancer).
- New radiographic techniques show bone abnormalities in children with dental fluorosis (the teeth are a window to what is happening in the bones.
- Bone abnormalities are seen in aborted fetuses born to mothers with dental fluorosis.
World Health Organization warns that ingesting 2.0 - 8.0 mg of fluoride per day (as little as 2 litres of fluoridated water) can lead to the pre-clinical stage (arthritis-like symptoms) of skeletal fluorosis (a crippling bone disease).
Animal studies show that low doses of fluoride causes brain damage -- indicative of a potentialfor motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in people. Human studies also show that fluoride has negative effects on the brain.
Recently declassified information from the Manhattan Project in the U.S. revealed that scientists were aware of the adverse neurological impacts of fluoride in 1944!
Seniors and people with poor nutrition or chronic illness are most susceptible to fluoride toxicity.
Due to the ubiquitous nature of fluoride in an ever-increasing fluoridated society, dental fluorosis rates in children are now pandemic. Promoters claim that fluoridation is responsible for about 40% of present fluorosis levels. Foods and beverages manufactured in fluoridated areas add to fluoride intake, even in unfluoridated areas. Fluoride-containing pesticides on fruits especially, add to a child's intake as does toothpaste ingestion.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration recognises increased risk to children who inadvertently swallow fluoridated toothpaste and requires all manufacturers to provide strong guidelines and poison warnings on packages.
It is impossible to control the daily dose of fluoride because individual water intake varies widely. Fluoridation violates medical ethics which require informed consent before treatment and individual prescription and supervision.
Studies show that fluoride may decrease birth rates in women and sperm motility in men.
The fluoridating chemical is an industrial waste product contaminated with heavy metals.
Together with increased sales for home water filters -- reverse osmosis or distillation removes fluoride -- sales for pure pristine bottled water (most don't contain fluoride) have skyrocketed in the last few years. In the province of Alberta, there are over 200 bottled water companies. A significant percentage of Calgary offices, including the Aldermanic and Mayor's offices, now provide their employees and clients with fluoride-free bottled water. Bottled water is available in almost every bar, restaurant, corner store, supermarket, etc. In Canada, sales for Spring Water (this probably doesn't include distilled or reverse-osmosis water), increased from 289 million litres in 1989 to 485 million litres in 1995. The percentage of people drinking bottled and/or home-filtered water may be significantly higher in Alberta than in a state like Pennsylvania where there are probably only five or six companies selling bottled water. It is also common knowledge that less than 1.0% of fluoridated water is ingested. The rest is flushed down the drain and used to fight fires, wash cars, fill swimming pools, etc. Ever-increasing amounts of fluoride enters our ecosystem in one way or another. If one considers increased health risks, escalating bottled and/or filtered water consumption (see footnote A), the tiny proportion of water used for drinking and cooking, and the fact that fluoride is a bioaccumulator, the following question begs an answer:
is it logical for the city of Calgary to continue dumping 755 tonnes of heavy metal-contaminated hydrofluosilicic acid (25% fluoride) into our environment every year?
The New Municipal Government Act empowers Council to stop fluoridation without plebiscite. However, if Council is reluctant to invoke that power, or if they decide not to hold a plebiscite despite the considerable new evidence presented in this submission, they have the moral obligation, and perhaps a legal duty, to issue a strongly-worded health advisory to those people who are at the greatest risk of fluoride toxicity. The most vulnerable subsets of our population at risk have been identified by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR excerpt in APPENDIX I).
BONES: the results of more than five epidemiological studies indicate increased hip fractures in both naturally and artificially fluoridated areas. The incidence of hip fracture is also increasing more rapidly than can be accounted for by aging of the population. Tragically, fluoride promoters' fervent belief in fluoridation generally precludes serious discussion when new data establishes increased risk (see Appendix II and related references). These studies are dismissed by proponents because they are ecological in design. This means that exposure and disease information is available for groups of people in specific geographical regions but not for the individuals themselves. Therefore, promoters say that study findings may be acausal (a chance occurrence, possibly due to lifestyle or environment) rather than caused by fluoride. While this is a legitimate criticism of all ecological studies, promoters forget this is a two-way street -- the many small, mostly non-randomised surveys from which they claim benefits to teeth, even if assumed valid, are also ecological studies. The fluoride-fracture link is not only plausible, but highly probable given the evidence in animal and human studies.
Many studies undeniably prove that fluoride's cumulative effect on bone is devastating. It is well known that chronic ingestion of fluoride can cause osteofluorosis or skeletal fluorosis (crippling bone disease). This evidence has been reported in at least nine studies from five countries (contrary to promoters' denials, this occurs even at relatively "low" water fluoride levels). Moreover, according to the World Health Organization, individuals consuming between 2.0 - 8.0 mg of fluoride/day (2-8 litres of fluoridated water), can develop the pre-clinical symptoms of skeletal fluorosis (arthritis-like symptoms), which is only radiographically detectable by an expert. As recently reported by the U.S. PHS, many women living in fluoridated communities are now ingesting up to 6.6 mg of fluoride per day, a crippling dose for some if maintained (see graph, Appendix III)!
It is widely recognised that fluoride "therapy" for osteoporosis adds mass to bones but produces inferior bone -- at least seven studies found structural abnormalities or mineralization defects. In short, the biomechanical competence of the skeleton may be compromised because the tensile (elasticity) strength of bone is sacrificed. These studies not only show that fluoride may cause increased skeletal fragility (more non-vertebral fractures such as hip), but that it can lead to osteomalacia (another bone disease). The relevance to fluoridation is: short-term high-dose fluoride studies show the same amount of fluoride accumulates in the bones of osteoporosis patients as would be found in some people who are chronically exposed to long-term "low" doses of fluoride (such as in fluoridated areas). People with renal insufficiency, for example, can incorporate four times more fluoride into bone than an average healthy individual.
Evidence of more bone damage is seen in a New Jersey Department of Health study, a U.S. National Cancer Institute study [see footnote B], a U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) rodent study (see Appendix III & Chronology), and a Polish study which examined the bones of children with dental fluorosis using new radiographic techniques. The two epidemiological studies found increased osteosarcoma rates in young men in fluoridated areas. Osteosarcoma is a rare bone cancer which mostly originates in the growing end of bones. It is more prevalent among young males 10-19 years of age and seems to occur 1.4 times more often in males than in females. Girls are at risk at an earlier age because their adolescent growth spurt occurs before that of boys. The NTP animal study found dose-related occurrences of osteosarcomas in male rats. Polish scientists discovered bone abnormalities in male children with fluorosis. How much evidence must accumulate before authorities here acknowledge what many foreign scientists have already done years ago -- fluoride is one of the most bone-seeking elements known to man and long-term ingestion is toxic to bones even in the so-called "low" doses.
NEUROLOGICAL: Phyllis Mullenix, who founded the toxicology department at Forsyth Dental Centre (an affiliate of Harvard University), and a pharmacologist and toxicologist by training, found that fluoride did not just accumulate in bones but crossed the blood-brain barrier and accumulated in the brain, once thought to be relatively impermeable to fluoride. Like Dr. Marcus, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist, Dr. Mullenix was fired from her position when she spoke out about fluoride's health risks (see Chronology Appendix II and Appendix III). The Mullenix study also dovetails with reports from China where skeletal fluorosis is endemic. The studies showed that fluoride negatively affects the central nervous system before skeletal fluorosis was evident (see brain.htm & Chronology for more detail). Recently declassified documents from the Manhattan Project, revealed that U.S. scientists were aware of the adverse neurological effects of fluoride in 1944!
On one summer day in Calgary, Alberta 800,000 people used 842 million litres of water. Even if one was generous in calculating average intake -- 4.0 L/person x 800,000=3.2 million litres -- over 838 kilograms of fluoride was flushed into our environment in one day! Given current regulations, no fluoride-emitting industry in Canada is allowed to pollute our ecosystem with so much fluoride.
Both the EPA and Environment Canada recognises that fluoride is a difficult-to-treat and toxic pollutant. The same concentration of fluoride added to water for "preventing" cavities (1.0 ppm=1.0 mg/L), has lethal effects on aquatic life such as salmon. More evidence of damage is given in a recent Canadian governmental review. The data contained therein, allows one to estimate the quantities of inorganic fluorides which are released by fluoridating. The amount is second to that released by phosphate fertilizer producers -- the largest fluoride polluters in Canada. It is these very industries which provide the heavy metal-contaminated (mercury, lead, etc.) industrial waste used for fluoridating. Is it reasonable to put industrial waste in drinking water?
The Canadian reviewers admit that fluorides are entering the environment in quantities harmful to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Fluoride is released in sufficient amounts to damage crops, animals, plants, etc., yet according to the reviewers, it is "harmless" to humans. Common sense requires an answer: is it logical to assume that human beings are less sensitive to environmental toxins than plants, animals, or fish? A healthy immune system will protect us somewhat, but cumulative toxins like fluoride take their toll over time -- both in the environment and in our body. Despite some excellent sections on fluoride's ecotoxicity, Dr. Richard Foulkes, former special consultant to B.C.'s Minister of Health commented that once again: "...the politics of fluoridation have preempted objectivity and science."
The fluoride which still remains in sewage after treatment (about 50-75%), like heavy metals, will accumulate in farmers' fields which have the sludge applied as fertilizer. Fluoride also remains in sediments downstream from a fluoridating community for about 1-2 million years. There are a number of reasons to doubt the veracity of promoters' statements that fluoride is not a threat to aquatic life downstream from a fluoridating city. For reasons of time and space, these have not been expanded on. Please feel free to contact the author for more information.
Scientific studies have proven that fluoride allergy and/or intolerance exists. Others show that fluoride may have negative effects on the reproductive and immune systems, and the brain. Despite these new studies, many fluoridation promoters cling to the notion that indiscriminate fluoride ingestion is safe for everyone, regardless of age, nutritional status, medical conditions, or weight. The double standard is obvious -- no other drug, vitamin, herb, or mineral is privy to such a claim! Some Calgary promoters even claimed that fluoride was an "essential nutrient", a claim which is rejected by the U.S. Public Health Services, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Academy of Sciences.
In 1977, scientists at Canada's National Research Council, recognized that some people are unusually susceptible to fluoride toxicity. In a recent toxicological review of fluorides, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) validated what our scientists said so long ago. Those people at risk from daily fluoride ingestion are individuals with cardiovascular and kidney problems, the elderly, and people with nutritional deficiencies such as calcium, magnesium and vitamin C. (ATSDR excerpt in Appendix I). The kidney is the major organ which clears fluoride from the body. Its function decreases with age and seniors thus retain more fluoride. Diabetics are also at risk. Individuals with inadequate nutrition are at risk because nutrients like calcium bind with fluoride, increasing its excretion rate and limiting its uptake into bone and teeth. Research also reveals that chronic fluoride intake creates a greater metabolic need for calcium, an element critical for healthy bones and teeth. It is ironic that the people who promoters claim will benefit the most -- poor children -- are at higher risk due to inadequate nutrition. Not surprisingly, they also have higher fluorosis rates.
Fluorosis occurs in up to 69.2% of Canadian children, a 59.2% increase from 1945. The escalating occurrence and increased severity of fluorosis -- porous hypomineralized enamel characterized by chalky-white spots/streaks, "snow-capping", and/or brown pits -- is so serious a problem that some authorities are advocating the elimination of fluoride supplements and the use of a "pea-sized" portion of toothpaste. Less than 16% of eligible children in unfluoridated areas take supplements so this is not a significant factor in rising rates. Even if a "pea-sized" portion is used, many children cannot and/or do not spit fluoride out. Yummy-tasting bubblegum-flavoured paste is especially inviting for children. It is well known that children swallow inordinate amounts of fluoride from toothpaste, until about age five, because their spitting mechanism is not fully developed. In the 1950s when fluoridated toothpaste was marketed, authorities recognised that the simultaneous consumption of fluoride from toothpaste and water put children at risk. The following warning was printed on fluoridated paste:
"CAUTION: children under 6 should not use CREST"
This produced a problem. If the public recognised that fluoridated toothpaste put children at risk, they might think that fluoridation was risky, or, at best, redundant given the easy availability of toothpaste. Many people had staked their reputation on fluoridation's alleged safety and benefits and were not about to backtrack. Something had to be done. In the end, some individuals reversed their original opinion and started advocating fluoridated water and fluoridated toothpaste for everyone. Even though no studies had been done proving safety, the warning disappeared off tubes shortly before the American Dental Association endorsed Proctor and Gamble's (P&G) Crest toothpaste in 1960. P&G stock skyrocketed by $8 a share. Coincidence?
Almost forty years after the first warning was dropped, after much consultation, study, and thousands of reports to the U.S. Poison Control Centres involving fluoride products, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put manufacturers on notice. To protect children, manufacturers must now comply with stringent labelling regulations (see Chronology-Year 1997). It's noteworthy to mention that if fluoridated toothpaste was introduced today, it would never be allowed on the market by Health Canada or the FDA, because of its known toxicity and risks.
Babies should not receive fluoride supplements, according to Canadian and U.S. authorities. Those born in fluoridated areas are not so lucky and are at significant risk. Although they don't receive suppements, when powdered formula is reconstituted with fluoridated water, babies ingest more fluoride than the alleged upper "optimal" limit of 0.07 mg/kg body mass (a dose which has never been scientifically determined). Their fluoride intakes are up to 200 times that of nursing infants. They ingest an adult's equivalent of about 7.0 mg/day!
Most fluoride proponents are preoccupied with fluoride's "benefits", rather than the biological or histopathological effects. They dismiss fluorosis as a "cosmetic effect" of no consequence to health. They are oblivious to the fact that fluorosis connotes fluoride toxicity far more important than mere dental disfigurement. According to Dr. J. Colquhoun, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, N.Z.: "the claim that only tooth-forming cells are damaged by fluoride is extremely implausible, contrary to common sense, and can be disputed on scientific grounds. There is evidence of more general harm." Fluorosis is a frank sign of fluoride over-dose in childhood. It is an indicator that the destructive effects of fluoride are occurring in bone, connective tissue, immune and enzyme functions. Due to the porosity of moderate-to-severe fluorotic enamel, its structural integrity is compromised and post-eruptive damage ensues. The longer the tooth is in the mouth, the more severe the damage becomes. Stains increase with time. Parts of enamel often break away leaving teeth with round pits. Loss of the outermost enamel can occur and tooth surfaces rapidly wear down. Even in milder forms, fluorosed enamel is subject to surface attrition.
Fluorosis is permanent; it's often problematic for appearance-conscious teens; and, it can be expensive to fix (probably not an option for underprivileged children). Research reveals that there is no safe threshold below which the effects of fluoride will not be manifest on enamel. While fluoridated toothpaste is an important contributor to fluorosis incidence and level of severity, water-borne fluoride is a significant factor even in unfluoridated areas -- products produced in fluoridated areas (pops, juices, etc.) are sold in unfluoridated areas. To protect our children, the logical course of action should be to recommend fluoride-free toothpaste for the first 4-5 years of life, and the cessation of fluoridation -- the fastest easiest method of reaching most children at risk.
Throughout five decades, fantastic claims were made by fluoride proponents about "stronger" teeth (more acid-resistant) in fluoridated areas or in those children who took supplements. Decay was reduced by up to 70% they claimed. New analytical techniques and scientific research obliged promoters to relinquish their fifty-year-old unproven hypothesis -- that fluoride's cariostatic action was systemic (i.e., had to be incorporated into developing enamel by ingestion). Dental researchers now believe that fluoride's action is topical (i.e., acts on the surface of teeth, not from inside the body). Promoters say that by applying high concentrations of fluoride (e.g., toothpaste) to the surface of teeth when an incipient lesion is developing (initial stage of decay before enamel is breached), enamel is remineralized and lesions are "healed". In other words, according to the promoters, even topical fluoride is redundant for people not at risk of tooth decay -- the majority of us (footnote C).
This is underscored by the fact that some dental researchers now concede that a professionally- applied treatment in the dental office is superfluous unless the patient demonstrates caries activity at the time of the visit or is at high risk of decay. How many patients open their wallets twice per year for their fluoride treatment, not realizing that it's worthless? How many parents know that the fluoride treatments young children receive are potentially lethal? Why has dentistry not been more forthcoming on this? While promoters say that there is evidence to support the use of high concentrations of fluoride for some people, there is also evidence which shows that decay levels were on a downward trend globally, before fluoridated toothpaste captured the lion's share of the market. Moreover, there is sound evidence that the magnitude of benefits attributed to topical fluoride by dentistry, was vastly overblown (see references, especially the Rand Corporation reports). Finally, studies long ago revealed that enamel can remineralize without fluoride. Even in the presence of fluoride, oral hygiene must be good and saliva must be more alkaline (diet affects pH) for incipient lesions to remineralize.
When fluoride promoters themselves start to question the inadequate standards of their own dental research that, for example, led to the uncritical use and acceptance of fluoride supplements, as was recently published, it's appropriate to take a closer look at the newest unproven dental hypothesis for the "benefits" of fluoridation.. Since fluoride's cariostatic role is topical, according to the researchers, rather than systemic, the logical corollary to this would be that fluoridation is redundant. But wait, promoters now believe that fluoridation has topical benefits! Fluoridated water, they say, increases the fluoride content of saliva and plaque; thereby providing demineralizing enamel with a constant fluoride source to "heal" incipient lesions. Important omissions of fact are as follows:
According to the researchers themselves, the science of this theory is beset by analytical problems, confounding, lacking data on diet, plaque microbiology, individuals' oral hygiene habits and the fluctuating intra-oral conditions known to occur.
A recent epidemiological study of caries prediction in New York children, showed no differences between saliva fluoride levels in low or high-fluoride areas. In fact, the effect on salivary fluoride levels of drinking fluoridated water is detectable only when fluoride in water reaches about 2.0 ppm, twice the recommended level. Fluoridated toothpastes, however, elevate salivary fluoride levels to several hundred ppm for several minutes after brushing.
Another study measured plaque fluoride in naval recruits. No significant differences in fluoride levels were found between those coming from fluoridated or non-fluoridated areas.
Fluoride proponents readily admit that there are many studies on supplements, but "...few meet the standards for acceptable clinical trials." For those that allegedly do, cariostatic benefit "... is marginal at best..." Supplements are used in unfluoridated areas to mimic fluoridation, so if their own data show no relevant benefit, how is ingesting fluoridated water different?
Fluoridation proponents also readily admit that the little benefit they find in a few isolated studies, is a lifetime benefit of less than one tooth surface per child (a fraction of a cavity).
Recent Canadian studies and the1986/87 U.S. survey of 39,000 children, show no statistically significant and/or clinically relevant benefit to childrens' permanent teeth in fluoridated areas. U.S. data reveal that the children living in the least fluoridated region (Pacific) had the highest percentage of decay-free rates than those living in the most fluoridated region (Midwest).
Large reductions in decay rates have taken place in non-fluoridated areas world-wide. Less than 1% of Western Europe is fluoridated yet rates are comparable to ours. Less than 10% of B.C. is fluoridated, yet decay rates are impressively low.
Dental research shows that most tooth decay (about 83%) occurs in pits and fissures (e.g., grooves in molars). According to dental authorities, pit and fissure decay is not prevented by fluoride intake. It's prevented by sealants, a procedure now routinely performed in dental offices.
There are no human studies which prove that 1.0 ppm fluoridated water has topical effects.
There are no animal studies proving 1.0 ppm fluoridated water has systemic or topical benefits.
No other agent which is deliberately added to food or water poses the degree of risk that fluoride does. The evidence clearly shows that fluoride damages bone and that fluorosis rates are pandemic. Even if we believed the new claim that 1.0 ppm fluoridation has topical benefits, it would be minuscule compared to the claimed effects for 1,000-1500 ppm fluoridated toothpastes. The cost of implementing and/or maintaining fluoridation to maybe obtain minuscule benefit, is ludicrous. Cavities are not fatal, nor expensive to repair. Both osteosarcoma in young children and hip fracture in the elderly are potentially fatal and can significantly increase health care costs. What we don't know is the degree of risk for other health concerns such as the reproductive system (fluoride affects birth rates, sperm motility and testosterone levels), immune system, and the central nervous system (brain). Due to the fact that there are increased risks for these other health effects, albeit uncertain as to the degree, it is incumbent upon Council to protect the public. They can vote to halt fluoridation without going to the electorate; or, they can pass a by-law for another fluoridation plebiscite to be held with the 1998 election. One would think that Council has the moral obligation, and perhaps a legal duty, to issue a strongly-worded health advisory to those people who are at the greatest risk of fluoride toxicity. They have been identified by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (see Appendix I).
BOGUS "ADEQUATE INTAKE" (AI) published by the National Academy of Sciences is based on selected references and biased manipulations of information. Daily fluoride intake for adults in a fluoridated community is alleged to be 1.4-3.4 mg, a level not supported by a Health Canada survey or by the U.S. PHS. It's much higher. Important omissions are frequent -- recent evidence of increased bone cancers, hip fractures, neurotoxicity, etc. are not discussed.
NAS also alleges that daily fluoride intake has not increased in the '90s from that of the '50s, a statement which defies common sense and contradicts recent research. The report alleges that .05 mg/kg fluoride is an "optimal" (a figure which has never been scientifically determined), and "AI" intake for everyone, regardless of age, weight, nutritional status or illness. They allege that this level is below the threshold for causing moderate dental fluorosis (1) -- a claim which is not accepted by knowledgable scientists familiar with the dose-response relationship and the histopathology and chemistry of fluorosed enamel. According to one prominent researcher, "...there exists no 'critical' value below which the effect of fluoride on dental enamel will not be manifest."
(2)
In other words, contrary to unfounded assertions by NAS, there is no "safe" level of fluoride intake.
FLUORIDE POISON WARNINGS, mandated by the U.S. FDA, appear on fluoridated toothpaste tubes -- "If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately." And, "Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age." Children under two should not use fluoridated paste say the warnings. (3)
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN SWALLOW TOO MUCH FLUORIDE from toothpaste because most don't (or can't) rinse or spit after brushing. (4), (5)
FLUORIDE TOXICITY INCREASED in diabetic rats. Confirms past findings in humans. (6)
DECREASED BONE STRENGTH found in fluoride-treated rabbits. (7)
EPA SCIENTISTS TAKE STAND AGAINST FLUORIDATION -- "Our members review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children."(8)
BABIES AT INCREASED RISK -- excessive fluoride found in infant foods say researchers.(9)
FLUOROSIS RISK INCREASED for children when fluoride intake is coupled with low calcium intake, high protein diets, residence at high altitudes, or when they have metabolic/respiratory disorders. (10)
NEGLIGIBLE BENEFIT/HIGH RISK to children on fluoride supplements. The researcher questioned the standards of dental science because "...supplements have been recommended uncritically for many years on the basis of inadequate research..." (11)
NEGLIGIBLE BENEFIT for lifetime exposure to fluoridated water -- between 0.12 and 0.30 decayed, missing, filled, surfaces (DMFS) less per child. There are over 100 tooth surfaces in permanent teeth. (12)
EXCESSIVE FLUORIDE FOUND IN JUICES -- children ingest too much fluoride and are at increased risk of fluorosis say ADA researchers. (13)
INCREASED FLUORIDE TOXICITY/REDUCED BONE STRENGTH found in renal-deficient rats. (14)
DECREASED MENTAL ACUITY found in children in areas with medium or severe prevalence of dental fluorosis compared to children in areas with a low incidence. Other studies confirm that fluoride affects the central nervous system (CNS) without first causing skeletal fluorosis, and that a higher concentration of fluoride is found in embryonic brain tissue in areas where fluorosis is prevalent. (15)
NEUROTOXICITY FOUND in fluoride-treated rats. Fluoride penetrates the blood-brain barrier and accumulates in brain, raising new concerns about its effect on the CNS. The authors say that "...a generic behavioral pattern disruption as found in this study can be indicative of a potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans." (16) Earlier research showing that fluoride was associated with memory impairment and diminished mental acuity can no longer be ignored now given both the human and laboratory research. (17)
86% INCREASED RISK OF HIP FRACTURES for seniors where water contained between 0.11 and 1.83 ppm fluoride, compared to those in areas with < 0.11 ppm. The results were statistically significant and were corrected for individual risk factors. (18)
INFANTS INGESTING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE from all sources says researcher. In a stunning admission, fluoridation proponent also admits that no one knows what the "optimal" fluoride intake is because it has never been scientifically determined. (19)
DECREASED BONE QUALITY found in fluoride-treated rats. (20)
DECREASED BONE STRENGTH found in fluoride-treated rats. (21)
PATHOLOGICAL BONE CHANGES found in aborted fetuses caused by maternal fluoride intake. (22)
DECREASED BONE STRENGTH found in fluoride-treated pigs. (23)
DIABETIC CHILDREN AT INCREASED RISK of developing moderate to severe dental fluorosis in "optimally" fluoridated areas. (24)
NO BENEFIT FOUND for fluoridated water in study of 12-year-old children. (25)
INTUITION USED TO PREDICT FLUORIDE BENEFITS say Health Canada's (HC) researchers (appendix III). "Predicting effectiveness of a fluoride regime" is often not used when "empirically based calculations" are available, but intuition is! They say that the high percent reductions claimed for fluoridation (mostly by Public Health officials) are frequently "misleading" and are often "...a clinically unimportant actual reduction in DMFT or DMFS saved [decayed, missing, filled teeth/surfaces]." They also admit that recent Canadian studies show no statistically significant differences in decay rates between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. Moreover, they admit that many studies have "deficiencies" and lack "rigor".
(26)
Despite the concessions, HC's pro-fluoride researchers desperately cling to studies, with high per cent reductions, as providing "...a weight of evidence that has not been refuted for over forty years." (26) What they ignore is that many studies have been criticised by scientists (even by proponents) for methodology, overly optimistic or "intuitive" reporting, etc. Several studies show little or no statistically significant differences in decay rates; some show high fluoride intake is linked to more cavities; some show other factors may be responsible for differences, etc.
(27-40)
REDUCED BONE QUALITY & STRENGTH in osteoporosis study. (41) Others show that bone formed with high fluoride intake is abnormal and compromises the biomechanical competence of the skeleton. (42)
DECREASED BIRTHS linked to fluoride levels (> or =3.0 ppm). (43) Fluoride's negative effects on the reproductive system are documented elsewhere. (44)
HIGH FLUORIDE -- HIGH DECAY RATES Children with low-calcium/high-fluoride intake had more decay! Largest study on decay in the world. (45)
EPA TOXICOLOGIST WINS COURT BATTLE after he was fired for criticised the EPA for its acceptance of a National Toxicology Program report on fluoride and cancer (see appendix III and Year 1990).
NEGLIGIBLE BENEFIT-HIGH RISK to children on supplements, says longtime fluoridation proponent, Dr. B. Burt. They should be eliminated because the evidence of benefit, is "marginal at best," and the risk of developing fluorosis is high. (46)
NO DENTAL BENEFIT FOUND The 26,000-children survey confirmed an earlier finding (47) -- "the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities....." (48)
HIGH FLUORIDE -- HIGH DECAY RATES -- research collected in 1987 from World Health Organization's data banks, contradict earlier claims of a beneficial relationship between water fluoride levels and cavity prevalence. (49)
CHILDREN BLAMED FOR FLUOROSIS. Dental propaganda about fluorosed teeth being "aesthetically pleasing" and not noticeable by laypeople, debunked. The majority of 3,000 observers thought children with moderate to severe fluorosis neglected their teeth. This means children with fluorosis are wrongly stigmatized for their "dirty-looking" teeth. (50) Personal experience with my childrens' fluorosis also reflects this finding.
FLUORIDE POLLUTION HARMS WILDLIFE says Environment Canada. (51)
FLUORIDATION SAFE & EFFECTIVE say promoters. (52) The objectivity of the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) panel and the validity of its conclusions, especially regarding dental fluorosis, is questioned by EPA scientist Dr. William Hirzy. (53)
"PROPAGANDA MASQUERADING AS SCIENCE" says Dr. Bob Carton, environmental scientist and former 20-year EPA employee. He charges that both the NRC and the National Academy of Sciences, appear on fluoridation endorsement lists; and, several of its panel members received grant money from government and the fluoride industry (see political explanations-Appendix II).
BRAIN DAMAGE AND BEHAVIOR CHANGES found in rats exposed to aluminum and fluoride. (54)
FLUORIDE KILLS THREE PEOPLE. (55)
BAN FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS says U.S. Assemblyman, John Kelly, after the Food and Drug Administration admitted that they have no studies proving the drug is safe or effective for children. (56)
FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS NOT RECOMMENDED for Canadian children not at risk of tooth decay (the majority) and less than 3 years old, says Dr. Clark, a fluoride proponent. He also challenged the long-held theory that systemic fluoride prevents tooth decay. Topical fluoride (eg.. 1,000 ppm toothpaste) he said, may "remineralize" small carious lesions after they are formed. Dr. Clark admits that individuals with a low incidence of cavities, would see "...little or no additional benefits" from topical treatments. (57)
ABNORMAL BONE & BODY CHEMISTRY CHANGES found in boys with dental fluorosis. Could be signs of retarded growth, say Polish scientists. Boys without the fluorosis, had healthy bone structure. (58)
FLUORIDE IS GENOTOXIC (damaging to chromosomes) at low concentrations of 1.0-5.0 ppm. (59)
FLUORIDE INHIBITS LEUCOCYTES (immune system cells). The immune system is our first line of defence against bacteria, viruses, etc. (60)
CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE linked to fluoride in drinking water. (61)
INCREASED HIP FRACTURE RATES IN FLUORIDATED AREA -- "...fluoride accumulates with age and may reach toxic bone levels...." (62)
FLUORIDE KILLS AGAIN -- One man died and dozens fell violently ill from acute fluoride poisoning, due to malfunctioning equipment. (63)
EPIGASTRIC PAIN CAUSED BY FLUORIDE (64)
INCREASED BONE CANCER in fluoridated areas says New Jersey Department of Health study -- a 3 to 7-fold increase in young males. (65)
INCREASED BONE FRACTURES & BONE LOSS found in women in naturally fluoridated areas, unrelated to varying calcium levels in water. (66)
INCREASED HIP FRACTURES -- significant correlation found with fluoride levels in water. (67)
"SAFETY" AND "BENEFIT" REAFFIRMED by promotion organization. (68) Committee members were comprised of known pro-fluoridationists. (69)
FLUORIDE-CONTAINING PESTICIDES ADD TO INTAKE -- juices, especially grape juice contain up to 6.80 ppm fluoride. (70)
INCREASED SKELETAL FRAGILITY -- non-vertebral fractures up 3-fold. (71)
BONE CANCERS IN FLUORIDATED RATS -- classified as "equivocal" by an NTP panel. (72) However, oral tumors and a rare liver cancer were suspiciously down-graded by the panel, said Dr. Marcus, chief toxicologist, in a memo to EPA superiors. There is "...at least some evidence or clear evidence of [fluoride's] carcinogenicity." (73) A board-certified pathologist and former consultant to the EPA, agreed with the original liver cancer diagnosis. He was the first to discover, classify, and publish findings on the rare liver tumour.
(73)
In a subsequent independent evaluation, Dr. Edward Calabrese, toxicology professor, said: "the fact that fluoride is a potential mutagen/clastogen [and] concentrates in the bone...suggests that...the linkage of the site of deposition and biological activity with bone cancer outcome all speak to the plausibility issue"; therefore, the "equivocal" rating by the NTP panel is "inappropriate." (74)
NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT to fluoridation for permanent teeth. Data was presented for 39,207 children. (75)
INCREASED HIP FRACTURES found in fluoride-treated patients. (76)
INADEQUATE AND INFERIOR EVIDENCE used to justify fluoride mouthrinse program (touted as a highly effective decay preventative), say researchers. (77)
NO CORRELATION between the availability of fluoridated water and toothpaste and decay rates. (78)
INCREASED HIP FRACTURES linked to fluoridated areas (79)
INCREASED HIP FRACTURES found in fluoride-treated Osteoporosis patients. (80)
NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FLUORIDE AND DECAY RATES found in a 6,584 children survey. (81)
A request for another fluoridation plebiscite from a Calgary high school class was received by City Council. The class was coached by Calgary Health Services (CHS). Impressionable teenagers were taught that antifluoridationists are "saviours of their fellow men" who "seem motivated by distrust of government and alientation [sic] from the scientific establishment"; and, who "may also defend themselves against 'forcible entry' of any perceived 'foreign body' -- whether it [sic] fluoridation, vaccination, a mental health proposal or interracial contact."
Council votes to have another plebiscite (the fifth since the 1960s)
CHS uses $50,000 in public funds to promote the "benefits" and "safety" of fluoridation.
Calgarians vote in favor of fluoridation in October 1989 (implemented August 7,1991)
POSTSCRIPT (11/26/97): many of the references below have been linked to the abstracts available on this web site
NOTE: Dr. Colquhoun is an Honourary Research Fellow at the University of Auckland, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, NZ and former president of the Fluoridation Promotion Society.
Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems.
Because fluoride is excreted through the kidney, people with renal insufficiency would have impaired renal clearance of fluoride (Juncos and Donadio 1972). Fluoride retention on a low-protein, low-calcium, and low phosphorus diet was 65% in patients with chronic renal failure, compared with 20% in normal subjects (Spencer et al. 1980a). Serum creatinine levels were weakly correlated (r=0.35-0.59) with serum fluoride levels (Hanhijarvi 1982). People on kidney dialysis are particularly susceptible to the use of fluoridated water in the dialysis machine (Anderson et al. 1980). This is due to the decreased fluoride clearance combined with the intravenous exposure to large amounts of fluoride during dialysis. Impaired renal clearance of fluoride has also been found in people with diabetes mellitus and cardiac insufficiency (Hanhijarvi 1974). People over the age of 50 often have decreased renal fluoride clearance (Hanhijarvi 1974). This may be because of the decreased rate of accumulation of fluoride in bones or decreased renal function. This decreased clearance of fluoride may indicate that elderly people are more susceptible to fluoride toxicity.
Poor nutrition increases the incidence and severity of dental fluorosis (Murray and Wilson 1948; Pandit et al. 1940) and skeletal fluorosis (Pandit et al. 1940). Comparison of dietary adequacy, water fluoride levels, and the incidence of skeletal fluorosis in several villages in India suggested that vitamin C deficiency played a major role in the disease (Pandit et al. 1940). Calcium intake met minimum standards, although the source was grains and vegetables, rather than milk, and bioavailability was not determined. Because of the role of calcium in bone formation, calcium deficiency would be expected to increase susceptibility to effects of fluoride. No studies in humans supporting this hypothesis were located. Calcium deficiency was found to increase bone fluoride levels in a two-week study in rats (Guggenheim et al. 1976) but not in a l0-day study in monkeys (Reddy and Srikantia 1971). Guinea pigs administered fluoride and a low-protein diet had larger increases in bone fluoride than those given fluoride and a control diet (Parker et al. 1979). Bone changes in monkeys following fluoride treatment appear to be more marked if the diet is deficient in protein or vitamin C, but the conclusions are not definitive because of incomplete controls and small sample size (Reddy and Srikantla 1971). Inadequate dietary levels of magnesium may affect the toxic effects of fluoride. Fluoride administered to magnesium-deficient dogs prevented soft-tissue calcification but not muscle weakness and convulsions (Chiemchaisri and Philips 1963). In rats, fluoride aggravated the hypomagnesemia condition, which produced convulsive seizures. The symptoms of magnesium deficiency are similar to those produced by fluoride toxicity. This may be because of a fluoride-induced increase in the uptake of magnesium from plasma into bone.
Some people with cardiovascular problems may be at increased risk of fluoride toxicity. Fluoride inhibits glycolysis by inhibiting enolase (Guminska and Sterkowicz 1975; Peters et al. 1964). It also inhibits energy metabolism through the tricarboxylic acid cycle by blocking the entry of pyruvate and fatty acids and by inhibiting succinic dehydrogenase (Slater and Bonner 1952).
There is evidence that daily doses of 34 mg fluoride (0.48 mg/kg/day) increases the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (Riggs et al. 1990). Postmenopausal women (Danielson et al. 1992; Sowers et al. 1991) and elderly men (Danielson et al. 1992) in fluoridated communities may also be at increased risk of fractures.
Artificial water fluoridation is primarily practised in English-speaking countries. About 99% of Western Continental Europe have rejected, banned, or discontinued it due to environmental, safety, and/or freedom of choice concerns. Scientists in countries like China, India, etc. have done an enormous amount of research on the biological effects of chronic fluoride exposure because fluoride toxicity is a major public health problem.
Invariably, the organizations that endorse and/or promote fluoridation in countries where fluoridation is extensively practised are the ones which review the alleged safety and benefit of the measure. There is an inherent conflict of interest which has resulted in an odd disparity. In countries where public health officials are not committed to fluoridation, much scientific research is conducted by environmental or other scientists who are interested in minimizing fluoride's detrimental biological effects.The polarized political dispute in our countries has adversely affected not only the funding which should have been devoted to studying the long-term effects of fluoride exposure, but the quality and type of research conducted. It has also affected the opportunities available for publishing in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals. As a result, to those not familiar with the plethora of research and with the rhetoric of the political debate that clouds this issue, science appears to be taking "sides". Science is rarely ever that clear-cut. In theory, science should be a neutral arbiter of facts, but value judgements do affect its application to the real world. Fluoridation is value-driven.
While many have questioned the impartiality of government authorities and/or professional trade agencies (medical/dental associations) that have endorsed fluoridation for decades, no one doubts the sincerity of most fluoridation promoters. After all, who wouldn't like to have strong healthy teeth with little or no effort? Unfortunately, over-zealous proponents have taken a dogmatic, authoritarian, unscientific posture that discourages open debate of valid scientific concerns. This is typified by those proponents who reject every study which casts doubt on the "safety" of fluoridation as being clinically insignificant, not attributable to fluoride, or irrelevant to fluoridation. In the rhetoric of the political debate, nonpartisan science has been obscured by socially-designated science. Professional organizations, for example, that endorse fluoridation are expressing their social preferences as citizens, not as scientists. Although these professional endorsements may appear scientific, they have no intrinsic scientific merit. This is underscored by the fact that instead of welcoming new research on the biological effects of fluoride -- as reputable scientists would -- indisputable evidence has accumulated which shows that some fluoridation proponents and their organizations have tried to suppress valid scientific research and/or have persecuted or denigrated scientists, dentists, or doctors who have spoken out against it (see censor.htm, Chronology, Appendix III, & references for Appendix II, particularly Calgary's). This negative climate poisons the atmosphere and keeps most objective scientists with true expertise, from entering the policy debate.
Despite new dental research and a new hypothesis for how high concentrations of fluoride supposedly works on the surface of teeth, some promoters persist with the tenuous arguments in favor of ingesting it. Fortunately, some of the proponents of fluoride are finally starting to recognise how inadequate and inferior their standard of dental science may have been in the past five decades of fluoride promotion. There might yet be closure to this debate on the horizon.
NTP FLUORIDE/CANCER STUDY (National Toxicology Program): The bioassay was first contracted out to the Battelle Institute of Columbus, Ohio. Pathologists found significant dose-related occurrences of osteosclerosis (abnormal bone density); oral tumors; a rare bone cancer (osteosarcoma); and, a rare liver cancer called hepatocholangiocarcinoma (this diagnosis was confirmed by Dr. Reuber, the first pathologist to discover and classify the rare tumor). Battelle's results were systematically down-graded by another contractor, and then again by an NTP panel. Congress first ordered the U.S. PHS to conduct the NTP animal study in 1977.
RECENT SUPPRESSION: Recently, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, was fired from her position at the Forsyth Dental Centre because she stepped into politically-sensitive territory with her study on fluoride. It was subsequently published in a prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal. Meanwhile, she sued the Forsyth for wrongful dismissal and won in an out-of-court settlement.
See censor.htm for more examples.HEALTH CANADA'S (HC) 1992 FLUORIDE "STUDY": The committee was entirely composed of fluoridation proponents. At an industry workshop in Toronto (sponsored by Proctor and Gamble-Crest, and Lederle Laboratories) in April of 1992, HC's researchers unanimously endorsed fluoridation. One dentist was known to have received funding from a fluoridated toothpaste conglomerate. How can a panel composed of people who represent one side of the fluoridation debate, render a scientifically respectable, objective opinion as to whether there are benefits or not, when they have already committed themselves publicly to the answer? (for a review, see: Foulkes RG, Review of Report: Investigation of Inorganic Fluoride and its Effect on the Occurrence of Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis in Canada)
| Max and Avg fluoride intake in mgs per day | Average | Maximum |
| 20 Kg Child 0.113 - 0.18 mg/kg/day | 2.25 | 3.6 |
| 50 Kg Adult 0.08 - 0.13 mg/kg/day | 3.88 | 6.6 |
| 70 Kg Adult 0.08 - 0.13 mg/kg/day | 5.6 | 9.1 |
| Child's F intake which is eqivalent to an adult's 0.113 - 0.18 mg/kg/day | 7.91 | 12.6 |
Even the maxiumum values for adult fluoride intakes will not reflect true intakes for some subsets of the population. For example, heavy tea drinkers can consume considerably more fluoride, as can athletes, diabetics, pregnant women, construction workers, etc (see fluoride.htm)
How to contact you Alderman and Mayor
| ||||||
