|
Return to Southampton: Under threat of fluoridation
Statements sent to the Board of Directors of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) in early February 2009 from:
• John Beard, PhD, microbiologist, Cambridge, UK
• James Beck, MD, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
• Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 2000, Sweden
• Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network, Canton, NY, USA
• Douglas Everingham, MB, former Australian Federal Health Minister
• Bo H. Jonsson, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
• Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS, Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, Canada
• Henry Micklem D Phil (Oxon), Emeritus Professor of Imunobiology, University of Edinburgh
• Iain J. Robbé, BSc, MSc (PHM), MSc (MEd), MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FFPHM, public health physician, UK
• Ralph Anthony Ryder, Director, Communities Against Toxics, Cheshire, England
Statement from John Beard, PhD, microbiologist, Cambridge, UK
Dear Martin Howell,
I am writing to you as a concerned retired scientist to congratulate you and to thank you if you are disinclined to support the current proposal before the Strategic Health Authority to fluoridate the water supply in the Southampton area - the decision on which I understand will be made public on February 26.
If on the other hand you are presently inclined to support the proposal then I would strongly urge you to reconsider. I must declare an interest in that my son lives and works in Southampton and, like most parents, I would do anything I possibly can to protect him from the inherent dangers of such a course of action - however the effects of such an action will adversely impact many thousands of others which is why I am a signatory to the Worldwide Professionals' Statement calling for an End to Fluoridation wherever it occurs.
The issue here is quite simple. As a microbiologist I spent many years working with pathogenic bacteria capable of causing severe and often fatal enteric fevers of one kind or another - such as typhoid, paratyphoid, cholera, and dysentery, and saw at first hand the devastation they could cause. There is no question that most of these terrible diseases have their origins in contaminated water supplies, and without pre-treatment of the water to bring it up to safe, drinkable standards our civilisation would have remained in the dark ages. So ethically we should have no problems with the procedures involved.
However, using the water supply as a medium for mass-medication is an entirely different ethical problem - in fact it is completely unacceptable, whatever the substance, and whatever the scientific basis. Mass-medication means there is no escape for small babies, elderly people, healthy adults, you, me and everyone in between. So the argument should stop there, without even considering whether fluoridation is beneficial to the majority or not.
If, despite that, you and/or any of your colleagues have logically moved on in their thinking to the point where they are actually basing their decision on whether or not fluoride is a good thing to add to the water supply then I have to point out that for over 50 years there has been no creditable scientific evidence gathered to support the idea...
Today it is extremely difficult, certainly in the UK, to purchase a non-fluoride toothpaste as you will know if you have ever tried, so the addition of fluoride to the water supply is not even necessary for those who wish to take advantage of its "benefits". So the argument again should stop right there for those who might wish to discount the ethical difficulties.
I desperately hope and trust that you will join with us in rejecting any move to mass-medicate the population, and I would thank you most profusely for doing so.
Yours sincerely
Dr John Beard
Cambridge, UK
Statement from James Beck, MD, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Dear Mr. Howell:
I am a physician and scientist (M.D., Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, Department of Physics, degree in biophysics; Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada) who has studied the issues of fluoridation of public water supplies over the last eight years, emphasizing the study of primary scientific literature on efficacy of fluoridation as a preventative of dental caries and of the toxicities of hydrofluorosilicic acid and its derivatives on addition to water.
I understand that you are facing a decision on fluoridation. My studies lead me to believe that your decision is both critical and difficult. It is critical because fluoridation is a significant risk factor for the people subjected to it, especially infants and young children, young males, persons with kidney or thyroid disease, and older persons. It is difficult because there is such strong advocacy from individuals and organizations which generally fail to offer any substantial justification for it and because opponents are often unfairly dismissed simply because they are fewer than advocates.
I will not give you all the evidence I have uncovered on the issues of efficacy and toxicity as I understand that you have that from Dr. Paul Connett in his meticulous and responsible communications to you. Let me just say that the question of efficacy is relatively straightforward. There is no evidence that ingestion of hydrofluorosilicic acid in water is effective in preventing caries. There is clear evidence that it is not effective.
The matter of toxicity is more complex. Everything that Doctor Connett has told you on that is correct and well documented. Moreover simple precaution demands that even just substantial doubt of safety be sufficient to withhold fluoridation. But really there is no doubt in the cases of a number of toxic effects. And, of course, the lack of efficacy makes even the slightest possibility of harm enough to refuse or stop fluoridation.
A third problem with water fluoridation is the inappropriateness of the method of administration. The dosage for an individual is completely uncontrolled because the amount of water drunk in uncontrolled and because the age and size of the recipient is not known. And probably less than 2% of the fluoride in the water is actually ingested and the rest is smeared throughout the environment uncontrolled, even unrecognized.
Then there is the problem of ethicality. The modern standards of medical ethics requires that the recipient of a procedure or medication give informed consent. Informed consent requires individual consultation with a qualified professional who explains the purpose and the possible side effects of the procedure or medication. Further, it is required that the recipient have the right and capacity to stop the treatment at will. It is required that the administration be properly controlled and the effects individually monitored. Fluoridation of a public water supply fails on all these counts.
I suggest to you that you insist on answers to these objections-on efficacy, toxicity, methodology and ethicality-from anyone who advocates fluoridation. And I suggest to you that those answers, should they be offered, must be based on appropriate investigations and presented to you in an appropriate way.
Thank you for your attention.
James S. Beck, MD, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics
Statement from Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 2000
Dear SHA board members,
I am writing to you from Sweden where in the 1970s I was part of the team of scientists who worked hard to prevent fluoridation being introduced into our country. Since then more and more evidence supports the legitimacy of our concerns. My specialty is neuropharmacology, for which I won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2000.
Fluoridation is an obsolete practice. It goes against all principles of modern pharmacology. The use of the public drinking water supply to administer the same dose of fluoride to everyone, from the infant to those who consume copious amounts of water (such as diabetics), goes against all principles of science because individuals respond very differently to one and the same dose and there are huge variations in the consumption of this drug.
Meanwhile, WHO data indicates very little difference, if any, in tooth decay in 12-year olds between those living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Cheng et al. (2007), British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702). It is very clear that our children's teeth have not suffered in Sweden because we rejected fluoridation.
In the 1970's, noting that the level of fluoride in mothers milk is orders of magnitude lower than the levels used in water fluoridation, I was concerned about the potential effects of fluoride on the brain, and other organs, in infants fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water. Since then there have been numerous animal studies indicating that fluoride can damage the brain and 23 studies associating high exposure to fluoride with a lowering of IQ in children (studies available at http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html ).
People may quibble with the limitations of these ecological studies but the fact is that the pattern is remarkably consistent. One study indicated that this effect might occur as low as 1.8 ppm, which provides no adequate margin of safety when you are exposing a whole population of children to fluoridated water at 1 ppm.
It has become clear that the major benefits of fluoride appear to be topical not systemic (CDC, 1999, 2001). In pharmacology, if the effect is local, it is awkward to use it in any other way than as a local treatment. I mean this is obvious. You have the teeth there, they're available for you, why drink the stuff?
I urge you to reject the proposal to fluoridate Southampton and instead to review carefully the methods used in non-fluoridating countries which have successfully combated children's tooth decay without exposing them -unnecessarily - to this pharmacologically active substance.
Sincerely,
Dr. Arvid Carlsson
Statement from Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network.
Dear Martin Howell,
I am writing to you in the waning days of the process in which the SHA will make its decision on whether or not to give the go ahead to fluoridate Southampton and some surrounding communities. For some of us who have followed this issue very closely for many years it is utterly extraordinary that this archaic practice is being given any consideration at all. Using the public water supply is a dreadful way to deliver medication (you cannot control the dose or who gets it, and you will be forcing it on people who don't want it, some of whom will not be able to afford to avoid it) and helps to explain why most countries - including most of Europe - do not do this. Moreover, the level used (1 ppm) is 250 times the level of fluoride in mothers milk. The evidence of systemic benefits is incredibly weak and I have yet to hear one proponent emphatically state that in their professional judgment that there is an adequate margin of safety to protect everyone (including the very young, the very old, those with impaired kidney function and those with an inadequate diet, including borderline iodine deficiency) regardless of how much water they drink, from the harmful effects documented in many studies reviewed by the National Research Council (NRC, 2006). I submitted a very lengthy elaboration and supporting documentation of these issues in my written submission. This is not the place to rehash that submission but rather to appeal to you to exercise the utmost integrity in this matter.
There seem to be two worlds operating here. There is the world of the governments which promote this practice, whose policy seems overly influenced by dentists who have very little training in medicine, let alone toxicology and whose familiarity with the scientific literature is very limited and often second hand. Then there is the world of independent scientists, doctors and some dentists who, like myself, have found themselves examining the literature on this issue with an open mind and have been appalled by the way that politics continues to trump honest scientific discourse on this matter. It is extremely frustrating to deal with 'authorities' who feel it is enough to flash their credentials and repeat again and again that hundreds (even thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is safe and effective, when that is simply not the case.
However, if having carefully reviewed the scientific literature and the ethical arguments on this matter you are absolutely convinced that this practice is sensible, ethical, safe and effective, so be it. If on the other hand you are not convinced I would urge you to resist the governmental pressures which swirl around this issue. I hope that there will be enough people on the SHA panel to insist that this time around honest science prevails and that you will be one of the voices that will make that happen. The public's trust is at stake. Your decision will undoubtedly have national ramifications and possibly worldwide ones. That is why I have asked several scientists, doctors dentists and environmental leaders from the over 2,100 people who have signed the "Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Fluoridation Worldwide" ( see http://www.FluorideAlert.org/professionals.statement.html ) to share with you their experience on this matter with you why they think this practice should be ended. You should be hearing from them shortly.
Sincerely,
Paul Connett, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry
St. Lawrence University,
Canton, NY
A statement from Douglas Cross, Environmental Analyst and Forensic Ecologist, Cumbria, England
• See pdf copy of letter sent on Feb 16, 2009
A statement from Dr. Douglas Everingham, former Australian Federal Health Minister
Dear decision-makers,
I'm advised by Professor Paul Connett that you are soon to decide whether to support the official policy of increasing fluoride content of public water supplies in the Southampton region.
I ask you to resist this increasingly discredited policy. Here's why.
1. In my first public statement on the subject as a family doctor and local government medical officer I supported the policy as do most of the Australia government authorities still. This prompted opponents of the policy to bring my attention to specific scientific reports about 50 years ago. It has been my intention ever since to satisfy myself of the reliability of arguments on both sides. As national Minister for Health 1972-75 and regional (western Pacific) Vice President at the 1975 World Health Assembly I was unable to get reassurance from my departmental experts and advisers who supported fluoridation.
2. There is no minimum water fluoride intake claimed by pro-fluoride officials as necessary to prevent dental decay. There are decay-free teeth among unfluoridated communities and rampant decay leading to nearly total dental clearance among consumers of water fluoridated at officially recommended levels. Breast milk in both fluoridated and other communities contains below 0.5 per cent of the officially "optimum" fluoride concentration of water.
3. Official drives for more fluoridation in my country claim fluoridation reduces decay by "up to 40 per cent".
That is selective assessment. Some studies show the "up to" difference closer to 0 per cent, with the 40 per cent more decay affecting a fraction of a single decayed tooth surface on average. Several studies have concluded that application of fluoride to tooth enamel by dental therapy or tooth paste is much more effective than fluoridation while avoiding swallowing of fluoride which benefits no-one.
4. Tooth enamel is the only tissue known to include fluoride normally. Swallowed fluoride is not proven harmless in studies aimed at testing effects beyond the teeth. Pro-fluoridation authorities acknowledge that levels not greatly above their recommended "optimum" are dangerous, and fluoridation increases the prevalence of dental fluorosis - mottled teeth, the earliest sign of fluoride toxicity.
5. Ill effects in other organs and functions including bone, brain and thyroid are still awaiting confirmation or disproof, and medical precautionary policies should rule out fluoridation till such studies are made. There has been unexplained delay in publishing Harvard University findings of increased bone sarcoma in young males. [I believe that Dr. Everingham is referring here to the long delay in the promised study by Douglass et al. which purportedly refutes the Bassin et al. (2006) study which found a 5 to 7 fold increase in osteosarcoma associated with young males exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th, 7th and 8th years. In the same issue of the journal where the Bassin study was published Douglass promised a study by the Summer of 2006. After two and half years we are still waiting for the refutation. Meanwhile, Douglass's letter is being used by proponents as if it was study!]
6. Officials in fluoridating regimes may be deterred from frank testing of toxic outcomes by fear of loss of professional acceptance. Dr Waldbott who once led the US AMA's allergy section was apparently ostracised when he published findings of fluoride allergy. Whistleblower scientists and clinicians in the few remaining fluoridating countries have noted that fluoride waste in fertiliser and metal smelting industries, formerly costly to dispose of without agricultural and other environmental damage, has become a profitable by-product in water used much more for cleaning and other uses than for drinking.
7. Those opposing fluoridation should have the right to refuse mass medication at an uncontrolled dosage in accord with medical ethics.
I hope you will favour basic researchers in toxicology, epidemiology and clinical statistics rather than administrative officials with less specific experience.
Sincerely,
Douglas N. Everingham MB, BS
5 Eriboll Close
MIDDLE PARK QLD 4074
Australia
Statement from Bo H. Jonsson, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Dear Martin Howell and others,
It has come to my attention that fluoridation of Southampton and some adjacent communities is considered. I have for several years taken an interest in this question. My position is that positive effects of fluoridation are clearly questionable according to current science and that the health risks can definitely not be ignored. My fellow countryman Arvid Carlsson (Nobel Laurate 2000 in Medicine) in 2005 stated that water fluoridation is "absolutely obsolete". It takes you less than a minute to watch this interview passage: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson-interview.html
Please, I very much appreciate if you acknowledge receiving this e-mail.
Sincerely,
Bo H Jonsson, MD, PhD
Department of clinical neuroscience
Karolinska Institutet
Stockholm, Sweden
Statement from Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, University of Toronto, Canada
I am the Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto in Toronto Canada, a professor with a PhD in Biochemistry and a practicing dentist who has done years of funded research in tooth formation, bone and fluoride. I was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the 2006 report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards.
I would like to outline my arguments that fluoridation is an ineffective and harmful public health policy.
1. Fluoridation is no longer effective.
Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth eruption and, therefore, simply delays dental decay (Komarek et al, 2005, Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation work are over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous modern studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia (Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology. 32:283-96). Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al 2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).
Public health services will claim there is still a dental decay crisis. With the national average in Europe of only two decayed teeth per child (World Health Organization data), down from more than 15 decayed teeth in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as much as half of all children grow up not having a single filling. This remarkable success has been achieved in most European countries without fluoridation. The "crisis" of dental decay often mentioned is the result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially soda pop. A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of their daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft drinks are themselves fluoridated, the small amount of fluoride is obviously not helping.
The families of these children with rampant dental decay need professional assistance. Are they getting it? Children who grow up in low-income families make poor dietary choices, and cannot afford dental care. Untreated dental decay and lack of professional intervention result in more dental decay. The York review was unable to show that fluoridation benefited poor people.
Similarly, early dental decay in nursing infants (baby bottle syndrome) cannot be prevented with water fluoridation. The majority of dentists in the U.S. do not accept Medicaid patients because they lose money treating these patients. I would think the same is true for dentists in Europe. Dentists support fluoridation programs because it absolves them of their responsibility to provide assistance to those who cannot afford dental treatment. Even cities where water fluoridation has been in effect for years are reporting similar dental "crises."
Public health officials responsible for community programs are misleading the public by stating that ingesting fluoride "makes the teeth stronger." Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It does not make developing teeth better prepared to resist dental decay before they erupt into the oral environment. The small benefit that fluoridated water might still have on teeth (in the absence of fluoridated toothpaste use) is the result of "topical" exposure while the teeth are rebuilding from acid challenges brought on by daily sugar and starch exposure (Limeback 1999, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71), and this has now been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control.
2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis.
Fluoride doses by the end user can't be controlled when only one concentration of fluoride (1 parts per million) is available in the drinking water. Babies and toddlers get too much fluoride when tap water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback, 2003 Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily fluoride comes from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). The American Dental Association and the Dental Forum in Ireland has admitted that fluoridated tap water should not be used to reconstitute infant formula.
We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third child with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek extensive restorative work costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).
3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for safety.
All the animal cancer studies were done on pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride. There is more than enough evidence to show that even this fluoride has the potential to promote cancer. Some communities use sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even that chemical is not the same fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities instead use hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6 is concentrated directly from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants and trickled directly into the drinking water. It is industrial grade fluoride contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium, which are harmful to humans at the levels that are being added to fluoridate the drinking water. In addition, using hydrofluorosilicic acid instead of industrial grade sodium fluoride has an added risk of increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al 2000, Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found in the pipes of old houses. This could not be ruled out by the CDC in their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134).
4. There are serious health risks from water fluoridation.
Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been identified as a risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr. Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the over 500% increase risk of bone cancer.
Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per million increases your risk for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride accumulates in bone, the same risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day of artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per million, or in people with renal disease. Additionally, Brits are known for their tea drinking and since tea itself contains fluoride, using fluoridated tap water puts many heavy tea drinkers dangerously close to threshold for bone fracture. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown that fluoride is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in patients who retain too much fluoride.
Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy of Sciences report (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Fluoridation should be halted on the basis that endocrine function in the U.S. has never been studied in relation to total fluoride intake.
Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. Several recent studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (NAS, 2006), we need to study this more in depth.
In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation.
Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto
A statement from Henry Micklem, D Phil (Oxon), Emeritus Professor of Imunobiology, University of Edinburgh
Dr Geoffrey Harris, Chairman, NHS South Central
Dear Dr Harris,
I am emeritus professor of immunobiology at the University of Edinburgh and have been studying the literature on the effects of fluoride on health for several years, with particular reference to the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Living in Scotland, I did not contribute to the formal consultation. However, the decision in Southampton, whichever way it goes, has more than local significance and I hope you will allow me to put an oar in at this late stage.
I endorse what Drs Paul Connett, Hardy Limeback and some others have recently written to you on this subject, and only wish to add some remarks about risk. Advocates and opponents of fluoridation approach risk in completely different and conflicting ways.
Advocates state that hundreds of studies carried out over more than 60 years show that fluoridation is safe. What they actually mean is that population comparisons of various diseases have not proved conclusively that fluoridation is harmful. That is not at all the same thing, since these studies rarely concerned themselves with potentially vulnerable subgroups, nor were they sensitive enough to detect small differences. Moreover, as shown by the York Review (A Systematic Study of Water Fluoridation, 2002), many were of inherently low quality. This much-cited review was unfortunately restricted by its terms of reference to the impact of fluoridation per se on human health. It did not deal with wider evidence. It did not conclude that fluoridation was safe, as advocates of fluoridation constantly claim, merely that it found little evidence, except for fluorosis, that it was not safe.
Proponents of fluoridation work on the assumption that unless fluoridation, per se, has been proved to be harmful, then it is perfectly legitimate to continue and extend the practice. They are very clear about it: the onus of direct proof is on the objectors. They show no interest in indirect evidence of harm and if they have ever heard of the precautionary principle, they do not care to mention it in public.
For example, they dismiss as irrelevant the authoritative National Research Council (Fluoride in Drinking Water: a Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, 2006) on the specious grounds that it does not deal specifically with water fluoridated at 1 part/million. Yet the report does provide a wealth of evidence that 4 parts/million in drinking water is _not_ safe in a range of health contexts including the skeleton, thyroid and, perhaps most ominously, the developing brain. I don't believe that any toxicologist would regard a safety factor of less than four as adequate for continuous mass-medication, particularly when athletes, diabetics and kidney patients may drink far more than the generally assumed one litre/day. I doubt that you would either. In sum the many studies reviewed by the NRC panel are indeed highly relevant to fluoridation and identify risks that are far from trivial in scale and variety. Even if some of the studies are not quite of gold-standard quality, to ignore them and insist on direct proof is wholly irresponsible and smacks of hubris.
Even when confronted with a careful study (Bassin et al 2006, cited in SHA Consultation Document) demonstrating directly that consumption of fluoridated water in childhood can lead to a several-fold rise in the incidence of osteosarcoma in young men, fluoridation proponents have brushed it aside on the pretext that it needs repeating and falls short of definitive proof. (Bassin herself described it as 'exploratory' . However, the cautionary note by Douglass, also cited in the Document, should be given little weight since the author had a large axe to grind.) It is true that, like all important findings, it needs confirmation. But such work is difficult and may take years. Meanwhile, fluoridationists appear to think that the risk of this unpleasant and life-threatening (albeit rare) tumour can be ignored, while fluoridation continues in the interests of its alleged benefits.
If ever there was a situation in which the precautionary principle should apply, mass medication of large populations, potentially over an entire lifetime, must surely be it. Dental caries in children is a real problem that has been dealt with in other parts of the world through education, better diet and improved access to dental care. I appreciate that the SHA has been pursuing these approaches in Southampton and still feels that further intervention is desirable, but fluoridating the water is not the answer. I trust you will agree that it is important not to extend this imprudent and unethical practice.
Yours sincerely,
Henry Micklem
H S Micklem D Phil (Oxon)
Emeritus Professor of Imunobiology
University of Edinburgh
Statement from Iain J. Robbé, BSc, MSc (PHM), MSc (MEd, distinction), MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FFPHM, public health physician, UK
Dear Mr Howell,
My name is Dr Iain J Robbé and I am writing in a personal capacity to you from Wales in the hope that you will reject the proposal coming before the South Central Strategic Health Authority on February 26th 2009 to fluoridate central Southampton and some adjacent areas.
I am a public health physician and one of more than 2100 professionals who, after studying the information contained in the National Research Council report "Fluoride in Drinking Water" (NRC, 2006) and other evidence, are calling for the rejection of plans to implement water fluoridation and for an end to fluoridation in those places where it currently occurs.
I believe that fluoridation is a high risk intervention with a weak ethical rationale hence I am appealing to your scientific integrity and the need to protect the public's health. It seems that many people are watching the situation in Southampton and your decision will have wide repercussions.
I should be grateful if you could please acknowledge that you have received this letter.
Yours sincerely
Dr Iain J Robbé, BSc, MSc (PHM), MSc (MEd, distinction), MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FFPHM
Public Health Physician
A statement from Ralph Ryder, Director, Communities Against Toxics, UK and editor of Toxcat
Dear Members of the Southampton Strategic Health Authority (SHA)
Have you ever met someone whose lack of dental hygiene has made you feel sick?
I ask this because as a child in the 1950s I remember a number of children in our village whose teeth were actually green, a result of a complete lack of dental care. I couldn't look at these children without baulking. During a visit to the United States in 1994 I met a young lady during a conference on 'Dioxin' in St Louis. We began talking about toxins as one does in such a situation and when she opened her mouth I was appalled at the state of her teeth. They were heavily mottled brown and white, something she was very aware of by her manner of bringing her hand to cover her mouth whenever she laughed.
I know now that there was nothing wrong with this young lady's dental hygiene, in fact she was exemplarity in her cleanliness, but she lived in a fluoridated town in the US.
Meeting people face to face is an important part of life. To be embarrassed by the state of your teeth when you smile restricts the opportunities available to anyone in many walks of life, socially and professionally.
It is all very well saying sufferers of dental fluorosis (the obvious visual sign of fluoride poisoning) can have 'cosmetic treatment. ' The reality is cost restricts the number of people who can actually afford this treatment.
As the editor and publisher of ToxCat and Director of Communities Against Toxics I have researched the impact of various chemicals on human health. The meeting in St Louis alerted me to one of the realities of fluoride being added to drinking water.
Another meeting I attended opened my eyes even more of this issue. I attended an interview conducted on Manchester breakfast TV where Dr. Paul Connett was invited to comment on fluoridation. Also invited was Economist Guy Harkin of the North West Fluoridation Evaluation, a group that had the task of recommending on whether to add fluoride to the drinking water of Manchester.
Even though Harkin's was supposed to be looking into the issue of fluoride and his recommendations would be very influential, it was blatantly obvious he was already a strong supporters of fluoride 'mass medication', despite demonstrating no knowledge (or even interest) in the studies indicating health risks. He shamefully regurgitated parrot-fashion the pro-fluoride script, showing no original self-thoughts.
When asked by Dr Connett after the programme if he had read the latest 500 page report from the US National Research Council Harkin replied after some embarrassing coughing and spluttering "I have read a summary."
"What were the conclusions?" asked Dr Connett. Harkin couldn't answer, made a feeble excuse and rushed away out of the studio.
It was obvious this man hadn't read the summary and I personally doubt he even knew of existence of the US National report. Yet he was going to recommend adding fluoride to the drinking water of millions. Unbelievable! The blind ignorance of the pro-fluoride lobbyists has to be seen to be believed.
I am 62 years of age and have never had a filling. The last serious dental treatment I had was for the removal of a troublesome tooth in 1966. The way to prevent bad cavities is by good dental practices like brushing frequently. It is not ethical to expect everyone to swallow an industrial poison with every drink, salad washing or shower because some parents are too lazy to teach their child good dental hygiene. Also, we are advised not to take or share medications prescribed to us or others, yet the government is proposing to do exactly that by mass medicating us all.
How can you calculate the safe dose for a 1 week old baby and a 20 stone man? Why are there warnings on fluoride containing toothpaste stating if a child swallows more than a pea sized quantity of toothpaste to seek medical help, if fluoride is harmless if swallowed?
Also, how does this warning tie in with the additional fluoride the adding of fluoride to our drinking water will exposure our children to? (Washing, showering, food washing, concentrated soft drinks etc).
The science /evidence being pushed by the government is extremely dubious.
I am asking you to look seriously at this issue not only on health grounds but also ethically, and ask you not to blindly follow the governments wishes. Their refusal to debate this issue openly and seriously throws serious doubts on their claims of fluorides safety.
The precautionary principle must be applied.
History shows many times where so-called experts have been wrong on a multitude of health damaging chemicals.(See Late lesson from early warnings, Environmental report No 22 European Environment Agency ISBN 92-9167-323-4 for a few examples).
I fear the Government is wrong about fluoride
Wishing you good health
Ralph Anthony Ryder
Director, Communities Against Toxics
PO Box 29, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, CH66 1NU
|
