OPINION -- August 28, 2012 -- It is unfortunate that The Lund Report gave Rick North such as prominent podium from which to expound the “bad science” used by opponents to water fluoridation, when the accumulated facts deny his conclusions. Had he spoken
the truth, he would not have required a full page to expound his credentials – when the facts speak for themselves.
Fluoride is not a medication, or a drug, but a natural mineral that occurs in trace amounts (parts per million) in our environment, most notably in water. Many areas of the world do not need to consider adding supplemental fluoride to their water supplies, as they already have the optimal concentration of 2.2 ppm of sodium fluoride in their groundwater. Unfortunately, Portland’s Bull Run water contains only .05 ppm of fluoride, while it has 2.4 ppm of sodium chloride.
The critical period of enamel formation begins before birth and extends to 48 months of age. During this process, depending on availability from the environment, phosphate and calcium bond with either fluoride or chloride to form the enamel that protects our internal tooth structures. Not all enamels are created equal! Enamel with a high proportion of chloride is soft and resists cavities poorly, while the fluoride rich version is hard, producing a more durable outer coating to the teeth. Throughout the lifespan, fluoride in our diet mixes with saliva to neutralize dietary acids that attack the enamel – providing further protection from cavities.
Portland is the largest US city NOT providing fluoridated water to its citizens! 204 million Americans have shared the benefits of optimally fluoridated drinking water for the past 65 years with safety safety. Recent studies in Illinois comparing the dental health of children in towns with fluoridated water to those without showed a 45% reduction in cavities. While the citizens of other States have benefited, Oregon ranks near the bottom in measures of oral health.
The prevalence of cavities in our State’s children has reached near epidemic proportions, with a 49% increase between 2002-2007. Currently 35% of Oregon preschoolers have untreated cavities and over 20% have greater than 7 cavities per child. For children with inadequate dental insurance, this leads to a lifetime of pain, decreased self-esteem and reduced employability. Dental authorities estimate the lifetime treatment cost of each affected tooth at over $2,000.
Minerals and vitamins are added to many of our foods, due to their importance in public health. We add calcium to orange juice, vitamin D to milk, folic acid to bread and iodine to salt to prevent the diseases associated with their deficiency. Fluoride is no different. In fact, the CDC includes fluoridation among the 10 most important advances in public health in the 20th century. The practice has been endorsed by every Surgeon General in the last 40 years. The cost of fluoridation is negligible, while the savings for our society are mammoth – over $18/year in decreased dental costs for each resident. The States of New York and Texas recently confirmed that fluoridation saved over $24/ year/ child in dental treatment costs.
During the 3 years in which I served as Medical Director for the Children’s Community Clinic in North Portland, I personally witnessed the degree to which this problem affects those populations least able to afford dental care. Cavities in children of color are as much as twice as common as in the more affluent communities, and these children have few resources for dental treatment.
Most often their only recourse is having their teeth pulled. Fluoridation will improve the dental health of all our citizens. It is an ethical mandate, not a conspiracy by the city council. Those who oppose fluoridation based on the same type of bad science used to discredit global warming should be allowed to have their say, but in the end we should proceed with this vital improvement in our public health. Future generations of Oregonians will thank us.
Dr. LaGrone is in practice in Gresham with Calcagno Pediatrics and served most recently as the medical director of the Children's Community Clinic in Portland from 2008-2011. A member of the emergency response team for Medical Teams International, he made two trips to Haiti in 2010-2011 for the earthquake and to run a cholera clinic. He’s also the founder and chaired the Environmental Health Committee of the Mississippi State Medical Association. Its most notable achievement was leading the successful opposition to nuclear waste storage in the state.
The author believes fluoridation will improve the dental health of all our citizens, and is an ethical mandate, not a conspiracy by the city council
August 28, 2012
Submitted by James Reeves on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 14:41
Permalink
Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. No adult has ever walked out of their doctor's office with a prescription for the fluoride drug because it is deadly poison and the body has no known use for it. It is never included in any multi-vitamin formulation. Drinking it to prevent tooth decay is as foolish as drinking sunscreen to prevent sunburn. Every fluoride toothpaste tube carries the warning "if swallowed, call a poison control center immediately."
Only 5% of the world uses fluoridation because many large studies show fluoridation is totally ineffective in improving tooth decay and is dangerous to health (See fluoridealert.org). The World Health Organization studied 16 countries and showed fluoride is of no value for teeth. Europe has rejected it and is 98% fluoride free. India, Japan, China and most countries now reject it. Interestingly, despite the fact that the vast majority of western Europe does not fluoridate its water, Europe's tooth decay rates are as low - if not lower - than the tooth decay rates in the heavily fluoridated United States.
The best scientific information on fluoridation can be found in Dr. Paul Connett's book, "The Case Against Fluoride," published last year. It contains over 1200 peer reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning showing the ineffectiveness and dangers to health from fluoride.
Also see his very informative site here (www.fluoridealert.org).
You will see a petition at this site signed by over 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation; also scientific evidence to show that it causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, and other serious health problems.
Submitted by Rachel Francisco on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 17:32
Permalink
FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AT BEST AND NEGLIGENT WITH THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY THEy'RE SWORN TO PROTECT AT WORST:
This author's statements are patently false: Silicofluorides used in water fluoridation never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Therefore, the effect on the entire body could be very different, untested, and as such nobody can know how dangerous they are, if any dose is safe for children or pregnant mothers, and what effects they will have on overall health. This fluoride chemical is linked to many serious, common diseases in America like hypo-thyroid disease, kidney disease, cancer, heart disease, hip fractures, and arthritis.
Instead of attacking the overwhelming scientific conclusions of the rest of the world's public health officials we would like to see the proof that fluoride, and nor sugar, is the cause of the cavities in Oregon, and everywhere else. IF fluoride stopped cavities then why are cavities also on the rise, and just as common, in the communities that are already fluoridated. Why do cavity rates correlate much more closely to diet and cleaning teeth after meals, instead of to water fluoridation. Too many studies, as recently noted by Harvard University Researchers, point out that the anecdotal, assumptions made by the ADA and the PR bullet points frequently repeated by fluoride producers in OP/ED's like this are not supported by research, and therefore appear unbelievable. The fact that the author above has cut every scientific corner to conclude that the people of Portland should add this synthetic drug to the water, the same fluoride drug that is used in GlaxoSmithKlline's Paxil which has been proven to cause birth defects among many other adverse side-effects, lacks all integrity. Until the city asks for a real scientific, double-blind, controlled study be done to prove safety and efficacy, this chemical produced by the phosphate fertilizer industry is just another Unapproved, Untested, Unproven drug, one that should be used by choice and with consent, or not at all. Sadly the real research has yet to be done.
Never would a real scientist make such sweeping claims without real data, that's why Harvard concluded that until more research is done, it's impossible to know the impact of added fluoride to children's neural development or if water fluoridation offers any benefits over brushing alone. Very shoddy indeed. this isn't a conspiracy, just another chemical industry trying to find a profitable place to off-load a known toxin. Why the city council would pay for what the EPA calls a contaminant, and the FDA classifies as an unapproved drug, that the producer would otherwise have to pay to dispose of seems very fiscally irresponsible at best, and negligent with the health of Portland's most vulnerable at worst.
Fully referenced refutation of this 70 yr old myth:
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question04.html#4
http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question03.html#3
http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/harvard-study-concludes-that-fluoridated-water-is-associated-with-lower-iqs-in-children?news=844881
Submitted by Peggy Thatcher on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 21:58
Permalink
"Rachel" is misinformed. Fluorosilicic acid, for example - which is commonly used to fluoridate community water supplies - when added to water breaks down into water, silica and fluoride ions. No problem there.
Fluoride ions, when ingested, get into saliva. This allows the teeth to be continually remineralized and resistant to decay. Studies have demonstrated that fluoridation reduces cavities an additional 20-40% over the use of other sources of fluoride. That adds up to big savings in dental bills for citizens and Medicaid.
The anti-fluoridationist are totally misrepresenting the Harvard I.Q study. Here is an informed review of this study by neurologist Steve Novella, MD:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/antifluoridation-bad-science/
To learn about the disgraceful tactics of the anti-fluoridation group:
http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf
Submitted by kallie miller on Fri, 08/31/2012 - 19:16
Permalink
Peggy. I think you are the pot calling the kettle black. In my opinion, the pro-fluoridationists misspeak, lie, recommend, endorse with no good science to back up claims.
One lie or mispeak is to say that hydrofluorosilicic acid, dissociates--breaks down in water and quote the Michigan, 2006 study as proof. However, that study was conducted with pure HFSA made up from reagents and distilled water. The toxic waste, hydorfluorosilicic acid with its contaminants of arsenic, lead, mercury, radionuclides and more would most certainly react differently in tap water with its chloramines, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Until you prove that HFSA in tap water is safe for long term human consumption, the tap water in my opinion, is poisonous and hazardous to human health.
http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html
FLUORIDE COMBINES WITH ALUMINIUM IN DRINKING WATER.
Promoters of fluoridation can no longer get away with the "unequivocal statement" that fluoride is a "free ion" in water", OR that "it completely dissociates and doesn't react with other minerals in drinking water."
Following the Varner, et al aluminium fluoride studies in which 80% of the experimental rats died before the end of the experiment the United States Environmental Protection Agency was sufficiently alarmed to push the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to do further research.
Citizens need to visit a website with the truth www.fluoridealert.org Please remember that everyone pushing fluoride has something to gain politically or financially, while those who know that fluroidation is dangerous to human health volunteer their time, energy and money to educate the public.
Submitted by Billy Budd on Wed, 08/29/2012 - 10:17
Permalink
Rachael is wrong about the fluorosilicilate water additive.
HFSA doesn't exist in water solution. At the treatment plant, a computer controlled machine takes HFSA from a barrel and adds it to the water. Immediately the HFSA dissociates - completely. The specific process is called hydrolysis
What you have then is fluoride ions & the chemical compound silicon dioxide, also known as silica. Silica is most commonly found in nature as sand or quartz, as well as in plant cell walls. Hardly evil stuff.
Proof that HFSA completely dissociates is: Reexamination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by 19F NMR & pH measurement Environ Sci Technol Finney WF et al
I repeat, there is no HFSA in water.
Community water fluoridation (CWF) avoids 66% of operations (root canals, crowns, extractions) for preschooler's cavities costing up to $15,000. These happen more often now in Portland. We have Oregon data confirming this remarkable effect
Cavities are significantly improved. No practical alternatives exist. Expert public health opinion is overwhelmingly supportive
Dr. LaGrone is correct, tt's just the right thing to do
Submitted by L F on Wed, 08/29/2012 - 10:20
Permalink
An good study done in 2007 by an HMO using data from Oregon & Washington showed that the cost / benefit of fluoridation was "GENERALLY SMALL".
see "A comparison of dental treatment utilization and costs by HMO members living in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18087993
Submitted by Billy Budd on Wed, 08/29/2012 - 18:23
Permalink
Maupome's study quoted above compared Portland and Vancouver residents in an HMO. While the improvement with fluoridation was not large, it was statistically significant. Because these people went to different clinics, differences in treatment strategies may have blunted the fluoridation benefits.
The University of Washington has conducted a number of studies on water fluoridation's effect in improving the oral health of insured state workers (ie middle class folk). The benefits to middle class insured adults included less peridontal (gum) disease.
1: J Periodontal Res. 1993 May;28(3):166-72. Links
Fluoridation effects on periodontal disease among adults.
Of course the most compelling documented effect is the remarkable decrease in operations needed for preschool kids. Fluoridation avoids 2/3rd of those case. That huge Louisiana study also found that 50% of the dental bills for Medicaid children avoided with fluoridation.
This is a particularly important consideration for Oregon's new Medicaid Coordinated Care Organizations. It if found money to be used to buy poor kids more medical care.
Submitted by Rick North on Tue, 09/04/2012 - 21:27
Permalink
Since I began making public statements opposing fluoridation, others have associated me with crackpots, climate change deniers, two conspiracy theories (Communist and Portland city council), junk-science zealots and just good old-fashioned liars.
It goes with the territory. I really believe most people favoring fluoridation are well-intentioned, but have numerous misconceptions. So I’ll just skip the name-calling and stick to the science.
I wanted to reiterate that I’m neither a scientist nor a doctor. However, I am fortunate to have a wonderful team of scientists, physicians and dentists as advisors.
But most of my arguments could be made by anyone, without professional help. Everything below is a matter of public record. Anyone could find the same information written in plain English. For responses to those who reacted to my column, I picked three arguments out of many to keep this to a manageable length.
First, fluoride’s not a drug? The FDA disagrees: “Fluoride, when used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of a disease in man or animal, is a drug that is subject to FDA regulation.”
Second, fluoride is often thrown into the same category with other substances added to our food, such as calcium, vitamin D, iodine, and folic acid. But all these are nutrients, defined as an essential substance people must have to avoid a disease. There is no scientific evidence that fluoride is a nutrient and it’s not defined as such.
Third, there have been two major reports that higher fluoride in water may lead to lower IQ in children. One was the 2006 National Academy of Sciences’ review, a landmark report, which examined four studies. Although the studies lacked details for full assessment, the scientists still concluded “the consistency of the collective results warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.”
The other was a Harvard meta-analysis just released in July by Choi et al. It examined peer-reviewed papers finding that 26 out of 27 studies demonstrated the IQ-lowering effect of fluoride, mostly in Chinese villages, and typically by 5-10 IQ points.
Critics point out that the studies had weaknesses, which is accurate. However, both the NAS and Choi found their quality sufficient to call for more research on what is obviously a huge issue – protecting our ability to think and reason. Both cited the consistent results. Indeed, 26 out of 27 studies, over 23 years, is almost unheard of in this kind of study.
The other major point critics make of the Choi study is that most of the high fluoride/low IQ villages had levels in the 2 – 11 milligram per liter (mg/L) range, higher than the 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L used in U.S. water fluoridation. Therefore, they conclude, mistakenly, it’s not a problem.
Some people, such as those with iodine deficiency, are more susceptible to fluoride’s toxicity. Others, such as athletes, manual laborers and those with kidney disease, simply drink more water. To take these variables into account, toxicologists figure in a factor of at least 10 to determine a margin of safety for the entire range of a population. For example, if children drinking water with a fluoride level of 2.5 mg/L show lower IQ’s, the margin of safety to protect everyone in the population would be no higher than .25 mg/L., significantly lower than the 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L in U.S. fluoridated water.
This factor of 10 is a major consideration the fluoridationists never bring up. Then add in the other major concern they don’t talk about – in addition to drinking water, U.S. kids are exposed to pesticides and consume a lot of processed foods and drinks containing fluoride. The total dose, not just the level, is key to the amounts of fluoride kids consume.
Finally, over 80 animal studies have found that fluoride harms the brain.
Even with all this mounting evidence, there still isn’t 100% proof that fluoridating water at current levels will lower IQ’s in children. However, it’s readily apparent there are significant, compelling data pointing in that direction.
Unless there is assurance beyond a reasonable doubt that fluoridation doesn’t lower IQ’s (and there is obviously far more evidence that it does), using our kids as test cases for diminished intelligence is, in my opinion, a tragic mistake that will haunt us for years to come.
Rick North
