Fluoridation battle goes on

# 38

Posted: 06/06/2003 19:53

What happened to Dr Joe Mullen, who wished us all a Happy Christmas and said he'd be back after then. Anyone seen any new postings from him?

# 37

Posted: 01/05/2003 14:34

We agree with Jane. In the U.S., if the American Dental Association (ADA) were to give its seal of approval to non-fluoridated toothpaste, it would indicate that fluoride is unnecessary to fight tooth decay -
something that would greatly offend some manufacturers

# 36

Posted: 01/05/2003 00:07

The main reason the big names don't produce fluoride free toothpaste seems to be that non-F toothpastes don't get "endorsements" from dental associations. Dental Associations make a LOT of money from "endorsing" products - particularly toothpastes.

# 35

Posted: 30/04/2003 14:24

Since it is not recommended that fluoride toothpaste be used for children why is it so difficult to find fluoride free toothpaste in supermarkets etc ? The main toothpaste manufactuers don't seem to produce it . Why is this ?

# 34

Posted: 23/04/2003 23:29

Tooth decay is a non-contagious, AVOIDABLE condition. There is no mystique about how to ensure your baby has good teeth - good nutrition (don\'t encourage sweet foods!) and good oral hygiene are the bywords. Teeth do not need fluoride - there is no such thing as \"fluoride deficiency\"! Good luck with your new baby!
Jane.

# 33

Posted: 23/04/2003 16:22

Breastfeed as long as possible. Never give your child anything containing refined sugar. Sugar is the real cause of tooth decay. In my opinion, fluoride supplements are not good for children.

# 32

Posted: 23/04/2003 12:50

I live in Japan where there is no fluoride in the water. As alot
of us expats over here use the american dentists, they are all advising us mums with babies to give them fluoride supplements. I was orginally going to ask my mum to send some over, but now after reading lots of articles on this subject i'm not so sure. But what can i do for my 9 mth old baby. He's too young for toothpaste. How do i prevent tooth decay in a young child?

# 31

Posted: 15/11/2002 12:54

I disagree with the assumption that certain people deem it necessary to medicate me and my family against my will without my consultation, without knowing my health history or that of my family.
Teeth which are not brushed and flossed eventually fall out and CAN be replaced with dentures. Osteoporosis has no cure, we cannot survive without bones.
It is undemocratic to mass medicate. The European court of Justice will probably be the eventual saviour of Irish Health. Likre many things in this BANANA REPUBLIC the leaders we have elected are incapeable of doing the right thing.
Those of us who are concerned should support both financially and with our voices and energy the court case being bravely brought before the courts in this country.
It is not enough to get angry and debate here or on the radio or in the papers . We must all try to appeal to public representatives until they listen.
Clean water is a basic human right.

# 30

Posted: 15/11/2002 12:12

Hello, again, Jim,

It COULD go on an on unless people get educated! But that is happening. Why don't you take a look at the Water Quality page on our site - you will see that we are extremely concerned about water quality - we were founded in 1960 to campaign for safe drinking water! The fluoridation issue is one of those which must be addressed seriously. I am sure that you are aware that the fluoridation agent is literally industrial waste - pollution scrubber liquor from the phosphate fertiliser industry? This is "spun" by public health people as being "a byproduct" of the industry. It isn't. It is a WASTE product, containing all the contaminants I have previously described. There is a piece on our site which confirms this - it's called "It's Pollution, Stupid!" and the URL is http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/pollution.htm .
This stuff has never been toxicologically tested and I am sure that you would share our view that it should be.
Keep smiling!

# 29

Posted: 14/11/2002 20:44

The claims of the ant-fluoridationists are difficult to counter because they are rhetorically effective not because they are factually accurate. Dental caries will increase if fluoridation is abolished in Ireland as our national diet is very rich in complex carbohydrates and there is a rapidly growing increase in consumption of carbonated beverages - have a coke and a smile! These dietary habits are most prevalent amongst the lower socio-economic groups.
The real legitimate argument against fluoridation is that of individual choice. Public health measures may and often do take away some level of choice and the argument is whether this is justified or not. I don't know the answer but I do think that increasing pressure from vocal and articulate opponents of water fluoridation will result in the practice being abandoned in time. we will have to wait some time then to see if all the illnesses blamed on it will improve. My guess is that it will not be possible to say conclusively that they have.
Anyway keep smiling - nice happy smiles with nice white straight teeth - isn't this ideal as much to do with the pervasive power of popular culture as with a dental industries desire to sell more product?
Whats NPWA anyway. What about nitrogen in our water and uranium too and chlorine and all the other dissolved stuff in there too?
This could go on and on.....

# 28

Posted: 13/11/2002 14:09

Jim, You say that "the claims of the antifluoridationists are difficult to counter." Ever thought that the reason is that they are true? Veneers: I have done only a cursory search on cosmetic dentistry in Ireland. Certainly it is growing - maybe not so fast (yet) as elsewhere. The dental "beauty" business is a boom industry - all those "whiter smiles" preparations, etc. Look down the supermarket aisles to see gondolas groaning under the weight ot "whitening toothpastes". The message is clear - people must be sold these products so they are induced to believe that white teeth are "in". For those with dental fluorosis, these products don't work - only veneers can cover up the damage. Cosmetic work is definitely being pushed as the big future for dentistry. Re fluoridation: there are many, many studies which show that decay does not increase when fluoridation ends. Moreover, there are many unfluoridated countries with much better teeth than fluoridated countries. Incidentally, the NPWA is not hostile to dentists - indeed, we have growing numbers of them on our membership list! (And doctors). We have often said that certain members of the dental profession are leading their colleagues into the greatest public relations disaster that the profession has ever seen. They are propagandists of the very worst kind - parroting as "fact" the most questionable statements and claims made by "experts". But more and more dentists are taking our advice and doing the research for themselves. That's what's required - don't take anyone else's word for it. Be thorough. Read material from both points of view. Can't do better than that.

# 27

Posted: 10/11/2002 20:43

Contrary to popular belief the provision of veneers for fluorosed teeth is a relatively uncommon procedure in Ireland. Extraction and filling of teeth due to dental caries remains the mainstay of general practitioners workload. It is likely that in time fluoridation will be phased out as the claims of the anti-fluoridationists are extremely difficult to counter. Unfortunately the less well-off sections of the population will then likely see a serious rise in dental caries. This is unfortunate but quite likely.
Also contratry to popular belief dentists do not take any great perverse pleasure in dealing with the ravages of a prevalent but entirely preventable disease.
We will await further developments.
In the meantime see your dentist once a year - they really are nice people and keep smiling!!

# 26

Posted: 05/11/2002 11:46

"Naturally occurring fluoride" is calcium fluoride. This is relatively insoluble (in the low levels which occur in these islands) and passes relatively harmlessly through the body. (Of course, in areas, such as parts of India, where calcium fluoride levels are high, the Indian Government has a huge programme to instal defluoridation plants. This is because fluoride accumulates mainly in bones (and in other tissues, too) and caused a huge problem of skeletal fluorosis. By the age of 40, people's bodies are painfully bent. There are 6 million children in India who are so badly crippled that they are unable to walk to school. (Evidence available from Indian Government info.).

The EU maximum allowable level of "fluoride" in drinking water is 1.5 mg per litre. Unfortunately for all of us, the EU is about to change the Drinking Water Directive to class ALL fluorides as "naturally occurring"!

The agent used in artificial fluoridation schemes is hexafluorosilicic acid. These fluorosilicates (for that is what this waste is) is pollution - it is known in the phosphate fertiliser industry as "pollution scrubber liquor". For more info go to http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/pollution.htm . This article is called "It's pollution, stupid!"

Hexafuorosilicic acid is much more toxic than calcium fluoride - and it is highly soluble and passes much more easily into the body. It is contaminated with Arsenic, Lead, Beryllium, Cadmium, Vanadium, Mercury, Silica and radionuclides and has NEVER - REPEAT NEVER - been toxicologically tested as safe for human consumption. How could it ever pass such a test? There is no scientific evidence anywhere which says that all those contaminants are good for health - or can reduce cavities! And that's the plain, unvarnished truth of the matter. Moreover, the two chemicals permitted for fluoridation schemes FAILED FORMAL VOTE in Europe (which has largely rejected or banned fluoridation) - but were subsequently "passed" because Ireland and UK are still doing it! I think this is called "subsidiarity". Or is it "harmonisation"? Whatever - it is an international disgrace and the European "rulers" should be ashamed.

People ask, "Why is the Government doing it, then?" May I propose that one answer is this: If ANY Government which has swallowed the hype about fluoride were to now admit that it is harmful, they would face millions of lawsuits. Also, many high-profile promoters would lose research grants - and probably their positions.

So, fluoridation is being defended to the death. But the end of it WILL come. Future generations will be aghast that "civilised" societies could be so utterly stupid.

# 25

Posted: 05/11/2002 07:03

How do you balance your argument, for those individuals living in an area with naturally occurring fluoride in their drinking water?

# 24

Posted: 04/11/2002 16:13

Jim,

Dentists are already making a fortune out of their biggest cash cow - dental fluorosis. Veneers must be renewed every five or six years throughout the victim's life. It's a $15-$20 billion business in the US - and getting to be a golden goose in parts of the UK, too!

And then, of course, there's the regular annual dollop of dosh to dental associations (trade unions for dentists) in return for "accreditation" of fluoride toothpastes and the like.

Another nice little earner is money to dental colleges from the sugar industry . . . "Sugar doesn't cause tooth decay - or obesity", says the sugar industry. (At least, that's what they said in a document submitted to COMA). So, Jim, what do you say - should we condone sweeties as "good" - or should dentists campaign for proper remuneration and proper oral health education?

Or would you like to remain "private" and cash in on the misinformation doled out by Government health departments and the sugar industry?
see: http:www//npwa.freeserve.co.uk/dental_fluorosis

PS How would you answer this letter, which appears on
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/altschuler/2002_april08P.htm

TOOTHPASTE WARNINGS!
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF COLGATE-PALMOLIVE. April 8, 2002

Dear President:

I am writing to you as a consumer who still has a few teeth left in his mouth, lots of "hard stuff" between the gums and teeth (my dentist just told me), and bad breath on occasion (don’t ask!). I am seriously considering using your product, Colgate Toothpaste, but after looking at the many boxes on the shelves of my local Duane Reade for nearly an hour,
and taking detailed notes, I am somewhat confused about which "version" of Colgate to buy. I also have some questions I’d like you to answer, based on
what I read on your boxes, so that I may decide whether to become a loyal Colgate user or consider some sort of action against you and your company on behalf of all brain-functioning consumers who use or have ever used your
successful product.

Questions
1. My first question should be easy for you to answer, but it is important to me since I am about to adopt a seven-year-old child tomorrow. On all of your many types of boxes there is a TOOTHPASTE WARNING. It says to keep
Colgate out of reach of children six years of age or younger, because if the child swallows at least the amount of toothpaste needed for brushing, the adult should contact a Poison Control Center immediately. My question
is, will a seven-year-old also possibly die from swallowing too much Colgate, or is the cut-off point really six-years-old? As a concerned parent-to-be, I of course want to protect my impending arrival from harm
while giving him good home dental care. Also, related to this question, I’d like to ask (just out of curiosity, of course), how did you determine that six years is the cutoff point? Was that the result of a scientific study
(or did you yourself suffer a personal tragedy)? One final question about this issue: I have a grandfather who has Alzheimer’s Disease, and I am petrified that he is going to suck down a whole tube of Colgate one day. Will that kill him, or make him deathly ill? Are senior citizens immune to
the possible lethal effects of your toothpaste, or is it safe to eat it after a certain age? Does it matter whether a person ingests Colgate TOTAL or REGULAR toothpaste?

2. You market two lines of toothpaste: the TOTAL line and the REGULAR line (for lack of a better term). Each line comes in many variants: gel or paste, with or without "whitener," having or not having "tartar control," and so on (Oh, it can make your head swim!) It seems there would be a great
difference between all these choices, yet every box has one common active ingredient: Fluoride ("anti-cavity"). In addition, your TOTAL line lists another active ingredient: Triclosan ("anti-gingivitis"). So why can’t we
just swish around some fluoride instead of buying your product? And do adults need anti-cavity protection, anyhow? Why don’t all your product variants have Triclosan, since most adults’ gums are rotting in their mouths? Or is Triclosan only for the hoity-toity?

3. I noticed that on some of your boxes the fluoride ingredient is called Sodium Fluoride and on other boxes it is called Sodium Monofluorophosphate. I also noticed that sometimes you don’t give a number next to the fluoride
listing and other times you do give a number, like (.024%, 0.14% W/V Fluoride Ion), or (0.76%, with 0.15% W/V fluoride ion). Why does the variation in listing exist? Are you hiding something on some of your boxes? Perhaps you’ve cut back a bit in some of your production units and don’t want to tell us. Or is it a typo? Please explain.

4. One of your TOTAL variants says "TOTAL PLUS WHITENING." It claims to have a "breakthrough cleaning ingredient" to whiten teeth by gently removing surface stains. I read this box very closely, and it had the same
two active ingredients and the same slew of inactive ingredients as the other TOTAL variants, except for two inactive ingredients: mica and FD&C blue no. 1. Is either or both of them responsible for the "whitening"
effect? One or both would have to be, it would seem (unless the other TOTAL variants also "whiten," but you’re just not telling us). Which is it? A
related question is, since mica and FD&C blue no. 1 are both inactive ingredients, what is it that produces their whitening action? Does "inactive" have a special meaning in the toothpaste industry I may not be aware of? Please clarify.

5. A very closely related question to that above involves TOTAL FRESH
STRIPE: I notice that it makes all the same claims on the box as generic TOTAL, including no claim about "whitening" - yet it has same active and inactive ingredients as the "PLUS WHITENING" box - and it even has an
additional inactive ingredient: D&C Yellow no.10. Is this inactive
ingredient responsible for the fresh stripe? And if this variant has all the same ingredients as the PLUS WHITENING box, how come this box does not say PLUS WHITENING? Please clarify.

6. One variant of your General line promises TARTAR CONTROL. What is that, and what produces it, since this line only lists fluoride as the active
ingredient? Is the tartar control produced by an inactive ingredient? If so, how is that possible, from both a chemical and a philosophical point of view?

7. Your Colgate box that says TARTAR CONTROL with BAKING SODA & PEROXIDE claims that it "deep cleans teeth." Could you please explain what that means? Do the ingredients seep into the dentin, and dissolve stains?

8. Your different boxes list so many "inactive" ingredients, and some boxes leave some out while adding others. Common inactive ingredients listed are water, hydrated silica, glycerin, sorbitol, PVM/MA copolymr, sodium lauryl sulfate, cellulose gum, flavor, sodium hydroxide, propylene glycol, carrageenan, sodium saccharin, titanium dioxide, mica, FD&C blue no. 1, and
D&C yellow no. 10. My question is: what do they do if they are inactive? Do they just hold the fluoride and triclosan? Do they make the "taste"you’re so noted for? Is Peroxide an inactive ingredient (see question 7 above)?
And by the way, what is "flavor"? Is that an ingredient?

Of course I have many other questions I could ask you about your toothpaste, but I will stop here, and anxiously await your answers to the above. I look forward to either becoming a loyal Colgate user in the near future or to launching a $200 billion dollar class action suit against you and your company.

Thank you,
Ginger "Sweetbreath" Vitis
(Alias, Richard Altschuler)

# 23

Posted: 04/11/2002 13:31

I demand the basic human right to poison-free drinking water. Stop fluoridation NOW.

# 22

Posted: 02/11/2002 11:49

Lets get rid of fluoride now!

More work for dentists - yipee!

Drill, fill, bill - more money in the arse pocket - three cheers fo Dr. Rynne - thanks mate.

# 21

Posted: 01/11/2002 08:38

Why are people so willing to ingest something which is an industrial waste product, the long term over all effects of which have NOT been studied? I am TOTALLY opposed to mandatory fluoridation of the water. Let those who want fluoride treatment for their teeth take tablets and/or use toothpaste.

# 20

Posted: 01/11/2002 06:26

The Anonymous person who posted the message dated 31/10/2002 is misinformed. If you think Fluoridation works you've not been paying attention to the facts and basing your opinions on the opinions of others. Just because someone works for the government or has a degree doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

# 19

Posted: 31/10/2002 22:54

The last anonymous contributor has missed the point. Fluoridation has not reduced caries - better dental hygiene across the board has helped, but where the kids eat sweets and crisps for breakfast and sugary drinks for lunch (underprivileged areas) etc caries is still rife with all the fluoride poison in the water and toothpaste. If it works, why is Ireland mid table in European dental health and not top, when all the rest of Europe has banned it (bar about 9% of Britain). I am afraid the fluoridation propaganda is so insidious and pervasive that it will take a while to convince everybody of the great deceit practised upon us all in Ireland.

# 18

Posted: 31/10/2002 22:46

Is it high farce, or just a sick joke, that the Forum on Fluoridation was populated almost entirely by 'biased', government selected, promoters of fluoridation, who bizarrely produced a 300 page report that presented only one-sided biased evidence that fluoridation works, and shamelessly 'buried', yes 'buried' any evidence that it causes harm and is ineffective, despite incontrovertible evidence that Micheal Martin is now playing Russian Roulette with our health, and a comment above by a 'Joe Mullen' accuses Ms. Condon's excellent article of being 'not balanced with opinions of people who are not anti-fluoridation.' What? Who is this person seeking so called ‘balance’ on a controversial issue that effects the health of every person on this island, an issue that most people are still unaware of, and one that has never been subjected to the rigors of a two-sided debate in this country, despite the fact it is banned in other countries? Could this be the same DR. Joe Mullen, public health dentist, who was a member of the Forum on Fluoridation. The same Dr. Mullen who only weeks before the setting up of the Forum, fired off a similar missive to the Irish Independent (7/4/00) where he stated ‘it is safe, it is effective, It is not in anyone’s interests to do away with this excellent public health measure.’ Isn’t it just great that he is now calling for a ‘balance of opinions.’ Some day this farce will end, but as with the other litany of medical scandals that have been uncovered, all belatedly, there will be no accountability, no convictions, and certainly no apologies. Do yourself a favour, take note of the recent concerns expressed by the Belgian Health Minister and do not drink Irish tap water.

# 17

Posted: 31/10/2002 21:48

The forum on fluoridation was a hand-picked, biased and non-independent review of fluoridation in Ireland. If you want to discover the truth about this forum and it's connections to the fluoride toothpaste industry http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/Forum%20Analysis.htm

# 16

Posted: 31/10/2002 17:59

Some anonymous poster said that people 50+ will know that tooth decay is much less than before. It's the same in all countries - including non-fluoridated countries. People are much better informed today about good nutrition and good oral hygiene!! Ireland has been fluoridated since the early 1960s, yet it has more decayed teeth than five other European countries who have not been fluoridated. Having better teeth has nothing to do with whether a country is fluoridated!

# 15

Posted: 31/10/2002 16:00

There is a lot of poorly informed comment on this board.Anyone,who is 50+, will recall that dental caries were the norm. Now look at Young Irish peoples teeth-dental caries are rare now-there is no need to be alarmed by the touchy-feely crowd-flouridation has been a great success.

# 14

Posted: 31/10/2002 08:20

I deeply resent the fact that for more than thirty years (living in Dublin) I have been poisoned by the state. I hold the following people responsible, and I demand that they get out of their jobs immediately: Micheal Martin, Dr Marie Laffoy, Dr Joe Mullen, Prof Denis O'Mullane, Prof John Clarkson, Dr Wayne Anderson, Dr Helen Whelton, Dr Gerry Gavin, Dr Seamus O'Hickey.

# 13

Posted: 31/10/2002 05:46

It was shown in a double blind study that I am allergic to fluoride and yet governments still force this on people. Fluoridation mandates are a gross human rights violation!

# 12

Posted: 31/10/2002 00:59

I was invited to contribute to the fluoridation forum. My concerns were totally ignored. Fluoride ingestion delays the time when teeth appear in the oral cavity, which means that the studies used to support water fluoridation were all flawed and the benefits were overstated. Dental fluorosis occurs even with 'optimal' levels of fluoride in the water and is not merely a 'cosmetic side effect': it is the first sign of fluoride poisoning in the body. As dental fluorosis increases, so does the risk for bone fracture. There are studies that have linked excess fluoride exposure to thyroid, neurological and reproductive problems. Using tap water to reconstitute infant formula exposes the infant to between 7 and 14 times the daily adult dose of fluoride permitted for adults. The fluoride that is added to drinking water in Ireland is a fluorosilicate which has never been tested in human safety studies and has now been shown to increase lead levels in blood, affecting IQ and behaviour. Mandatory fluoridation without providing this information and obtaining consent from every single citizen is unethical and immoral. Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD DDS, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto.

# 11

Posted: 31/10/2002 00:49

I do not like to be medicated with
fluoride against my will, it is undemocratic.

# 10

Posted: 30/10/2002 22:55

Fluoridation is the treatment of whole populations with fluoride waste from the super-phosphate fertiliser, without individual consent. It contravenes basic human rights. And it doesn't work either!

# 9

Posted: 30/10/2002 19:59

In San Antonio, TX, the Fluoride Ordinance was passed by a very small margin. Polls indicated men favored adding Artificial Water Fluoridation Chemicals and from my conversations with males voting for Fluoridation, the primary reason was : the economic promise that Medicaid Dental expenses would be reduced. These men were not told that Medicaid Dental bills were affected by expensive dental procedures to fix children\'s teeth that had been damaged by Fluoride drops and tablets. In fact, even though San Antonio did not have fluoridated water - there are many children here with FLUOROSIS, caused by Fluoride drops prescribed by clinics.

These well intentioned men, were never told about the Contaminants - which include ARSENIC, LEAD, ... see fluoridealert.org for details. Why should they be concerned about ARSENIC ? - Well, it is linked to MALE PROSTATE CANCER. A greater concern though is the fact the Fluoride is an ENZYME POISON that affects the entire body. It even lowers TESTOSTERONE. A study which confirms this, follows :

1: J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1996;34(2):183-9 Related Articles, Links

Circulating testosterone levels in skeletal fluorosis patients.

Susheela AK, Jethanandani P.

Fluoride and Fluorosis Research Laboratories, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

OBJECTIVE: The present study focuses on serum testosterone concentrations
in patients with skeletal fluorosis, in order to assess the hormonal status in fluoride toxicity. METHODS: Serum testosterones were compared for
patients afflicted with skeletal fluorosis (n = 30) and healthy males consuming water containing less than 1 ppm fluoride (Control 1, n = 26) and a second category of controls (Control 2, n = 16): individuals living in the same house as the patients and consuming same water as patients but not exhibiting clinical manifestations of skeletal fluorosis. RESULTS: Circulating serum testosterones in skeletal fluorosis patients were significantly lower than those of Control 1 at p < 0.01. Testosterone concentrations of Control 2 were also lower than those of Control 1 at p < 0.05 but were higher than those of the patient group. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased testosterone concentrations in skeletal fluorosis patients and in males drinking the same water as the patients but with no clinical
manifestations of the disease compared with those of normal, healthy males living in areas nonendemic for fluorosis suggest that fluoride toxicity may cause adverse effects in the reproductive system of males living in fluorosis endemic areas.

PMID: 8618252 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This is very worrisome to me, considering the fact that we have 9 out of 11 on our City Council that are men. If they weren\'t man enough to stand up to the FLUORIDE lobbyists before Fluoridation - they surely won\'t be in the future.

For any country thinking of Fluoridating - remember, Fertility rates are lowered, and this could be a destabilizing factor if a country then must rely on Immigration. I believe this has caused problems for the Fluoridated United States of America.

# 8

Posted: 30/10/2002 18:39

Having looked at the report from Irishhealth.com on this issue, and most of the subsequent comments, it is clear that they either didnt read the report or they didnt want to view it in an unbiased scientific manner.
I really hope Dr Rynne does go to court on this - we might then hear what level of science he will bring to the proceedings

# 7

Posted: 30/10/2002 13:43

Fluoride is a highly toxic chemical waste from the Aluminium Industry, and moves to add it to drinking water is an absurb way of getting rid of toxic waste.
Rex Warren
President
Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance

# 6

Posted: 30/10/2002 13:29

Dental fluorosis isn't only a disfiguring symptom of fluoride toxicity requiring extensive dental treatment. Dental fluorosis is linked to bone fractures and osteoarthritis in two recent studies. (And this is just the tip of the iceberg)

See: Discolored Teeth Linked to Bone Fractures

NEW YORK — Dental fluorosis may be a red flag for future bone fractures, according to a study(1) by Alarcon-Herrera, et al., in the Journal, “Fluoride,” (Vol. 34, No. 2).

http://www.enn.com/direct/display-by-affiliate.asp?id=1765

and

Osteoarthritis Linked to Fluoride


NEW YORK — Naturally fluoridated water is linked to knee osteoarthritis at levels lower than expected (1) and in amounts many Americans consume daily, according to a study published in “Rheumatology International.”

http://www.enn.com/direct/display-by-affiliate.asp?id=1765

# 5

Posted: 30/10/2002 11:55

Dr McAuley flagged up dental fluorosis - 40% of people he sees in his surgery have this condition. Proponents of fluoridation describe this condition as "merely a cosmetic effect."

Dental fluorosis is more than a cosmetic problem. It is a permanent record showing that fluoride has interfered with the basic life functions of the ameloblasts, the enamel-forming cells, causing them to produce damaged collagen.

When calcium and phosphate are deposited on this damaged collagen foundation and framework, the distortions in the resulting tooth enamel can be seen with the naked eye. It bears repeating that this visible distortion in the tooth enamel is obvious in up to 48% of children who live in the fluoridated areas - or those who live in nonfluoridated areas but are given fluoride supplements.

Government fudging cannot be allowed to continue. Every day more people learn the truth about the industrial waste silicofluorides which are added to public drinking water in artificial fluoridation schemes. The final curtain WILL come down - it WILL be stopped. And the sooner the dental and medical professions start doing their homework, the sooner they will stop being trained parrots. They must not allow themselves to be intimidated by their peers (plenty of evidence for THAT!). All legislation permitting - and mandating - artificial fluoridation must be repealed at the earliest opportunity.

Jane Jones,
Campaign Director,
National Pure Water Association,
Wakefield, WF4 3ET.
http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/dental_fluorosis.html

# 4

Posted: 30/10/2002 09:58

I am totally against the flouridation of drinking water. It is difficult to agree that 'there is still an element of choice'. The soft drinks that we buy, the soup we drink, ice in beverages, the rice and stews etc. that we eat are usually made with water that is flouridated.

The problem with using bottled water is that some of it is very high in sodium so we end up replacing one health risk with another. Help!

Good luck to Dr. Rynne with his court case.

# 3

Posted: 30/10/2002 09:44

Why was this article not balanced with opinions from people who are not anti-fluoridation? Perhaps Irishhealth.com might consider a report on what the Forum actually has said.

# 2

Posted: 30/10/2002 09:21

Fluoridation is often complicated by many anecdotal, unscientific and fraudulent claims.

When it comes down to basics and simple truths are exposed, it can be shown that fluoridation is scientifically not proven to work, nor safe.

Fluoridation is a story of certain elements of the industrial, medical and political spectrum using their wealth and power to distort the truth about the practice for reasons best known to themselves.

In fact, if any medical or dental student wants to see how incompetant or corrupt these 'elements' really are, all they have to do is study fluoridation in depth.

However, dental students should be warned they may not be allowed to graduate if they criticise fluoridation - based on the claims of those who have experienced such intimidation and bias.

As for Dr Rynne's court case, I fear that due to 'the old school tie', or other 'devices', he may find that justice could elude him.

This sad fact of life is compounded by those who have won court rulings against fluoridation in other countries, only to see their victories quashed by the highest court in the land.

In other words, the abuse of power is rife and Dr Rynne will not be fighting just against fluoridation, he will be fighting moreso against the establishment.

# 1

Posted: 30/10/2002 08:37

I definitely do not agree with the fluoridation of drinking water - it gives the public no choice.