 |
 |
|
 |
|
Fluoridation risks cause scientific, public disputes
| | 4/2/2009 1:14:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article |
|
| Athens treats water at the Athens Water Treatment Facility near the Hocking River.
Sara C. Tobias / CHIEF PHOTOGRAPHER |
|
Dan Quarfoot • For The Post • dq306507@ohiou.edu
Ohio University freshman Ibriham Alassaf first began researching fluoridation his senior year of high school after hearing about it on a radio show, and is pushing City Council to end the practice.
Fluoridation involves adding Hydrofluorosilicic Acid to drinking water. Meant to strengthen children's teeth, the acid is a by-product of phosphate-based lawn fertilizers. These fertilizers emit multiple gases while being cleaned, which are then converted into the chemical sold to water treatment plants.
Athens has maintained a 0.8 to 1.3 milligrams per liter level of fluoride in its water for ten years - the widely accepted level for healthy drinking water.
Alassaf, a lifelong Athens resident studying history and pre-law, contends there is strong scientific evidence of mild to severe health risks related to fluoride consumption.
Much of this evidence comes from Paul Connet. Connet, an Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York, has spent 13 years researching and opposing fluoridation, and City Councilman Elahu Gosney described him as "the world expert on fluoride."
Connet, along with the anti-fluoride group Fluoride Action Network, contends that consumption of fluoride increases many health risks. Two conditions they say consumption can induce are dental and skeletal fluorsis, which negatively affect tooth development and bone strength, respectively.
Connet estimated that 32 percent of American children have mild dental fluorsis and said, "Our kids are getting overexposed to fluoride and there's no two ways about it."
Despite these contentions, fluoridation still draws strong support from many in the public health community.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls fluoridation one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, said Deborah Fulks, director of the dental sealant program for the Athens County Health Department.
Fulks said she has seen the difference between children who live in fluoridated communities and those who don't by their level of tooth decay.
City Councilwoman Nancy Bain, who voted to begin fluoridating city water more than 10 years ago, said she grew up in a fluoridated community and didn't notice any problems.
Fluoride opponents say the evidence used by the CDC and other pro-fluoride groups is faulty. Connet pointed out that those who are for fluoride generally have a dental background, whereas it is mainly toxicologists who are against it.
He added that while many claim fluoridation is beneficial at low levels, studies have shown that as low as 1 part per million can increase health risks, and that fluoride should be applied to peoples' teeth rather than swallowed.
Gosney, who said he is against fluoridation, agreed by saying, "It's kind of like swallowing suntan lotion to protect against the sun." He added that he would like to see a resolution for citizens to vote on that would determine the future of Athens fluoridation.
According to the Ohio Revised Code, once a community begins fluoridating its water system,
the Ohio EPA forbids it from stopping.
City Law Director Pat Lang is looking into the matter but could not offer comment.
|
Reader Comments
Posted: Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Article comment by:
Jim Schultz
The product used for 90% of fluotridation is H2SiF6 which comes from smokestack pollution scrobbers at phosphate processing plants. Becayuse the phosphate also contains recoverable amounts of uranium half of the contaminates are radioactive decay products but the top two are arsenic and lead. Even worse the product is extremely corrosive even at 1ppm And damages plant pumps and pipes and other equipment and eats pin hole leaks in a homes pipes. This destuction can be much worse if chloramine is used as the EPA now strongly suggests. Washington DC had the worst water in the US but did not tell the public when they switched to chloramine in 2000. They violated the law by hidding the fact they were hundreds and thousands of times over the max limit of 15ppb. They blamed it totally on some lead supply lines in a small section of the city but the problem was just as bad in the 100,000 homes with no lead pipes. Their fix of changing out sections of lead pipes was discoved to make the problem worse after spending 100 million with out testing for results. This is one city full of people who do things wrong. A new research paper just came out this year proving the CDC faked a study on 201 kids claiming not one child damaged. These kids were on free bottled water and some not tested until a year later. This is like testing a person for drunk driving a week or two later when they feel like they can pass the test. meaningless. The new report shows hundreds were lead damaged of not thousands. See the study by Mark Edwards and others also in washington post.com this year. Ingested fluorides have no measurable benefit. Lots of measurable downsides as cumulative toxin over time. They were never safety tested over time. A lifetime. They never even considered beyond 20 years. A babies adult front teeth are forming enamel hidden in jaw between 16-36 months but do not pop out until 5 or later. further back and rear are forming until age 9 but come out much later also. In 1986-7 the biggest ever US study showed 66.4% of kids with evidence of dental fluorisis. The damage has increased but they require more damage now to report on multiple teeth and do not report the worst damaged one. It is designed to under report by design. the 2003-2004 CDC study showed 48.42% by not reporting the 25% of lesser damage. The CDC reprots 32% to the public but does not mention it is a average with non fluoridated cities counted also. Non fluoridated cities have often half the toxic exposure but still have kids damaged. The goal was to not damage more thsn 10% of kids with the very mildest damage but the results in final Grand Rapids report were 1962 russell 19.2$ whites, 40.3% blacks. Still the CDC hides the facts blacks are double damaged over whites while claiming it reduces social inequity. It actually increases inequity. The CDC after ethics charges still refused to innform on the double kidney damage for blacks also in 2007.
Posted: Thursday, April 02, 2009
Article comment by:
Jason
I also agree with Alassaf and Councilman Gosney in opposition to forced fluoridation.
The CDC provides neat and tidy soundbytes about fluoridation, but they cannot back it up as being safe and effective and refuse to publicly debate because they know the science is not in their favor.
Let me put it this way it is illegal to dump the chemical used to fluoridate in the river, lake, or stream because of its toxic properties, but it magically is safe for human consumption.
If that isn't enough to convince you fluoride is bad news, then keep in mind that less than 1% of tap water is even consumed. Why add *anything* to the water when so little of it will reach its target? One might say you are pouring money down the drain by fluoridating.
Folks, fluoridation is an open and shut case. Stop fluoridating!
Posted: Thursday, April 02, 2009
Article comment by:
nyscof
The problem is that everyone who believes in fluoridation believes the other guy is doing the research. Deborah Fulks credits the CDC.
The CDC's fluoridation chief, dentist William Bailey, told the Fairbanks Alaska City Council that the CDC doesn't do original research. Instead the CDC relies on many reviews and reports from the US and other countries. Some of these studies do not support fluoridation's safety and/or efficacy.
Bailey said, "Of all the expert committees and all the systematic reviews that have been done, they have all said that water fluoridation is safe and effective and healthy. So that’s the basis of our decision to promote it...The systematic reviews which I am talking about – the National Health and Medical Research Council – the National Research Council in 2006 – the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry in 2003 – the Forum on Fluoridation in 2002 in Ireland – the University of York in 2000 and so forth." See transcript http://www.fluoridealert.org/bailey1.html
Here's the truth:
National Research Council (2006)
This isn’t a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis. It found EPA’s current fluoride maximum-contaminant-level-goal for drinking water is not protective of health and must be lowered. EPA has yet to act upon this. At least three panel members said that water fluoride levels should be as close to zero as possible.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)
This report says "… subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds…the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein."
University of York, UK (2000)
About this report, the Centre for Review and Dissemination writes “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.” (See: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm)
Fluoridation 101
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/NewsReleases
|
The Post Comment Form
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
The Post
325 Baker University Center
Athens, Ohio 45701
Newsroom: (740) 593-4011
Front Desk: (740) 593-4010
Advertising: (740) 593-4018
Fax: (740) 593-0561
E-mail: posteditorial@ohiou.edu
Software © 1998-2010 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved
|
|
|
|
