1 / 26

Water Fluoridation Harmful to Health, Ineffective & Unethical

Water Fluoridation Harmful to Health, Ineffective & Unethical . Dr Mark Diesendorf Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd and Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW Web: www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au. WHAT IS FLUORIDATION?. Most water supplies contain 0.1 to 0.2 ppm of fluoride (F - ) naturally.

reid
Download Presentation

Water Fluoridation Harmful to Health, Ineffective & Unethical

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Water FluoridationHarmful to Health, Ineffective & Unethical Dr Mark Diesendorf Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd and Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW Web: www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au

  2. WHAT IS FLUORIDATION? • Most water supplies contain 0.1 to 0.2 ppm of fluoride (F- ) naturally. • Fluoridation increases the natural F- concentration to 1 ppm (i.e. 5 to 10 times natural level). It is not a small “adjustment”. • Purpose is to try to reduce tooth decay. • Some well water and bore water supplies contain 1 ppm or more naturally. • Fluoridation is mass medication.

  3. FLUORIDATION IS MASS MEDICATION • Fluoridation is administered to treat people, not to make water safer to drink. So it is a medication. • Medical dictionaries and practice establish that preventive medicines are medicines. • F- in mg/day doses is not an essential nutrient. • Natural substances may be medicines: e.g. penicillin, digitalis, salicylates, radioisotopes, etc. • Mass medication violates two principles of medical ethics.

  4. VIOLATIONS OF MEDICAL ETHICS • Principle of informed consent to medication • Principle of controlled dose.

  5. DAILY F- DOSE IS NOT CONTROLLED • Even when F- concentration is controlled (e.g. at 1 ppm), daily dose (mg/day) cannot be. • Large variations in tap-water intake. In fluoridated areas, high F- intake groups are: - formula-fed infants get 100x dose of breast-fed infants; - young children who drink mostly soft drinks; - labourers and athletes; - people with diabetes insipidus, kidney disease, etc.; - heavy tea drinkers get double dose.

  6. WHICH COUNTRIES ARE MORE THAN 50% FLUORIDATED? Only: USA Australia New Zealand Ireland Singapore Columbia Malaysia Israel

  7. INDUSTRIAL WASTE AS MEDICATIONPure fluoride is dangerous enough, but … • Most water supplies are fluoridated with waste from phosphate fertiliser industry. • Contains traces of arsenic, lead & other toxics. • Never subjected to chronic safety tests in animals. Manufacture of phosphate fertiliser

  8. DOES FLUORIDATION REDUCE TOOTH DECAY? Only one point of agreement between pro- and anti- cases: Big reductions in tooth decay occurred in most industrialised countries in 1960s and 70s. But they occurred in both unfluoridated and fluoridated countries. What was the cause? Reductions occurred before F- toothpaste was widely used.

  9. TOOTH DECAY IN SYDNEY, 1961-1972, (fluoridated 1968) 1968 Source: Lawson et al. (1978)

  10. ‘THE MYSTERY OF DECLINING TOOTH DECAY’ Diesendorf M 1986, Nature 322: 125-129 Abstract: Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least 8 developed countries over the past 30 years. It is now time for a scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation.

  11. DOES F- REDUCE TOOTH DECAY? • There are no randomised controlled trials to determine the benefits of fluoridated water. • Reductions claimed for fluoridated water of “up to 50%” (ADA) are flawed by inadequate design (see critiques by Drs Philip Sutton, John Colquhoun, and Mark Diesendorf). • Some large studies find negligible or even no benefits(e.g.Armfield & Spencer 2004)

  12. Jason M. Armfield and A. John Spencer 2004, ‘Consumption of nonpublic water: implications for children’s caries experience’,Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology, 32: 283 “The effect of consumption on nonpublic water on permanent caries experience was not significant.” Now the pro-fluoridation authors claim that their result is being “taken out of context”!

  13. WHO ORAL HEALTH IN 12 YEAR-OLDS (DMFT) DMFT Not fluoridated >50% fluoridated 25-50% fluoridated?

  14. AVERAGE TOOTH DECAY IN 10-YEAR-OLDS BY CAPITAL CITY, 1977 & 1987 School Dental Service data (Diesendorf, 1990). All cities except Brisbane fluoridated for at least 10 years by 1987.

  15. HOW DOES FLUORIDE ACT ON THE TEETH? • Early notion that ingested F- was incorporated in tooth structure and strengthened it.WRONG! • Nowadays: mechanism predominantly ‘topical’ (surface); even pro-fluoridation US Centers for Disease Control admit this. • So, people are being misled that they have to ingest fluoridated water.

  16. DENTAL FLUOROSIS • Caused by F- damage to tooth-forming cells. • Original claim that 1 ppm F- would only produce ‘mild’ mottling in 10% of people. • Actually 50% of people mottled; not only ‘mild’. ‘Mild’ dental fluorosis

  17. DENTAL FLUOROSIS‘Moderate’ and ‘Severe’ Categories <-- Photo: Hardy Limeback DDS Pitting Photo: John Colquhoun BDS, PhD -->

  18. SKELETAL FLUOROSIS IN NATURALLY FLUORIDATED REGIONS: e.g. INDIA, CHINA • Occurs at F- concentrations as low as 0.7 ppm. • F- accumulates in bone, adding mass but destroying structure. • X-rays show structural damage to bones, and calcification of joints and ligaments. • Mild skeletal fluorosis has similar symptoms to arthritis. • Prevalence of arthritis increasing in USA and Australia. • Could some ‘arthritis’ actually be early stage of fluorosis? .

  19. HIP FRACTURES IN THE AGED • Disabling; may be fatal. • Cumulative lifetime F- dose exceeds dose where osteoporosis patients developed hip fractures. • Majority of epidemiological studies find more hip fractures in fluoridated areas. • In China, fracture rate doubled @ 1.5 ppm and tripled @ 4.3 ppm.

  20. INTOLERANCE or HYPERSENSITIVITY • Large body of clinical reports, e.g. by Waldbott, Grimbergen, Petraborg, and Feltman & Kosel. • Several blind & double-blind studies. • Symptoms include excessive fatigue & thirst, stomach ache, muscular weakness. • Never followed up by proponents. Dr George Waldbott

  21. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS • F- is highly active biologically, not inert. • In lab., F- inhibits enzymes; induces genetic changes; & increases uptake of aluminium by brain. • In lab., AlFx complexes disrupt G-proteins. This could change homeostasis, metabolism, growth & differentiation of living organisms.(NEW) • F- concentrates in pineal gland causing earlier onset of puberty in animals.(NEW)

  22. SUMMARY: RISKS OF FLUORIDATION

  23. CAN SIMILAR BENEFITS BE OBTAINED WITH LESS RISK BY OTHER METHODS? • It is possible to have low caries without F intake: e.g. Australian Aborigines on original diet; Hopewood orphanage Australia in 1950s; most of EU today. • Public health officials can influence children’s diet,e.g. by public education and controls on foods sold in school shops & canteens. • Daily, supervised F toothbrushing and/or rinsing (at say 2 ppm) programs in elementary schools are low-risk (for children older than 5 years) and assist low-income groups.

  24. POLITICAL & EQUITY ASPECTS • The principal risk factors for dental caries are poverty and poor diet, not the absence of fluoridation. • Governments use fluoridation to justify cuts to dental health programs for school children & aged. • They cynically peddle myth that fluoridation helps the poor. • But the poor have highest prevalence of dental caries, with or without fluoridation (even in Sydney). • The poor ingest a chronic poison that they cannot afford to avoid. • The poor are more susceptible to fluoride-induced diseases. • Governments use fluoridation to distract attention away from real causes of tooth decay that are politically too hard.

  25. CONCLUSION • Fluoridation is mass medication with uncontrolled dose. Unethical. • Negligible benefit from ingesting F- . • At best fluoridated water, acting at tooth surfaces, reduces tooth decay in a fraction of 1% of tooth surfaces. • Ingestion of F- damages teeth via dental fluorosis and damages bones via skeletal fluorosis and hip fractures. • Worrying biological effects and lab & animal experiments. • Chronic toxicity from impurities in silicofluoride wastes from phosphate fertiliser industry. • Given this evidence, Local and State Govts would be socially irresponsible and open to litigation for supporting fluoridation.

  26. FURTHER READING • Web site of of Fluoride Action Network, convened by Dr Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St Lawrence University, USA:www.fluoridealert.org ; • Mark Diesendorf, 2003, ‘A kick in the teeth for scientific debate’, Australasian Science volume 24, no. 8, pp 35-37, September.(A referenced version may be downloaded from www.sustainbilitycentre.com.au/FluoridePublics.html)

More Related