Dear All,

Shortly, I am off to Seattle, but first a series of articles that appeared in the New Bedford (MA) newspaper, South Coast Today (May 2-5). It is preceded by an article from April 20 explaining the city’s efforts to hear from both sides on this issue.

If after reading the series you wish to send in a letter to the editor, the address is  >. If you do so please keep your letter short and focus on just one (or two) points and refer to our website for back up (http://www.FluorideAction. Net). Our biggest problem is overwhelming people with too many arguments (I can talk!).

Paul Connett

————————————————————————

City to host fluoride hearings

NEW BEDFORD (April 20, 2006) The city will hold three informational hearings on a proposal to put fluoride in the city’s drinking water.

The three forums all will be held at 7 p.m., beginning on April 27 at Roosevelt Middle School; May 2 at New Bedford High School; and May 15 at Normandin Middle School.

Mayor Scott W. Lang said he wants to hear from water customers about how they feel about fluoridation. The City Council has asked Mayor Lang to place the issue of fluoridation on the November ballot.

The Water Department is ready to fluoridate the water, and the Board of Health has approved it as a way to fight tooth decay. But the fluoride will not be added to the water until Mayor Lang signs off, according to Ronald Labelle, the superintendent of the city’s water and wastewater divisions.

———————————————–

The Four part series: Fluoride 101.

OUR VIEW: Fluoride 101: Why did we first add fluoride?

There was a time in American history when the public had a great deal of faith that man-made chemicals would lead to better living. But that faith in chemicals has evaporated in recent decades as the public has seen the damaging effects of some chemicals on our health.

This is in the background of the raging debate over whether or not New Bedford should add fluoride to the New Bedford public drinking water system to help strengthen the teeth of young city residents, who as a group, suffer from high numbers of cavities, tooth loss and decay, according to local dentists.

This week, the “Our View” column will pose several questions and try to answer them to help in the understanding of what it means to add fluoride to public water for all residents.

Today’s question is why did communities begin fluoridating public water?

Tomorrow we answer two questions: Why there is such controversy over the adding of fluoride to drinking water, and how do other countries view fluoride?

Thursday we review the arguments for adding fluoride, and on Friday we review the arguments against fluoride.

After reviewing the information with our readers, The Standard-Times editorial board plans to take a position.

The effects of fluoride, a natural constituent of rocks and soil, were first discovered in Colorado by a dentist in the early 1900s who noticed that many of his patients had mottled teeth. Although the tooth enamel appeared mottled or brownish in color, the teeth were surprisingly resistant to decay.

The dentist, Frederick McKay, working with another researcher, G.V. Black, determined that high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the water were causing the mottled enamel. This research led to further studies by the U.S. Public Health Service, which found that a concentration of about 1 part per million of fluoride in drinking water did not result in damaged enamel, but gave teeth the strengthening effect that higher levels of fluoride had caused in Colorado. Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first community to fluoridate its public water system in 1945, and cities and towns across the country have instituted similar programs for decades. In Massachusetts, some 135 towns and cities add fluoride to public water systems including Fall River, Taunton, part of Freetown, Swansea, Somerset and Attleboro. Some communities have been adding fluoride since the 1950s.

The federal government considers the fluoridation of public water supplies at concentrations of 1 part per million to be one of the most cost-effective, practical and safe means for reducing the occurrence of tooth decay, and a major success story of the 20th century in public health.

Today, most public water systems achieve fluoridation by adding fluorosilicic acid to the water supply. This is a corrosive acid that must be handled as a hazardous waste in its concentrated form. New Bedford’s water treatment staff have been trained to handle the acid when and if fluoridation begins in the city. The acid is produced as a co-product in the manufacture of phosphoric acid and phosphate fertilizer. The raw material for these products is phosphate rock, which contains fluoride and silica and is treated with sulfuric acid which turns into two gases, silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen fluoride. These gases are passed through wet scrubbers and react with water to form fluorosilicic acid.

Jim Ricci, the superintendent of the New Bedford Water Division, said this chemical is then added to the water supply to obtain 1 part per million concentration. He estimated it will cost the city about $45,000 a year to fluoridate the water. That amount includes the cost of additional soda ash to lower the acidity which is raised by fluorosilicic acid and the cost of added electricity for the process.

Mr. Ricci says he has no position on whether to add fluoride, but he cautions residents against falling for what he calls “scare tactics” concerning the chemical nature of fluorosilicic acid.

The chemical is dangerous in high concentrations, but so are a number of chemicals used in drinking water purification, he said, including chlorine, which is used to remove bacteria.

Tomorrow’s Our View question: Why is there so much controversy surrounding fluoride and what are other countries doing?

Date of Publication: May 02, 2006 on Page A12

—————————————————————

Part 2: What do other countries do?

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-06/05-03-06/01opinion.htm>

OUR VIEW: Fluoride 101: What do other countries do?

Editor’s note: This is the second in a four-part editorial series that looks at the issues surrounding fluoride and its effectiveness at fighting tooth decay. New Bedford is poised to begin fluoridating public water. The mayor has asked for a community conversation on the issue.

Why is there such controversy over adding fluoride to drinking water, a practice established more than 50 years ago? And how do other countries view fluoride?

Last week, the North Attleboro Board of Health filed a lawsuit against the town’s Public Works Department to end fluoridation. North Attleboro voters approved fluoridation in 2000. In the intervening years, two of the three members of the elected board of health came out strongly against fluoride.

Board of Health member Diane Battistello can answer the question of why fluoridation is so controversial. She is among a growing number of people, some in public policy positions, who question the overall benefits of fluoride in drinking water. She is concerned that some people might be hurt by the addition of this chemical and that it is not right to medicate an entire community to address a problem that is better addressed with proper dental care and teeth brushing.

Fluoride opponents received some ammunition recently when the National Research Council issued a report that found that the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard of no more than

4 parts per million of fluoride is not stringent enough.

Although some are concerned about the cosmetic effect of high concentrations of fluoride on teeth, a major concern for most opponents is the cumulative effect of fluoride on bones. Skeletal fluorosis is a bone and joint condition associated with prolonged exposure to high concentrations of fluoride. There are few known cases of this disease in the United States. The scientific research on the connection between fluoride and bones and a possible link to a rare form of bone cancer will be discussed in Friday’s editorial.

The controversy over fluoride also has been fueled by people who look to other countries for examples.

The Fluoride Action Network is an international coalition committed to broadening public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the effects of fluoride exposure on health. FAN has an extensive Web site that shows that most Western European countries have rejected adding fluoride to drinking water. Even some cities that had been fluoridating water recently decided to stop (see www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm).

Basel, Switzerland, voted three years ago to stop fluoridating city water after 41 years of adding fluoride. France does not include fluoride among the chemicals it allows in drinking water. Norway rejected the idea 20 years ago after an extensive discussion. However, Ireland, a small portion of the United Kingdom and parts of Spain have continued to fluoridate drinking water.

Studies have shown that on both sides of the Atlantic, the rate of dental decay has declined dramatically in the last half century in communities that add fluoride, as well as those that do not. Many scientists believe the common denominator is an increased use of toothpaste with fluoride during this period.

Tomorrow’s question: What are the strongest arguments for adding fluoride to the city’s public water system?

Date of Publication: May 03, 2006 on Page A14

—————————————————————

OUR VIEW: Fluoride 101: Why add fluoride?

Editor’s note: This is the third in a four-part editorial series that looks at the issues surrounding fluoride and its effectiveness at fighting tooth decay. New Bedford is poised to begin fluoridating public water. The mayor has asked for a community conversation on the issue.

What are the arguments for adding fluoride to public drinking water?

Dr. Mary McCabe strongly believes that adding one part per million of fluoride to city water will significantly cut down the number of children with decayed teeth at an early age.

She knows from her work as director of the Greater New Bedford Community Dental Clinic, where she and other dentists serve hundreds of residents who cannot afford dental care without public assistance, that there is a crisis of tooth decay in New Bedford that affects children and adults.

Anyone familiar with tooth decay knows that it takes a physical and psychological toll on a person who cannot afford to repair these problems. Not having healthy teeth can be the reason a person loses out in a job interview. It can be an embarrassment that holds an adult or child back. And it can cause gnawing pain that keeps a child from concentrating on schoolwork, eating properly, sleeping at night or developing as a healthy person.

Dr. McCabe says 24 percent of New Bedford’s third-graders have pain or infection in their mouths, according to her research. Chronic pain or decay of this type can lead to permanent loss of teeth.

By adding fluoride to water, children and adults receive a regular dose of a substance that has proven to reduce the solubility of tooth enamel and reduce the ability of plaque to form acids, which cause cavities. The ingestion of fluoride in low concentrations also helps children form stronger teeth as they are developing as youngsters, she said.

The American Dental Association, the federal Centers for Disease Control and state government have endorsed the practice of fluoridating public water at 1 part per million for nearly 50 years to combat tooth decay in a safe, cost-effective manner.

Massachusetts officials supplied The Standard-Times with one study that shows the effectiveness of fluoridation on children’s teeth. There are hundreds of studies from across the country that compare children who drink water without fluoride to those who drink fluoridated water.

The 1981 study by the Harvard University School of Dental Medicine and state Department of Dental Care Administration looked at 231 children ages 7 to 14 who grew up with fluoridated water in 1981 in Holyoke and a similar group of children who were screened in the same Holyoke schools in 1968 before the community added fluoride to its water.

The researchers found that among young boys and girls there was a 72 percent reduction in tooth decay, as measured through cavities, missing teeth and other signs of decay.

Comparisons of nonfluoridated and fluoridated communities in the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand have consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of water fluoridation in reducing decay, according to the CDC. The reduction in dental decay ranged from 15 percent to 40 percent in these studies.

With this kind of results, it is understandable that the directors of New Bedford’s anti-poverty agency, PACE, made a request several years ago to the New Bedford Board of Health to add fluoride to city water to help children and adults, and particularly to reach poor children who do not have good dental care at home through regular brushing or at a dentist’s office through regular visits.

Friday’s question: What are the arguments against fluoridating city water?

Date of Publication: May 04, 2006 on Page A16

OUR VIEW: Fluoride 101: What are the arguments against fluoride?

Editor’s note: This is the last in a four-part editorial series that looks at fluoride and its effectiveness in fighting tooth decay. The Standard-Times editorial board will meet this month to take a final position on the plan to add fluoride to New Bedford water. We welcome your letters on this issue. E-mail them to letters@s-t.com

What are the arguments against fluoridating city water?

The view of the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control is that there is an optimal range of fluoride (about 1 part per million in water) that prevents tooth decay and does not endanger the teeth or other parts of the body.

But a growing number of scientists question whether any artificial addition of fluoride to public water systems is safe for everyone. They say the ADA and CDC have not looked carefully at the effects of fluoride on other parts of the body, and even have dismissed the damage that too much fluoride can do to teeth.

They also say no one knows how much fluoride a person gets in addition to what they might receive from drinking fluoridated water. Fluoride, a naturally occurrding element, is found in foods processed in fluoridated water, instant teas, juices, soda, wine and some canned foods.

J. William Hirzy, a senior scientist in the Environmental Protection Agency Risk Assessment Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, heads a union that represents scientists in the EPA that has called for banning fluoride from public water systems.

He says that mother’s milk contains about .01 parts per million of fluoride even if the mother is drinking fluoridated water. The mother’s system filters out fluoride in milk so the child gets a minimal amount. He also said there is little difference between 1 part per million, as recommended by the CDC, and 2 parts per million, which has been shown in some scientific studies to cause harmful health effects.

The argument against fluoride gained strength in March when the National Research Council issued a lengthy review of existing science that concluded that the EPA fluoride limits are too high to protect health. To read the report online, go to http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html

This panel of scientists brought together by the National Academy of Sciences at the request of the EPA said flatly that the EPA maximum contaminant level goal of 4 parts per million of fluoride over a lifetime, the federal drinking water standard, does not protect people from adverse health effects, including bone fractures, thyroid function losses, possible IQ deficits and possible bone cancer.

The NRC did not say at what level fluoride might not contribute to health problems. Instead, it recommended that the EPA review its drinking water standards and set new rules.

The Centers for Disease Control quickly issued a statement that attempted to differentiate the NRC study findings from its 60-year promotion of fluoride. It pointed that out the NRC looked at fluoride in water systems primarily from naturally occurring fluoride.

But fluoride opponents say there is no difference between the type of fluoride added to water systems and the fluoride that the EPA regulates in its drinking water standards. Public water system fluoridation might come from hydrofluorosilicic acid (a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry) and another fluoride might come from natural runoff from rocks. Dr. Paul Connett, a chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, says hydrofluorosilicic acid is more dangerous to human health because it contains traces of arsenic, a known carcinogen.

The NRC study looked at peer-reviewed scientific reports on the effect of fluoride on the brain, bones, teeth, the thyroid and a range of other human systems. The report concluded that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and body by direct and indirect means.” The scientists based this concern on studies done on Chinese populations in which IQ deficits were found in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 parts per million in drinking water. The NRC said fluorides also might increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.

The NRC also reviewed a recently published study by Dr. Elise B. Bassin of the Harvard Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology in the School of Dental Medicine. This study, which was just published in Cancer Causes Control, a peer-reviewed journal, found that young males exposed to fluoride in drinking water during their childhood are five times more likely to develop a rare form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma.

There also was a consensus among the panel that a lifetime of exposure to fluoride “can weaken bones and increase the risk of fractures.”

Professor Connett calls the mass fluoridation of public water a type of mass medication that is forced upon diverse populations in a way that no doctor would be allowed to treat even a single patient.

Many opponents of fluoridation also argue that there are much safer and more effective ways to prevent dental decay than community water fluoridation.

The use of toothpaste with fluoride aims directly at the teeth and does not expose other parts of the body, including hip bones, thyroid, endocrine system or the brain, to the harmful effects of too much fluoride.

Date of Publication: May 05, 2006 on Page A16