Bulletin #744

January 12, 2006

Dear All,

Some day I feel that I am trapped in a play by Kafka. Yesterday was one. I received three emails containing the three stories printed below.

Incredibly, despite all the things which happened last year – several of which by themselves should have been enough to end fluoridation – the zealous promoters of fluoridation continue to speak and act as if nothing happened at all. There are several reasons why this may be so.

1. Promoters don’t want to admit that they are wrong. Never an easy thing to do, especially if your whole professional career has been related to the promotion of this practice. Their jobs depend upon it. This would apply to officials at the CDC, the ADA and State Dental Directors.
2. They don’t want to see their source of funding dry up. Many leading dental researchers receive much of their research money from institutions which promote fluoridation or companies which sell fluoridated dental products.
3. They are scared stiff of liabilities (e.g. The ADA and the companies which sell fluoridated dental products).
4. Rank and file dentists do not read the scientific literature on fluoride’s health effects, and rely for information on these from biased sources like the ADA and the CDC.
5. Since their training in dental and medical schools they have developed a religious faith in the practice. For them no evidence can possibly demonstrate any health problems from exposing populations to 250 times the level of fluoride in mothers milk (they must believe there is some kind of “protective veil” operating here), and those that present such evidence must be crazy proponents of “junk science.”
6. The debate has been largely controlled by dental concerns, with the most aggressive spokespersons having little expertise in toxicology or tissues other than the teeth. How else can one explain the ADA/CDC/AWWA dismissal of the NRC (2006) review as having “no relevance” to water fluoridation?  The EPA’s current safe drinking water standard of 4 ppm is already too close for comfort to the 1 ppm at which water is fluoridated. The NRC call for this 4 ppm standard to be lowered, makes the practice of water fluoridation even more reckless. The ADA/CDC/AWWA statements clearly indicate their failure to distinguish between a concentration in the water (which can be controlled) and a daily dose (which cannot) and illustrate how little they appreciate the need for an adequate margin of safety between the therapeutic dose and the toxic dose, when exposing a whole population to a poisonous substance.

Whatever the reason, the fluoridation juggernaut rolls on: intimidating local officials (see the sad story of Yarmouth, Massachusetts below); reaching out to subvert democracy at the local level by getting  state mandatory fluoridation (see the story below of yet another attempt to introduce mandatory fluoridation into Oregon) and the stepped up efforts to push for fluoridation in other countries around the world (see our third story below which reports on the so-called “global consultation on fluoride and oral health” held in Geneva last November).

As far as the Yarmouth story is concerned, the press report below indicates that officials there were subjected to “education” by Dr. Myron Allukian Jr., who is described as an “internationally recognized expert on the subject”. In actual fact, in my view he is one of the most biased and bombastic promoters of fluoridation that I have heard (second only to Michael Easley). However, the Yarmouth officials seem to have been putty in his hands when he told them that “the data is overwhelmingly in support of fluoridation,” that it “presents no health risks” and that much of the controversy stems from what he called “junk science.” One can only assume that he considers the NRC (2006) review and Bassin’s published research on osteosarcoma “junk science”. Did he even mention these I wonder? Did he mention the ADA’s Nov 9 recommendation that parents not use fluoridated water to make up baby formula? Did he offer any suggestions as to how Yarmouth might educate parents on this matter and supply non-fluoridated water for parents with low income? This whole meeting sounds simplistic and sickening.
  
As far as the public radio report on the latest effort to introduce mandatory fluoridation into Oregon it is totally unbalanced reporting and I have emailed them to say so.

As far as the juggernaut’s efforts to fluoridate the  rest of the world is concerned, there is no suggestion in the report below on the “global consultation on fluoride and oral health”  that an attempt was made to seek out dissenting voices to the practice of water fluoridation. Once again we see an extraordinary reluctance to handle these matters in a balanced and open handed manner from bodies which claim to be “professional.”

Paul Connett
—————————————–  
1) Yarmouth moves forward with fluoridation
 
http://www.townonline.com/barnstable/homepage/8999012823803625471

By Craig Salters
  
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - Updated: 11:11 AM EST
  
 Massachusetts has 139 communities with fluoridated drinking water and Yarmouth officials want their town added to the list.
  
Dr. Benjamin Gordon, chairman of the Yarmouth Board of Health, said his board would revisit the issue and recommend that the town fluoridate its drinking water. Gordon’s comments come on the heels of a Tuesday night vote by Yarmouth selectmen to endorse the Massachusetts Department of Health’s position that towns adopt fluoridation.
  
While not a directive, the selectmen’s unanimous vote essentially backs the board of health as it makes its decision to fluoridate or not. The board of health’s next scheduled next meeting is Monday, Jan. 22.
  
In 2005, the board of health decided not to move forward with the controversial subject, citing the need for public education and a markedly anti-fluoridation tone to two public meetings.
  
But despite the board of health’s renewed interest in the subject, fluoridation in Yarmouth isn’t a done deal. According to Gordon, the board’s recommendation would instantly trigger a 90-day waiting period. During that time, a petition signed by 10 percent of the town’s registered voters could force a referendum on the issue. And, said Gordon, a referendum defeat would mean that the issue could not be raised again for another two years.
  
“We can’t order fluoridation and have it done next week,” said Gordon, who attended Tuesday night’s meeting of selectmen along with other board of health members and Yarmouth Health Director Bruce Murphy.
  
In terms of public education, selectmen got a large dose of it Tuesday night in the form of Dr. Myron Allukian Jr., a dentist and former director of Oral Health for the Boston Public Health Commission. An internationally recognized expert on the subject, Allukian attempted to allay fears about fluoridated drinking water, a topic which has proved a lightning rod since it was introduced six decades ago.
  
“The data is overwhelmingly in support of fluoridation,” said Allukian, who added that, while some opponents may have valid questions about fluoridation, much of the controversy stems from what he called “junk science.”
  
Allukian spoke to the dental health benefits, especially to young children, from fluoridating water at one part per million. He told board members that, at that level, fluoride would be “odorless, colorless and tasteless” and present no health risks.
  
Allukian also said $1 spent in fluoridation would translate into $38 in savings from better oral health.
  
Selectman Bill Marasco, a doctor and one of the board’s leading fluoridation proponents, thanked Allukian for his presentation and called fluoridation a public health issue.
  
“This is going to help people who can’t help themselves,” said Marasco.
  
In 2005, the board of health conducted an informational hearing followed by public hearings. While not rejecting fluoridation, the board decided not to move forward and said as much in a letter to selectmen last January.
  
“At all three public meetings, the clear sentiment of the majority of the public present was that the town should not add fluoride to the drinking water,” reads the letter.
  
Gordon touched upon those concerns Tuesday night, explaining to the board that approximately 40 people attended those meetings and that several were not from Yarmouth. He added that presentations like those of Allukian, as well as technical assistance from the state’s public health agencies, went a long way to the public education component that health board members desired.
  
Presently, no towns on Cape Cod have fluoridated drinking water. In Bourne, Otis Air National Guard Base fluoridates its drinking water as does the town of Oak Bluffs on Martha’s Vineyard.
  
In a move that made headlines across the state, the city of New Bedford recently returned to fluoridated water after decades without it

————————–
2) They are trying for Mandatory fluoridation in Oregon AGAIN!

 http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1024374>
  
 Oregon Public Broadcasting News
 
 Dental Groups Want Mandatory Water Fluoridation
 
 By Chris Lehman
  
 SALEM, OR 2007-01-11 A coalition of dental groups is pushing a bill that would put fluoride in tap water across much of Oregon.
  
 The groups say fluoride in water cuts down on dental problems.
  
 The bill would require water systems with more than 10,000 customers to fluoridate their water.
  
 April Love is a dentist with the group backing the measure.
  
 April Love: “Fluoridating public water supplies is safe, it works, and it’s by far the most economical way to prevent tooth decay. It’s been extensively studied and is widely accepted with about 170 million people in the United States drinking fluoridated water.”
  
 Similar bills in the past have faced fierce opposition.
  
 About 20 percent of Oregon communities supply fluoridated water. That places the state near the bottom of the national rankings. About half of Washington and Idaho communities provide fluoridated water.

Paul Connett’s response.

This the comment I posted to the station via their web page last night.

Where was the balance in today’s story on the proposed mandatory fluoridation bill?

Executive Director,
Fluoride Action Network.
 
——————–
3) The whole world in their hands!
 
Global Consultation on “Oral Health through Fluoride”

http://www.fdiworldental.org/public_health/3_7fluoride.html
 
 This global consultation on fluoride and oral health was held in Geneva on 17-19 November 2006. The consultation was jointly organised by the FDI World Dental Federation, International Association for Dental Research (IADR), and the World Health Organization (WHO).
  
 The consultation, jointly organised by the FDI World Dental Federation, the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), and the WHO, aimed to consider the actions needed to effectively reduce the global burden of dental caries. It draws on the alliance’s range and areas of expertise: the FDI is the unified voice of oral health professionals around the world; the IADR advances research for the improvement of oral health worldwide; and the WHO, the accepted leader in global health matters, advises governmental bodies throughout the world.
  
 The benefits of fluoride for the prevention and control of dental caries has been known to the scientific and public health community for more than sixty years. While fluoride in various delivery systems is widely available in many developed countries, it is estimated that globally only 20 percent of the world’s population benefit from appropriate exposure to fluoride.
  
 Press release from the Consultation:
  
Experts confirm the benefits of fluoride for dental health  (English)
  
Les experts confirment les avantages du fluor pour la santé dentaire (French)
  
Los expertos confirman los beneficios del fluoruro para la salud dental (Spanish)
  
Experten bestätigen Vorteile von Fluoriden für die Zahngesundheit (German)
  
 Declaration from the Consultation:
  
Call to Action to Promote Dental Health by Using Fluoride http://www.fdiworldental.org/public_health/assets/Fluoride_Consultation/Fluoride_Declaration_Final_E.pdf>