Bulletin #751

January 20, 2006

Dear All,

Today’s Ottawa Sun article by Dr. W. Gifford-Jones is yet another demonstration of what happens when a medical doctor reads the literature on fluoridation with an open mind. He or she is astounded that this nonsense has gone on for so long.

The take home message: we must get more and more DOCTORS to read the literature. The dentists have controlled this debate for far too long, with disastrous results.

Meanwhile, Nick Budnick’s excellent article in yesterday’s Portland Tribune, has sponsored many comments from readers – 23 to date with a large majority (21 to 2) opposed to water fluoridation. I think you will find these responses very interesting I have printed them below the Ottawa Sun article.

Nick Budnick’s article was distributed in the last FAN bulletin, but just in case you didn’t get a chance to read it, I have printed it out after the comments below. If you would also like to comment on Nick’s article here is the URL for comments:
 http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=116915487295110600>

Yesterday our online petition to Wal-Mart topped 2400, and tomorrow I will distribute the local state and country tallies. Please get your friends and family members to go to http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/walmart/  and add their names if they haven’t done so already.

Paul Connett

——————————————-
Ottawa Sun
Sat, January 20, 2007
Fluoride treatment awash with risks

By DR. W. GIFFORD-JONES

Doctor, I’d suggest fluoride treatment to protect your teeth,” my dentist said.

I agreed. After all, I’d been told since I was knee-high that fluoride prevents cavities. I’ve also used fluoride toothpaste for years. But I recently decided to research the topic to see if there was a downside. Now I know why Montreal males are better lovers than those in Toronto.

William, a three-year-old Brooklyn boy, had his first dental checkup in 1974. Fluoride gel was spread over his teeth. He was then handed a glass of water by the dental hygienist, who failed to inform him to swish the solution in his mouth and spit it out. Instead, he drank the water and a few hours later, he was dead from fluoride poisoning. Fluoride is an acute toxin with a rating higher than lead.

Next, I discovered that 98% of Europe is fluoride-free. Sweden, Germany, Norway, Holland, Denmark and France stopped using fluoridation more than 25 years ago. These are not backward nations.

In 1980, a New Zealand dentist, an ardent supporter of fluoride therapy, was sent by the government on a world tour to study fluoridation. He returned an outspoken critic.

In 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto and former supporter of fluoridation, reported that fluoride may be destroying our bones, teeth and overall health. He claimed that children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste, nor drink fluoridated water. And mothers should never use Toronto tap water to prepare baby formula.

The sole argument favouring fluoridation is that it does reduce tooth decay. But several studies involving as many as 480,000 children found no beneficial difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.

In fact, one study showed decay was greater in the fluoridated area! Moreover, dental health in Europe has improved since 1970 without fluoride.

Most parents are unaware of dental fluorosis, a discolouration of teeth due to excess fluoride. In 1940, this mottling condition occurred in 10% of children’s teeth. Today in some areas, it’s as high as 55%. One reason: Children’s toothpaste tastes good and they swallow too much of it.

Dental fluorosis is the first indication that the body is getting excess fluoride. But bones also collect fluoride and can develop skeletal fluorosis. Since 1990, numerous studies have reported an association between fluoridated water and hip fractures. Fluoridation is also known to increase osteoporosis (brittle bones).

LINKED TO CANCER

In 1992, a U.S. study found a strong link between fluoridation and osteosarcoma, a bone cancer in young males. The rates of this malignancy were three to seven times higher in fluoridated areas.

Other studies in China show reduced IQ in children overexposed to fluoride from drinking water. Further effects include decreased concentration, memory loss and confusion. There’s also concern that fluoridation is implicated in Alzheimer’s, since fluoride combines with aluminum to cross the blood brain barrier.

I didn’t know that Torontonians have double the fluoride levels in hip bones than Montrealers, whose city water is not fluoridated. Studies also show that fluoride causes decreased levels of sperm and testosterone. I wonder if that explains the rumour that they make love in Montreal, while Torontonians only think about making money.

Carl Sagan, the noted astronomer, was right when discussing “authoritarian” judgments. He remarked that “arguments from authority do not count; too many authorities have been mistaken too often.”

There is no convincing reason why water should contain 1.5 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride when our bodies have no use for it, and when its risk is greater than its benefit. Toothpaste has up to 1,500 ppm and treatment in a dentist’s office another whopping 10,000-20,000 ppm!

Besides, unlike calcium, magnesium and other nutrients, our bodies do not need fluoride.

The best solution is to ban fluoridation of water and buy toothpaste without fluoride. After all, the first rule of medicine is “Do no harm.” I finally found a non-fluoride toothpaste in a health food store.

And I imagine you’ve guessed what I’ll say when next asked, “Do you want the fluoride treatment?”
————————————–
Reader comments to “Fluoride debated anew in Senate: Bill stalls as doctor, nurse in Legislature cite health concerns” by Nick Budnick, Portland Tribune, Jan 19, 2007.

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

If the people who support fluoridation of our water are really concerned with our ‘need’ to have fluoride, they could certainly make a topical flouride available to everyone at no charge.

If, as I suspect, it’s MONEY, not concern over our dental health that motivates them, this idea will never fly.

Naturally occuring fluoride is nothing to fear, and can be found in most, if not all water supplies. The stuff they want to add is a poison.

“Let us make our own health decisions!”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 08:39 AM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

I’m a public health professional with a strong background in toxics assessment and hazardous materials management. Bottom line: fluoridation violates every basic, fundamental toxicologic principle I have ever worked with. To give an unmeasured, uncontrolled dose of fluoride to people of varying health status and susceptibility to fluoride (including infants and people with kidney and thyroid impairment), knowing that fluoride inhibits enzyme activity in the body and bioaccumulates in the body, makes no sense whatsoever.

“Daniel G. Stockin, MPH”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Worried by the misinformation

It is very concerning to hear so much misinformation about fluoridation. I’ll just mention a few occurrences in this discussion. First, the study about the link to Osteosarcoma was not published in a Harvard Journal but in Cancer Causes and Control published in Netherlands, a journal aimed at creating hypothesis for research not proving causal links. Furthermore, the head researcher herself describes the study as an exploratory study that requires further research.

Second, one of the readers mentions that naturally occurring fluoride is good but added fluoride is bad when in fact they have the same chemical structure because they both come from natural rocks.

And of course money is a factor. It costs $1 per person per year to reduce cavities by about 20% through water fluoridation versus around $100 for a topical treatment that has much less effectiveness. Oral health is also a large factor in heart disease and a number of other conditions which means water fluoridation probably saves thousands of lives in Oregon.

The only negative health outcome that I’ve seen discussed is osteosarcoma among boys that causes about 1 death a year in Oregon. And that debate is based on one case-control study that states far more limited conclusion in the text than is specified in the media.

That point that Daniel makes is irrelevant because fluoride is not a toxin, it is a nutrient. There seems to be no objections to vitamin D that is added to milk, or iron that is added to flour. Fluoride like these other nutrients has a long scientific record to show that it has profound disease-prevention properties.

“Mel Rader, M.S. Nutrition Policy”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

A study associating ostesarcoma a malignant bone cancer, was published in “Cancer Causes and Control” an online peer review journal of Harvard University. See article published in the Harvard Crimson at http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512585

Also http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514514

Fluoride is not a nutrient and there is no nutritional requirement for it. Water reports list the amount of fluoride with the contaminants.

“Susan Miller”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 01:35 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

All nutrients are toxins with sufficient dosage. Labeling a substance doesn’t automatically make it wholesale good or bad; it depends on the dosage. I find it difficult to believe that there could be a proven link a rare cancer that affects 250 people a year. That means there really aren’t enough kids with the cancer to provide a decent sample size to claim anything definitively. At best you have a weak statistical correlation. A fraction of those 250 kids live in Oregon. A fraction of that are likely actually affected by fluoride, if at all. Compare that to better oral health for everyone, and I can’t see how it’s a no-brainer.

By the way, there’s *iodine* in your salt.

“Bryan Veal”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 02:04 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

The accumulating scientific and medical evidence exposes fluoridation to be so questionable and unreliable in its efficacy, and to have such potentially dangerous and un-quantified side effects, that it borders on lunacy and recklessness for any city to consider, let alone be forced into adding this industrial waste to the drinking water.

Were fluoridation an FDA regulated medical treatment,it would have already been terminated under an onslaught of scientific and and medical evidence for adverse effects.

“Michael Framson”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 02:31 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

I continue to be amazed (and outraged) that this even is an issue. For instance, although the AMA (as well as the ADA) supports fluoridation, there are an overwhelming number of scientific studies (including at least four published in the Journal of the AMA!) that implicate fluoridation as a possible cause for a wide range of ailments, including osteoporosis, fluorosis, neurological and developmental problems.

Is it possible that all of the studies are too premature to “know”? Sure. But why take the risk with the population until we do know, and doubtless there is more than enough research to indicate that there may be a problem. It reminds me of the “smoking doesn’t cause cancer because it hasn’t absolutely been proven” theory of the 60’s.

Here is a link to a comprehensive study of the issue commissioned in 1997 by the town of Natick, MA. Ironically, the health department was in favor of fluoridation and the town hired five scientists with impressive credentials (Including a former scientist from the Apollo program and two former researchers from the U.S. army labs in Natick). The Committee “reached the firm conclusion that the risks of overexposure to fluoride far outweigh any current benefit of water fluoridation” and “unanimously and emphatically recommends that the town NOT fluoridate the water supply.”

http://www.fluoridation.com/natick.htm

BTW - have any of those people who say it is safe in toothpaste read the warning label that is on the tube?

“Don Tien”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:16 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

I am truly amazed we are still dealing with the issue of putting flouride in our drinking water. It may cause all kinds of health concerns, and can even cause tooth damage when used excessively, but by all means, lets make sure every citizen has it in their water, wanted or not! While we’re at it, since obesity is such an issue, why don’t we start adding Ephedra to the water, too? I am not opposed to making flouride available, regardless of income, to anyone who wants it, but keep it out of our water!

“Kathleen Husvar”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 04:04 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

I now live in Salt Lake City, Ut — but I have lived in Gresham, Sandy and Boring, Oregon in the past, and still have relatives in Salem and Aloha.

My comment on fluoridation is: First, I still have my own teeth at 75 plus years without ever having used any form of fluoride, toothpaste or water, that is — until my county began the ugly practice (Salt Lake County) in 2003, after which our health imeadiately went down hill because of the deleterious effect of fluoride on our thyroid. After finding this information on the Internet we installed a 5-stage reverse osmosis filteration system to eleminate it! In just a few weeks we had our good health back again. Why? Search the I-net for “History of Thyroid” ! It has been known since 1854 that fluoride displaces thyroid and reduces the function of the thyroid’s natural function! In our future (If fluoridation is permitted more than now)there will be many, many more people like us, or like we were, before we learned the truth about the dangers of FLUORIDATION! Please, let reason reign!

“Bill and Dee Buckel”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 04:13 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

In addition to the recent Harvard researcher’s epidemiological study linking young males consuming fluoridated water and a 5-fold increase in osteosarcoma, there are other studies waving a red flag regarding cancer. There was the Burk-Yiamouyiannis long-term cancer study that showed a 5-10% overall increase of cancer in select large cities with fluoridated water versus another set of large cities without fluoride in their municipal water. The B-Y study has been held up as valid scientific evidence in several courts of law. Through the late 80s and ending in 1990 there was a long-term rat study of sodium fluoride and carcinogenicity in which the initial findings of multiple tumor endpoints would have ended fluoridation. However, the government bailed fluoridation out at the last minute before officially publishing the final version of the NTC report. ALL CANCER ENDPOINTS IN THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM WERE SYSTEMATICALLY DOWNGRADED BY A QUICKLY FORMED COMMITTEE AT THE END, AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER PROVIDED A VALID SCIENTIFIC EXAPLANTION TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS TO WHY THEY DID THIS! Still the final version of the NTC study lists sodium fluoride as an equivocal cause of osteosarcoma in young male rats. Since the NTC study, there was also a study by the New Jersey Department of Health and Human Services. Their study too found a strong epidemiological link of osteosarcoma for those males living in fluoridated New Jersey communities.

This is one of the most polluted, corruped, insideously ugly issues ever to have hit this nation. Fluoridation of drinking water is as misguided public health policy that we have ever faced. It’s amazing that many leaders and citizens still continue to fall for the spin, hype, and the lies regarding fluoridation.

GET RID OF IT!

“Taylor G. Moore”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 05:23 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

I live in the San Francisco Bay area and the water here has fluoride in it. I have joined with others to try and get it stopped (without success)and would be so pleased if Oregon would not put this hazardous waste product in your water supply. Your action against fluoride would help people in other areas to get it stopped.

My grand daughter has brown spots on her front teeth from too much fluoride in her system. I do my best to protect her with a water filter and toothpaste without fluoride, but still you can plainly see the effect of the fluoride on her teeth.

If people want fluoride they can easily put it in their water—but we who don’t want it can’t avoid it. It is criminal to medicate all the people in hopes that some children will have fewer cavities….especially since it has geen shown that the only way that fluoride can help the kids teeth is if you put it directly on the teeth. Drinking fluoride has no beneficial effect on lessening cavities, but there are other effects—like staining the teeth.

“Patricia Gray”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:21 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

The whole question can be resolved by contacting local county health department for the AWWA Standard for Fluorosilicic Acid B703-06. The members page, contents (entire page of contaminants including heavy metals and “radionuclides” as uranium and radium), and Foreword will answer the debate over the commercial-grade agent regulated by EPA. Dental products are all pharmaceutical-grade regulated by FDA.

In “The Geology of Florida” 1997, University Press of Florida, page 143 reads: “In addition to uranium, fluorine is an economical byproduct of phosphoric-acid production. The fluorine from the rock reacts with silica to form SiF4 gas. During acid production this gas is recovered as fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) in wet scrubbers that are part of the environmental-protection equipment. Fluorosilicic acid is widely used in the preparation of chemical compounds and in the treatment of public drinking water.”

P.S. “Natural fluoride” in the water is usually Calcium-fluoride. The most effective antidote for fluoride poisoning is calcium-gluconate, noted in the government book: Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine (F)1993, pages 112 and 125. When spills occur, Lime is used to neutralize the fluorosilicic acid as happened in Deltona, Florida.

“Anita Knight”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:37 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

As some have noted, there is more than ample indications that contrary to the repeated claims by the proponents of water fluoridation that it is safe for everyone, it certainly is not. But what about its effectiveness in reducing tooth decay? Simply consider the situations in major USA cities that have been fluoridated for many years, ranging from 25 to over 50 years. Cities such as New York, Washington DC, Boston, Cincinnati and Pittsburg are experiencing dental decay rates well above the national average. Most certainly these are failed experiments

Why not follow the lead of the City and County of Honolulu, with a population of about 1,000,000 which is about 80 percent of the State of Hawaii’s populatio and one of the 50 largest USA cities? Several years ago, following numerous unsuccessful attemts to mandate statewide fluoridation, Honolulu enacted an ordinance which prohibits adding any substance, such as fluoride, to the public water for the purpose of treating people as opposed to traating the water. This was accomplished by making sure the Council Members were aware of the negative aspects of water fluoridation.

“Robert G. Briggs”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:41 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

For anyone interested in the whole sordid tale of how the American public was duped into allowing this toxic waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industries into our water supply, I recommend reading “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson. It’s all there, and if you’re not angry by the middle of the book, you’re not paying attention.

The main selling point fluoride advocates use to push this junk is that “the poor” can’t afford good dental care, so mass fluoridation is the only way to help them. Aside from the fact that systemic fluoridation does nothing for the teeth, what about the rights of “the poor” to not have to drink fluoridated water? I refuse to drink the stuff, but I can afford to buy bottled water and filtration systems, as can all of these fluoride proponents, I imagine. The poor cannot, and will therefor be forced to consume it, whether they want it or not. But that’s nothing new to this culture, is it?

“Richard Baynton”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:50 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

It’s just common sense that the only reason fluoride is in our water is to dispose of the toxic waste for chemical companies and then drugs for obesity, hair loss, weight control, Alzheimer, Attention Deficit, chemotherapy, thyroid, heart, and I’m not sure if they have one, yet, for low IQ, can be sold. WAKE UP, America, we have been hoodwinked for 60 years…….. “Just follow the money!!!!” and you will find the answer.

“Dennis Massingill”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 07:25 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

Fluoride in a toxic form is added to water as an unproven preventitive for dental caries. Once IN your water it cannot be removed easily, with standard filtration systems, but rather removes a more expensive and cumbersome system. There is no other medical treatment, preventive or otherwise, that anyone has ever thought to disseminate publicly through our otherwise beautiful public water.

As a physician, I consider carefully each individual patient’s particular situation before I write a prescription and expect the same of anyone watching out for my health care. There are too many unknowns with fluoride, too many risks (currently the ADA is recommending against reconstituting infant formula with water containing fluoride) and too much objection for the state to institute a mandatory fluoridation policy.

When friends ask how the political extremes coexist seemingly peacefully in Oregon, I point out with pride that it is a state tradition to resist forcing your opinions on another person. Fluoridation forces an opinion about what is best for me into my water supply … and for most of us: there’s nothing we can do about it. That is NOT what I love about Oregon.

“Deborah Gordon, M.D.”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 08:07 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

Reading through the comments I picked up on several comments about other substances in other products, as if to say ,”we have iron in flour, why the fuss about fluoride?”. We DO have too many toxins in our food AND body products AND cleaning agents.. each step towards a healthier lifestyle is a definite PLUS!,as for fluoride.. if in doubt, throw it out, (my Mothers motto), works for me!.

“Deanne Martin”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 09:06 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

Thank you, Nick Budnick, for raising this issue that otherwise could get buried in the trivial minutiae of the daily news.

I also appreciate the knowledgable comments on this topic. Now, all I have to do is get the energy to organize a political campaign to de-fluoridate my own, otherwise-ideal, community of McMinnville!

To me the issue has always been one of choice and individual freedom. The question was debated vigorously in Zurich 40+ years ago when my husband and I lived there. I didn’t speak enough German at the time to discover the outcome of the debate, but given the Swiss’ love of freedom, I’m guessing they voted forced fluoridation down. The best argument I heard was that anyone who wanted it could add it to their orange juice or whatever for as long as it was considered good for stopping tooth decay in children. Why give it to adults anyway, who don’t get tooth decay the way kids do?

Again, thanks for the enlightening discussion. It’s my guess that there is way more opposition to forced fluoridation than we realize!

“Jo McIntyre”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 09:30 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

I drink a lot of water during a typical day and choose to drink water that has not been tainted with a poison only slightly less toxic than Lead or Arsenic. How can proponents reason that an efficatious dose for all can be attained by dumping this by-product of fertilizer manufacture into our drinking water??

“Maggie D. Thompson”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

Fluoride in water to prevent cavities is as stupid as putting suntan lotion in water to prevent sunburn. Fluoride is a hazardous waste product. Fluoride is nonsense!! Fluoride equals pesticide! Fluoride is the main ingredient in cockroach and rat poison! Who would even want fluoride treatments? Who would want a hazardous waste product even coating their teeth or/and in their mouth!!??

“Oregon Resident”

(Not verified)

Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 11:32 PM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

Add my congratulations to Nick Budnick for his well-informed and well-researched article.

Jo McIntyre - to learn more and become active in an effort to broaden public awareness - contact the

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK (F.A.N.)

http://www.FluorideAction.net

This is an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures.

“Susan Miller”

(Not verified)

Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 06:27 AM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

Sure, fluoride in our drinking water is safe. Just like lead in our gasoline and asbestos in our buildings.

“Chris Cooper”

(Not verified)

Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 07:45 AM

Re: Fluoride debated anew in Senate

I have made a comment on this subject yesterday, but forgot to mention a very important, but seldom mentioned fact, that of: the use of fluoride in the water of prisoners-of-war in Hitler’s Germany, for the porpose of making those prisoners “more compliant and/or docile” — a “dumbing-down effect” if you will. It is known that fluoride will cause a certain amount of creatanism in infants, so why, oh why would we allow such a horrible additive to be inserted into our drinking water? I really fear for our grandchildren!

“Bill and Dee Buckel”

(Not verified)

Fluoride debated anew in Senate

Bill stalls as doctor, nurse in Legislature cite health concerns

By Nick Budnick  

The Portland Tribune 18.9 hours ago (23 Reader comments)
 In Salem, there’s a new landscape for an old fight, over whether Portland and other cities around Oregon should be forced to add fluoride to drinking water.

Although the 2007 Legislature is less than three weeks old, a bill requiring fluoridation of municipal water supplies supported by the Oregon Dental Association already appears to have foundered in a state Senate committee, where the only medical doctor and the only nurse in the Legislature’s upper house are openly citing concerns about the measure’s safety.

“I’ve asked for four years now, ‘Show me good, credible studies that say fluoride is safe to add to drinking water, and I’ll vote for it,’ ” said Dr. Alan Bates, the Democratic senator from Ashland. “And there aren’t any.”

He was echoed by Laurie Monnes Anderson, a Democrat and registered nurse who represents Gresham in the Senate.

“I have concerns about the scientific studies … that say there are real health threats from water fluoridation,” she said.

Fluoridation supporters, including retired Newberg dentist April Love, say Bates and Monnes Anderson are misguided, and that health fears about adding fluoride to drinking water are misplaced.

Still, the statements by the Senate’s only members of the medical profession illustrate the biggest problem that fluoridation supporters face: that the antifluoridation movement is not just for right-wing kooks anymore.

It’s a question that has special significance for Portland, the largest city in the United States to not add fluoride to its water supply, and a high-priority target for both sides of the fight.

The bill that foundered in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee last week would have required cities and water suppliers serving a population of 10,000 or more to add fluoride to drinking water supplies.

Supporters of water fluoridation and most critics do agree on one thing; brushing your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste has been proven to be safe and beneficial. Where they differ is on whether the substance should be put in water.

Supporters say water fluoridation is the best way to protect poor kids who are not raised with good dental care habits. “I can see the difference,” said Love, who conducts oral health screenings of Head Start kids, adding that as a result of what dentists see, “you end up with a strong belief in your soul” on the topic.

Already, five past efforts to make fluoridation mandatory statewide have failed, but never resoundingly. Today, however, the balance of power may be changing.

Although the American Dental Association and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control continue to say fluoridation is safe, opponents cite a variety of new studies of fluoride that have been published in the past year after being reviewed by scientific peers, including:

• A study published in Harvard University’s cancer research journal that found a strong link to a rare, often fatal form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma, which strikes about 250 boys each year.

• A paper published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, that cited fluoride as being among a slew of insufficiently studied chemicals with a documented potential for neurological effects that could help explain a global “pandemic” of developmental disabilities, like attention deficit disorder and autism.

• A report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences — the equivalent of the USA’s national team of science — which cited credible research that even at low levels of exposure, fluoride could have subtle effects on the development of the body’s endocrine and hormonal systems, as well as IQ.

Backers question studies

Supporters of fluoridation scoff at such studies.

“It is not good science that is being promoted … that there is any risk whatsoever in water fluoridation,” said Thomas Aschenbrenner, president of the Northwest Health Foundation, who said that his group is enlisting the support of fluoridation supporters to produce a “white paper” that will respond to the recent studies.

“I’ve not seen anything that I have found compelling” enough to oppose fluoridation, he said.

Particularly significant was the National Research Council report, which although it did not directly address water fluoridation, did suggest several mechanisms by which water fluoridation could affect human health.

Chuck Haynie, a Hood River doctor and fluoridation supporter who read the National Research Council report, said that he feels it was tainted by including three scientists on the council who had concerns about fluoridation. He instead sides with the American Dental Association and the CDC, which both say fluoridation is safe.

Kathy Thiessen, a risk assessment specialist who sat on the National Research Council, and who has worked for the CDC, defended the group’s findings, saying that “it certainly is relevant” to water fluoridation. While the ADA and the CDC “both wish to say that our report is consistent with their opinions (that water fluoridation is safe),” she said, “Our report said no such thing.”

The report suggested that the maximum level of fluoride that should be allowed in drinking water is close to or below the level that dental advocates want to make mandatory in drinking water. As Thiessen put it, with fluoridation, “there are not the safety factors that are there for other chemicals.”

Other groups enter fray

Thiessen noted that while the ADA has questioned the relevance of the National Research Council report, the dentists’ group cited the report in a recent warning that parents of infants 12 months or younger should avoid using fluoridated water to make baby formula.

Using fluoridated water in formula can expose infants to more fluoride than is considered safe, and could lead to dental fluorosis, a condition of overexposure that leads to mild discoloration of the tooth’s surface.

Critics of fluoridation have received a helping hand from a new source, the Oregon Conservation Network, a coalition of 40 Oregon environmental groups, which recently decided to lobby against fluoridation for reasons of public health and safety.

Sybil Ackerman, a lobbyist for the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, spearheads the network’s legislative agenda. In lobbying against water fluoridation, “The feedback I get from lawmakers is very strong one way or another,” she said. “This is a very impassioned issue for folks, and a lot of people have decided what they feel.”

nickbudnick@portlandtribune.com