FAN Bulletin 1085

August 7, 2009,

As everyone who has fought the fluoridation battle for any length of time knows, we are up against big power and big money. The big power of the US Pubic Health Service is wielded throughout the country via every State health department and the big money of the ADA buys all the lobbying and public relations it wants. Add to that the money that is siphoned off from the US taxpayer for the “promotion of oral health” in each state and we really have a massive David versus Goliath contest.

You can see that power and money in operation in a press report indicating a renewed effort to fluoridate San Jose in California (see below). It is fascinating that an engineer (Kip Duchon) is allowed a prominent voice in this matter. It is bad enough that dentists have been allowed to control this debate for over 60 years even though they have no credentials to make judgments on health issues. Now we are allowing an engineer to call the shots. According to the report below he will be “talking science and quelling myths.” Such a pretentious role is only possible because Kip Duchon works for the Oral Health Division of the “mighty” CDC. I would love to hear Duchon’s analysis of the National Research Council review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s Standards” (NRC, 2006). Now that would be an engineering feet!

Indemnification

According to Maureen Jones (who was interviewed for the report below) when the mandatory fluoridation bill was slipped through the California legislature at the eleventh hour in 1995, it left communities with two problems:

One was finding the private money needed to finance the scheme and the second was the obligation (before they accepted money from any source) of signing a clause which indemnifies the donor of any liabilities if health problems arise.

San Jose citizens would be very wise to insist that their ‘leaders’ do not sign such a clause. Perhaps local officials can persuade the California state legislature to sign the clause or the California Department of Health. Maybe they could persuade Kip Duchon to sign the clause on behalf of the CDC, after all his agency has told the world that this practice is “perfectly safe”! Let the reality reflect their rhetoric. If they really believe it is safe and will cause no harm to anyone they should have no problem with taking full responsibility for what they promote. In other words: those who push this foolish practice on the public should put their money where their mouths are. As far as we can see, no one is prepared to accept responsibility for any harm caused by this practice. The FDA does not, the EPA does not and the CDC does not. So who does? This is the key question; all the rest is smoke and mirrors. The EPA has had the opportunity to produce a MCLG (based upon the findings in the NRC, 2006 review) which would have scuttled the program indirectly, but after over three years (40 months to be precise) they have failed to produce anything in public. Rumor has it that they are waiting for Chester “Godot” Douglass to finally publish his study (promised three years ago) which he claims refutes Bassin’s findings on a link to osteosarcoma. Like everyone else the EPA seems more concerned about protecting this program than protecting the health of the American people. For what do we pay these people?

Integrity

Meanwhile, with all their power, money and swagger the proponents lack the one thing they would need to secure this practice indefinitely: scientific integrity. We know this. Eventually the media and the general public will find this out. Meanwhile, we are doing everything we can to make the scientific credibility and integrity of the leading opponents of fluoridation visible in every way we can.

You can see this integrity in operation in FAN’s 28 minute DVD “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation” available online at http://www.FluorideAlert.org

You can also see the number of professionals who have stood up for integrity by reading through the list of those who have signed the Professionals’ Statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide, also available online at http://www.FluorideAlert.org . The current total is edging closer and closer towards 2600.

In 2006, realizing that our strongest weapon against fluoridation was our scientific integrity, FAN initiated an annual award entitled the “Albert Burgstahler Scientific Integrity Award” in honor of someone who for over 40 years has demonstrated that quality.

In 2006, the winner was Albert Burgstahler himself.
In 2007, the winners were Dr. Bill Hirzy and Dr. Robert Carton present and former employees of the US EPA.
In 2008 the winners were Dr. Bob Isaacson, Dr. Hardy Limeback and Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, three co-authors of the groundbreaking National Research Council Review (NRC, 2006).

We will soon announce the 2009 winners of this award.

Paul Connett

PS Ellen and I use Apple computers and laptops, however recently I have need of a PC computer or laptop for certain applications. Before we go to the expense of getting a new PC computer (or laptop) is there any one among our readers who has an older PC (not too old!) he or she would be prepared to donate to FAN?

Push to fluoridate water in San Jose
By April Dembosky
San Jose Mercury News, August 5, 2009
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/California/Push-to-fluoridate-water-in-San-Jose

So far, tooth fairies have had it great in San Jose: The city is the largest in the country that doesn’t fluoridate its water. But now a major effort is under way to shed that title.

In a push toward better dental health in the valley, advocates have launched a campaign to raise the millions needed to upgrade the city’s water infrastructure. Given the controversy that typically surrounds fluoridation efforts, they expect progress to be slow. So on Wednesday backers of the effort brought a top engineer from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention together with San Jose Water Co. officials to begin talking science and quelling myths.

“California is really behind,” said Kip Duchon, the fluoridation engineer who presented the workshop. “So we’re very excited at the CDC to know that the people of Santa Clara County are really ready to take this important health initiative.”

About 70 percent of community water systems in the United States are treated with fluoride , recognized by international health experts as a key method in preventing tooth decay, particularly among children. In California, only 30 percent of water systems are fluoridated, Duchon said, partly because of the state’s highly complex water systems.

San Jose’s system, for instance, includes more than 100 wells at almost 30 sites. So the water company has been reluctant to take on the task and find the money for it.

“The health question is not really in our purview,” said company spokesman John Tang. “We need to better define what technology is out there to help us fluoridate the water in the most cost-effective way.”

Owned by stockholders

San Jose Water Co., which provides water to the vast majority of the city, is a publicly traded company beholden to stockholders, not voters or county officials. So it has little motivation to help finance the treatment system. But a state law passed in 1995 mandates that if the money for equipment and initial maintenance costs are provided by sources other than the utility or its customers, water companies must build fluoridation systems.

The Health Trust , a Campbell-based foundation that funds health projects, is launching a capital fundraising campaign to cover those costs. Early estimates put the project’s price tag at $18 million. But parties on both sides contest the number, so the trust, with support from Santa Clara County and the city, wants to commission an engineering study to find out exactly what needs to be done for exactly how much.

‘Tooth mobile’

The Health Trust took on the issue of children’s oral health six years ago, opening a dental clinic and buying a “tooth mobile” for screenings. But they found so many cavities, especially among children from low-income families, they wanted to focus more on prevention.

“We can never drill our way out of this issue if we don’t spend time looking at the upstream solution of fluoride,” said Fred Ferrer, CEO of the trust. “You’re not serious about oral health if you’re not using one of the best prevention methods you have.” (Pockets of San Jose that aren’t served by the water utility added fluoride to their water years ago.)

Numerous studies have shown that optimal levels of fluoride in water, about 1 milligram per liter, strengthen teeth and slow down bacteria that causes decay. Decay rates are reduced by 18 to 40 percent in communities with fluoridated water, according to the CDC. A California statewide study published in 1999 found that, on average, kids who lived in communities that did not have fluoridated water had one tooth more that was decayed or filled than kids in fluoridated areas.

In Santa Clara County, Health Trust officials found in 2001 that one in three kindergartners and third-graders had untreated tooth decay. Those numbers are higher than the statewide averages - about 28 percent of kindergartners and 29 percent of third-graders, according to a 2006 statewide survey by the Dental Health Foundation.

But fluoride opponents claim tooth decay is a result of too much sugar, not lack of fluoride. And they argue kids are getting plenty of fluoride as it is - maybe even too much.

“Kids are getting fluoride in juices, in processed sandwich meats, like bologna and hot dogs . Chicken sticks are loaded with fluoride,” said Maureen Jones, an archivist for Fluoride Action Network and Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. “The real culprit of tooth decay in low income children is putting kids to bed with baby bottles and sippy cups filled with soda or juice.”

Jones and others worry about kids overdosing on fluoride, which can cause a condition called fluorosis, where teeth become discolored or brittle. She cites other studies that link fluoridation chemicals to bone cancer, decreased thyroid function, and lowered IQ - studies that most scientists dismiss by pointing at the large body of peer-reviewed research indicating fluoridation is safe, healthy and effective.

With the recent, budget-driven elimination of the state’s adult Denti-Cal program, and sweeping cuts to the Healthy Families program that provides dental insurance to kids from working-poor families, fluoride advocates emphasize the overall savings in health care costs. Fluoridation costs between 50 cents and $2 a person per year; the lifetime expense is less than the average cost to fill one cavity, about $150.

“I’m very anxious that San Jose gets fluoridated,” said Dr. Donald Lyman, chief of chronic disease at the California Department of Public Health , “so I’m not embarrassed to have the largest city that is not fluoridated in my jurisdiction.”

SEE ALSO ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THIS MATTER: “Campbell-based foundation is campaigning to put fluoride in San Jose’s tap water” available at http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/California/Campbell-based-foundation-is-campaigning-to-put-fluoride-in-San-Jose-s-tap-water