Posts Tagged ‘informed’

Source: NSNBC International

Jane Nielson, Ph.D (nsnbc) : Steering Committee Member, Sonoma County Water Coalition Board member, Open-space, Water, and Land Preservation Foundation (O.W.L.) I was in the middle of my education as a scientist when I first encountered the fluoridation controversy. I was getting a Masters in Geochemistry from the University of Michigan, and I attended a heated City Council meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona. By the end of that meeting I was convinced opponents of water fluoridation were conspiracy-minded loonies.

For decades I never thought much about fluoridation. I believed the doctors who said fluoride prevented tooth decay, so I gave my two children fluoride drops when they were infants. It wasn’t until the Sonoma County Water Coalition hosted a debate in 2009 that I became aware of different information about water fluoridation. Like that memorable Flagstaff meeting, I thought I’d hear “science” from supporters and “crazy stuff” from opponents. But neither side presented any science at all.

What the Studies Show

Exasperated, I started researching for myself. This was familiar terrain: I had published many papers, so I know what it takes to prove a point

Dental Fluorosis

Dental Fluorosis

scientifically, and the data required to get a paper published. I had performed analyses, plotted data and defended my research and interpretations in public forums. I quickly found World Heath Organization data that stunned me:

  • Tooth decay has plummeted in developed countries worldwide, regardless of fluoridation.
  • Cavity rates are the same — or even lower – in many non-fluoridated countries compared to the U.S.
  • The one clear correlation with water fluoridation is disfiguring “dental fluorosis” (supposedly only a cosmetic problem.)

I then proceeded to review a range of scientific papers, including all the most recent research on actual and potential effects of water fluoridation. In study after study I found that differences in tooth decay rates between areas that have fluoridated water supplies for decades, and those that either never fluoridated or stopped fluoridating, were minimal to nonexistent.

Key U.S. studies confirm that ingesting fluoride does not prevent tooth decay:

  • 1990 National Institute of Dental Research Survey: One of the largest U.S. surveys of tooth decay found no significant difference in tooth decay (less than ½ of 1% of the 128 tooth surfaces in the mouth ) between fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations.
  • Several modern U.S. Studies (1997-2001): Tooth decay did not go up when fluoridation was stopped.
  • The 2009 National Institutes of Health-funded “Iowa Study”: Cavity levels the same regardless of whether children ingested fluoride or not.

Apply It or Swallow It?

In recent years the differentiation between swallowing fluoride and coating teeth with it has become lost in the discussion. But this differentiation is essential. The overwhelming consensus among scientists, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Research Council, is that fluoride works when it’s applied to the tooth surface, NOT when it’s swallowed.

Sonoma County Has provided No Scientific Support for Fluoridation

In 2013, County Health officials provided the Sonoma County Water Coalition with a single study in support of fluoridation by Australian scientists who reviewed worldwide fluoridation studies written in English. But that study is flawed because it failed to compare fluoridated versus non-fluoridated populations, lacked a cavity prevention assessment, and showed an extremely weak correlation insufficient to prove cause-and-effect. Thus far the County has not offered any more definitive data to support its campaign.

How Did the U.S. Get Sold on Water Fluoridation?

In analyzing early research, it’s clear that the U.S. promoted the spread of water fluoridation before completing definitive studies. I’ve met with this practice of promoting innovations that later prove to have negative public health impacts over and over again in< my scientific career. After the debate, I realized that without solid science to back it up, fluoridation could well represent the same dynamic. And now, having examined the research myself, I’ve concluded that water fluoridation is indeed an echo of past mistakes. Improving children’s dental health is a worthy goal. But before Sonoma County considers water fluoridation, the public must demand the County first prove that it works.

Jane Nielson, Ph.D

Advertisements

Source: Natural News

(NaturalNews) Roughly 85,000 fewer people living in North America will be forced to drink and bathe in fluoridated water, thanks to four recent community victories preventing or overturning water fluoridation mandates. The towns of O’Fallon, Missouri; Rosetown, Saskatchewan; Lake View, Iowa; and Cassadaga, New York are all now officially fluoride-free, proving that individuals really do have the power to step up and protect themselves against one of the most ridiculous folklores of the past century to be thrust on the people in the name of public health.

As reported by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which has tabulated more than 70 community victories against fluoride across North America since 2010, a single citizen activist concerned about the safety of fluoride was able to persuade the City Administrator of O’Fallon, MO, population 80,000, to discontinue the town’s water fluoridation program. The town’s 2012 budget report states that the change will save the town $18,000 annually, and reduce the hazard for water operators who will no longer “have to handle the dangerous chemical on a regular basis.”

In Rosetown, SK, the failure of a fluoride feed pump was enough to scrap the outdated practice of water fluoridation, while water fluoridation’s high cost with lack of economic and societal benefit convinced the city council of Lake View, IA, to discontinue the pointless practice. And in Cassadaga, NY, local citizens rejected a proposal to fluoridate by an 87 percent margin, even after the town had already built a special shed to begin housing and pumping fluoride chemicals into the water supply.

Portland voters soon to vote on water fluoridation

In Portland, Oregon, where rogue city council members and Mayor Sam Adams recently forced through a fluoridation mandate against the will of the people, more than 43,000 local citizens signed a petition to force the issue to a public vote. As of this writing, these signatures are still being counted — but since only 19,858 were required to get the issue on the ballot, the issue will almost surely be put up for a public vote.

And in New York City, where councilman Petter Vallone, Jr. has been working feverishly to end water fluoridation in America’s largest city, a resolution has been introduced to require that a warning about fluoride’s dangers for infants be printed on individual water bills. Both Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the entire state of New Hampshire recently passed similar requirements for infant warning labels on water bills.

Two Florida communities reconsider water fluoridation

Lastly, both the Greater Pine Island Water Association, which serves the area of St. James City near Fort Myers, Florida, and the Ormond Beach City Commission, also in Florida, are also reconsidering their existing fluoridation mandates. The former group will have its members vote on the issue, while the latter group has already approved a referendum that will allow voters to decide the issue in an upcoming election.