Posts Tagged ‘national’

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

The Portland branch of the NAACP has recently declared that they are opposed to the fluoridation of our water supplies.  This makes a lot of sense in context & is principally consistent with the stated mission of the NAACP, shown below:

The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination.

As we know community water fluoridation is a highly discriminatory policy which disproportionately harms people & ethnic minorities of lower economic standing, who naturally have a harder time affording the expensive specialized filters needed to remove the toxic hydrofluorosilicic acid from their tap water.   As a personal example it has cost me more than $400 in equipment just to remove that which the city adds to the water I already pay for!  This certainly represents a cost anyone would not want to bear if they didn’t have to, most of all those without the disposable income to do so.

Since the less affluent are forced to more often consume public drinking water & can neither afford the filters or purified water, they unknowingly consume this toxic liquor of contaminants on a constant basis which accumulates in their bodies over time & is linked to a myriad of adverse health effects, some of which are alluded to by Clifford Walker in the video above.  As opposed to what the government will tell you, this is not a humanitarian effort which ensures the equality of rights among all citizens, it is the exact opposite.  It violates informed consent laws and removes the right to choose what goes into your body and what does not.  Unfortunately we are now also finding out that it does little to even help benefit your teeth as the Center for Disease Control reports 40% of adolescents in America are now suffering from overexposure to fluoride & dental fluorosis. (Source: CDC)  This is just one of the visible manifestations of overexposure which is accompanied by many other problems we are just now learning about(See: 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoride).  It is no surprise then that we see these rates of overexposure with 2nd & 3rd generations of fluoridated people now growing older.  .

Water is a natural resource that covers roughly 70% of the earth & makes up approximately 65% of our body which means we have the right to water free from pollutants, period.  This is especially true when citizens pay for the water & pollutants are introduced without their consent thanks to bureaucratic intervention based on dubious motivations and corrupt business practices.  In light of these basic truths Portland Chair of the NAACP Veteran’s Committee & longtime NAACP member Clifford Walker speaks above in opposition to this nearly 60 year old practice.  I have tried in the past to inform our city bureaucrats that contrary to conventional wisdom, community water fluoridation has had a history of opposition from minority groups and those involved with the civil rights movement.

In an effort to inform the Durham bureaucrats of this fact I appeared at this December 2012 health board meeting to encourage them to consider the other side of the fluoridation argument and what character of people are against it.   In the video above I read the following three quotes which demonstrates the strong anti-fluoride tradition woven throughout the civil right’s movement.

From William Owens, President of the 5,000-member-strong Coalition of African American Pastors:

“African Americans have more kidney disease and more diabetes, but nobody elected to tell us that kidney patients and diabetics are more susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides… We need to investigate this Fluoridegate mess. This is a civil rights and environmental justice issue.”

From Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr.:

“Water fluoridation needs to end. It is good that organizations are lending their support to help push this outdated and harmful practice of fluoridation toward collapse.”

From Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr.:

“This is a civil rights issue. No one should be subjected to drinking fluoride in their water, especially sensitive groups like kidney patients and diabetics, babies in their milk formula, or poor families that cannot afford to purchase unfluoridated water. Black and Latino families are being disproportionately harmed.”

Since the injustice perpetrated by public water fluoridation is both ubiquitous and quite obvious now, I have contacted the local NAACP chapters in the area and invited them to alert their membership of the upcoming public discussion on water fluoridation happening this Thursday, June 13th at the Orange County OWASA Board Meeting.   I have the official announcement below, along with the facebook invite & videos of me alerting the media to cover this very important issue!

The OWASA Board of Directors will meet on Thursday, June 13, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in OWASA’s Community Room, 400 Jones Ferry Road in Carrboro.

Facebook Invite

Item 5 of the Agenda is to Consider Citizens’ Petitions regarding Fluoridation of OWASA Drinking Water. The June 13th agenda is available on our website (under About OWASA/Board of Directors’ Meeting).

Thank you,

Andrea Orbich, CMC

Executive Assistant

aorbich@owasa.org

Orange Water and Sewer Authority

phone: 919-537-4217