Posts Tagged ‘scientist’

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: WhyDon’tYouTryThis

Nearly 200,000 Australians have been released from the medical slavery that is artificial water fluoridation thanks to a major governmental policy change.

The Liberal National Party (LNP) government of the Australian state of Queensland has not only cut $14 million of funding that had previously been used for fluoridation, but has also decided to allow local councils to decide for themselves whether or not to fluoridate, a move that has already prompted the northern city of Cairns to end its water fluoridation program.

As reported by The Australian, former “One Nation” member of parliament (MP) Rosa Lee Long, who is now mayor of the north Queensland Tablelands Regional Council, successfully lobbied LNP to end a longstanding policy that compelled local communities to fluoridate without approval from local residents.

The government of Queensland last year also ended a policy that required larger communities to fluoridate their water, which is similar to existing fluoridation mandates in California and elsewhere.

So by the middle of March, Cairns’ more than 150,000 area residents will no longer be exposed to fluoride chemicals in the water, making it the seventh community in Queensland to end water fluoridation so far this year. Murgon, Wondai, Kingaroy, Nanango, Blackbutt, and South Burnett have all ended their water fluoridation programs since January which, combined with the area population of Cairns, represents nearly 200,000 people who will no longer be forcibly medicated with an unapproved drug.

“If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists,” said a local Cairns council spokeswoman about the policy change. “The decision has been made … [fluoride] shouldn’t be forced on people without consent.”

Australian health authorities admit water fluoridation is ‘involuntary medication’ of public

The Australian Dental Association (ADA) and various members of the establishment government in Australia raised their usual fear-mongering in response to the landmark decision — children’s teeth will rot out of their heads without fluoride, has been their response, which mimics the same tired and unproven argument used by many American officials to defend the outdated and dangerous practice of water fluoridation.

But Queensland’s LNP has remained steadfast in its decision, declaring forced water fluoridation to be “involuntary medication” of the public, regardless of someone’s own personal opinion on the efficacy and safety of fluoride. This declaration is key, as it highlights a reality about fluoride that few people are willing to admit — fluoride is a chemical drug that has never been proven safe and effective, but that is routinely added to water supplies without informed consent.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) likewise admits that water fluoridation is akin to forced medication, as the agency’s official stance on the chemical is that it is an “unapproved drug” when added to water supplies. It is a fact that the FDA has never approved fluoride as a safe and effective water supplement, which means adding it to public water supplies is an illegal administration of a drug without FDA approval, and without the informed consent of every person exposed to it.

You can learn more about the dangers of fluoride by visiting the Fluoride Action Network (FAN)

Sources for this article include: http://www.theaustralian.com.auhttp://www.hangthebankers.comhttp://www.fluoridealert.org/content/communities/
Related: