Teeth

Water fluoridation is basically a smokescreen for other issues. What, you find out under Vested Interests in water fluoridation.

It is therefore not surprising that water fluoridation is not really effective in protecting teeth from decay. A short article on the issue was printed in The Courier-Mail (in Brisbane) written by Paul Connett a professor of chemistry at St Lawrence University, New York. He stated among others:

‘As far as teeth are concerned, there was a study done by researchers at the University of Adelaide led by A. J. Spencer in 1996 into the effects of fluoride on tooth decay. They found between those children living in fluoridated communities and those in un-fluoridated ones, that the permanent teeth decay difference was between 0.12 and 0.3 of one tooth surface out of 128 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth.

This difference in decay is neither clinically nor statistically significant, a finding which was reaffirmed in a study published this year by Armflield and Spencer who reported no significant difference in tooth decay in the permanent teeth when comparing children who consumed fluoridated tap water and those consuming tank or bottle water.

In Australia, 50 percent of tooth decay is concentrated in 10 per cent of the children and so a smart approach is to target those children instead of giving fluoride to everyone unnecessarily.

Major dental researchers concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which amounts for 85 percent of the tooth decay experienced by children.

Fluoridated toothpaste which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to teeth while minimising exposure to the rest of the body.’

He also suggested quite a different approach as more effective:

‘Queensland authorities might also look to countries such as Finland which has been using toothpaste with xylitol for years. Xylitol is a natural sugar and reduces the activity of bacteria in the mouth that convert sugar to enamel-attacking acids. Unlike fluoride, xylitol is non-toxic and breaks down naturally in the body.’

Paul Connett
The Courier-Mail, 17 November 2004

Dental fluorosis as classified

Dental Fluorosis in China at 4 to 9 ppm photographs

Fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, which is basically a symptom of low level fluoride poisoning. Depending on the severity a classification has been made.

normal enamel
has a smooth, glossy, natural, pale, creamy white translucency.

questionable fluorosis
a few white spots or flecks in the enamel

very mild fluorosis
small, opaque, paper-white areas. They occupy around 25% of the two most affected teeth. These areas may become brownish in adulthood.

mild fluorosis
more extensive areas of white dull opacities. They occupy less than 50% of the two most affected teeth often accompanied by brown staining.

moderate fluorosis
all enamel surfaces affected and distinctly brown staining is frequently present.

severe fluorosis
teeth show arrested development, are worn down and show pitting. Brown or black staining is widespread.

G. L. Waldbott et al. 1978. Fluoridation: the great dilemma. p. 178

Paul Connett in his article in The Courier-Mail had this to say on dental fluorosis:

‘In America, health authorities knew this (dental fluorosis) was a trade off when they started fluoridating water in 1945, but the expectation was that only 10 percent of children would get this condition in its mildest form. But now dental fluorosis rates in non-fluoridated communities in the US and Australia are up to 30 percent. Children are already getting an optimum dose of fluoride in beverages, processed foods and dental products so they don’t need anymore.’

‘While Australian authorities use the WHO’s endorsement of water fluoridation in their promotional activities, they are not following one of the key recommendations of the WHO which is to check to see how much fluoride people already are getting from other sources before starting fluoridation’


Fluorotic teeth

In 1916 G. V. Black and F.S. McKay formulated their views on teeth affected by fluoride. They had in mind people living near Colorado Springs where the water contains naturally 2.5 ppm. And this was used as drinking water.

They stated ‘When not stained brown or yellow, they (mottled teeth) are a ghastly, opaque white that comes prominently into notice whenever the lips are opened, which materially injures the expression and countenance of the individual. When this opaque white colour is mingled with spots of brown, or a very large proportion of brown, the injury is still greater. In very many cases the teeth appear absolutely black as one sees them in ordinary social intercourse.’

‘Mottled enamel is distinguished especially by the absence of cementing substance between the enamel rods in the outer fourth, more or less, of the enamel, and presenting great variety of colour, rendering it totally different from anything else I have known.’

‘But when the teeth do decay, the frail condition of the enamel makes it extremely difficult to make good and effective fillings.

For this reason many individuals will lose their teeth because of caries, though the number of carious cavities is fewer than elsewhere …This is much more than a deformity of childhood. If it were only that, it would be of less consequence, but it is a deformity for life. The only escape from this deformity is by placing of crowns, and possibly of bridges or artificial dentures later in life.’

Other dental researchers came to similar conclusions. In 1940 M.C. and H.V. Smith stated:

‘There is ample evidence that mottled teeth, though they be somewhat more resistant to the onset of decay, are structurally weak, and that unfortunately when decay does set in, the result is often disastrous.’

St David in Arizona has a natural fluoride content in the drinking water of 1.6 to 4 ppm. The Smiths observed here that although only 33% of the children between 12 to 14 years of age had some tooth decay, the full story was less bright.

‘Beyond the age of 21, there were relatively few individuals in which caries had not developed. That the result of the onset of caries was especially severe, as reflected in the high percentage of all groups with extracted teeth.

Steps taken to repair the cavities in many cases were unsuccessful, the tooth breaking away when attempts were made to anchor the fillings, so that extraction was the only course. That decay was widespread and repair was highly unsuccessful among young adults is shown by an incidence of more than 50 percent of false teeth in the age group 24 to 26 years. Very rarely, adults were found whose teeth, though mottled, were free from caries.’

G.L. Waldbott et al. 1978. Fluoridation: the great dilemma, chapter 12, pp. 175-177. Coronado Press, Inc. Lawrence, Kansas.


Fluoridation in a country town

In 1979 Proserpine was one of the towns in Queensland with water fluoridation.

At the time it was described as a small country town, specialising in sugar and beef. Its population was around 3000, it had a country hospital, a cane mill, a cinema, three churches, five pubs and three modern schools. This array of facilities was to serve Proserpine, Airly Beach and a number of small hamlets in the Shire.

The local water supply had been fluoridated some ten years earlier, precisely when was not known.

The equipment at the fluoridation plant was obsolete, aged and inaccurate. Worse, nobody monitored fluoride levels of the drinking water as a routine procedure.

Also, sometime in the past the dental profession had promoted the use of fluoride supplements, even though the town’s water was fluoridated.

School children were treated by school therapists who recommended fluoride tablets and used routinely fluoride containing products on all children.

The question was raised whether these therapists were legally allowed to use S2 poisons. They were totally ignorant about dental fluorosis and could not diagnose it when they saw it.

Forty checks of the fluoride content of the drinking water over June, July, August and early September revealed that the average reading was 0.93 ppm fluoride. This was one-third too high, it should have been 0.6 ppm, because of the hot climate.

It was also found that 20% of 150 primary school children had dental fluorosis or mottled teeth.

In addition there were two children with skin markings similar to chizzola maculae, also a possible symptom of fluoride poisoning.

And three children had a higher than normal level of free fluoride in their blood.

The Australian prescribing manual on fluoride supplements advocated dosages that were much higher than specified by overseas authorities.

Glen S.R. Walker. 1982. Fluoridation - poison on tap pp. 197- 198

Note:
The fact that therapists used fluoride products on the children and recommended fluoride tablets while the water was fluoridated without anyone monitoring how much was administered, illustrates that in this country town nobody had the foggiest idea what was going on.

But is this not the situation that flows from all the misleading propaganda from the pro-fluoridation lobby? If fluoride were as harmless as it is claimed to be, then why monitor the administration of fluoride in the drinking water? And what does it matter if children get a bit more fluoride? Unfortunately it does matter and the realities are that you are dealing with a potent toxin.


More fluoride gives more tooth decay

Tucson is a city in Arizona (US) with in 1992 a population of around 600 000. For the past 100 years its drinking water was exclusively groundwater . Around 200 public and private wells supplied 100 000 acre-feet a year. From 1993 however, it switched to water from the Colorado River via an aqueduct to a newly constructed water plant. This made it possible to add chemicals.

The local county board of health requested to add fluoride to the drinking water and this started off a heated debate about the pros and cons of water fluoridation. The county board had claimed that 0.8 ppm fluoride would be an optimal concentration and that it would prevent tooth decay. It would especially benefit poor children, they said. These claims were supported by the State and Federal Public Health authorities.

The Mayor and City Council of Tucson asked Professor Emeritus Cornelis Steelink of the Department of Chemistry of the University of Arizona to participate in a subcommittee for a review of fluoridation.

This subcommittee decided to limit its activities to the scientific aspects only. There were nine members and during three months many public hearings were held. This resulted in mountains of printed material and verbal testimony and the proceedings were often very emotional.

The review of the published data was according professor Steelink inconclusive. The epidemiological data claiming huge benefits from fluoridation turned out to be flawed. But this too was the case with the data claiming huge risks. So, the data did not help very much. But Tucson self could give an answer as far as the claim goes that fluoride protects against tooth decay.

The situation in Tucson had always been that the city had distinct geographical areas where the groundwater was high in fluoride (0.8 ppm) and where it was low (0.3 ppm).

The committee could access the results of a fairly recent dental screening of 26 000 children from primary schools. The screening results compared with the water fluoride content of the area where each child lived. What was found, was a positive correlation, which means that the more fluoride the child drank, the more cavities were found in the teeth. The usual claims about fluoride meant that the opposite should have been found: more fluoride intake should give less cavities. So, the committee was puzzled by the unexpected outcome.

It was decided to look at other factors that could have caused this outcome. First family income was compared with tooth decay. A clear inverse relation was found for these 26 000 children: the higher the income, the less tooth decay.

Then other factors were brought into the equation: lack of access to dental facilities, poverty, diet and oral hygiene. It became clear that a large number of poor children did not get any benefit from optimum fluoride in the water and missed also out on dental care.

Although the committee reported its finding that there was no obvious relation between increased fluoride intake and the prevention of tooth decay in Tucson, fluoridation went still ahead. The argument seemed to have been: ‘even though fluoridation doesn’t appear to be effective, let’s rely on the advice of the public health officials. After all they’re the experts.’

C.Steelink 1992. Fluoridation controversy. Chemical& Engineering News. p.2 (2July 1992)

A Sequel

After this course of events the professor and others from the University of Arizona decided to take the matter a little further. What did cause tooth decay in the children in Tucson?

The colleagues of the professor were an anthropologist and a public school nurse. Funds for the study came from two university departments: Anthropology and Chemistry.

The same data base was used, the 26 000 school children for the year 1987-1988. In addition the Department of Anthropology supplied detailed demographic statistics. Also, through a ‘garbage project’ from the Anthropology Department behavioural patterns were known of the same people.

And finally well water data of different sections of the city were used, because different wells have different fluoride contents.

So, what did the study end up with? For each city household the following data were known: income, ethnicity, children in school, mean DMFTs (a measure of dental decay) for children in school, consumption of sugar and candy, toothpaste usage, frequency of school fluoride mouthwash, soda pop consumption, usage of antibiotics and a few other factors.

The purpose was to find correlations between these factors (all or some) and tooth decay in children.

The result of these analyses was that fluoridation seemed to play a variable role. If one looked at the rate of total tooth decay and intake of fluoride, then the relationship was a direct one: more tooth decay with more fluoridation. But some sub-populations this relationship was inverse such as with Hispanics. It seems that ethnicity played a dominant role in Tucson. Also, household incomes and education levels were strongly correlated.

T.Jones, C. Steelink and Jeanne Sierka. 1994. An analysis of the causes of tooth decay in children in Tucson, Arizona. Fluoride 27(4): 239

See Also:  www.fluoridealert.org/health/news/26.html


Fluoride ineffective in protecting teeth

This epidemiological study was carried out in India where large areas are afflicted by endemic fluorosis from water that has a high natural level of fluoride.

The study period covered thirty years, from 1963 to 1993. A total number of 0.4 million children from villages in endemic and non-endemic fluorosis areas participated in the study. This number was arrived at be screening 0.8 million children. Areas with 1.0 ppm fluoride or more in the drinking water were selected as endemic areas, while non-endemic areas had less fluoride in the water.

The children were further classified according to their calcium intake. Adequate intake was considered to be more than 800 mg per day and inadequate was less than 300 mg per day.

The findings can be summarised as follows:


non-endemic fluorosis areas

adequate calcium intake
inadequate calcium intake
fluorosis 7% fluorosis 14.2%
Tooth decay 2% tooth decay 31.4%

 

Endemic fluorosis areas

adequate calcium intake
inadequate calcium intake
fluorosis 59% fluorosis 100%
tooth decay 9.8% Tooth decay 74%

The findings show the importance of an adequate calcium intake in preventing tooth decay. (Compare all figures of adequate and inadequate calcium intake for tooth decay).

The findings show further that fluoride does not protect teeth from decay. On the contrary, the more fluoride intake, the more tooth decay occurred (compare all tooth decay figures from non-endemic fluorosis areas with the endemic fluorosis areas).

The overall conclusion was that adequate calcium intake (more than 800 mg per day) is effective in controlling dental fluorosis and tooth decay. The researchers recommended to limit the fluoride concentration of water to less than 0.5 ppm and a calcium intake of more than 1 gram per day. And in addition to restrict sugar consumption.

S.P.S. Teotia and M. Teotia. 1994. Dental caries: a disorder of high fluoride and low dietary calcium interactions. Fluoride 27(2):59-66

Note:
1 ppm fluoride or more in drinking water was supposed to be the ’ideal’ fluoride concentration for protection against tooth decay according to the promoters of water fluoridation.

According to their belief (it is nothing else but a belief) you would expect the least tooth decay in the endemic fluorosis areas of 1 ppm or more in the drinking water. But it is precisely here that you find the highest level of tooth decay.


Trends in tooth decay

In developing countries the incidence of tooth decay is increasing at an alarming rate. At the same time in the last ten years in industrial countries tooth decay has declined by about 40%. There is no single factor for this decline.

In developing countries the increased tooth decay has been linked to higher sugar consumption. Many studies confirm that where diet has changed, from local agricultural products to processed foods with more sugar, the tooth decay rate went up.

One study showed that where sugar consumption increased from 0.2 to 15 kg/person/year, the annual tooth decay rate went hand in hand with sugar consumption. The decay rate increased markedly at around 10kg/person/year.

When annual sugar consumption is below 15 kg, most consumed sugar is visible. Above that level an increasing percentage is tucked away in manufactured products such as soft drinks, sweets and biscuits.

In Ethiopia children from affluent families had four times more caries in primary teeth and twice as many in permanent teeth, than children from poorer families.

In the Sudan 15 to19 year old urban children had seven times more tooth decay than children in rural areas where consumption of sugar was less than 2.5 kg/person/year.

A.Sheihan.1985. Changing trends in dental caries. Fluoride 18(3):176-177


Social class and dental heath

An analysis of official statistics for Auckland, New Zealand, revealed a significant link between social class and dental health. It showed that dental treatment levels, which declined in both fluoridated areas and non-fluoridated areas, were more related to social class than to the presence or absence of water fluoridation.

It should be kept in mind that in New Zealand a school dental service is provided for 98% of school children to a uniform standard that is closely checked and supervised.

It was found that caries-free percentages for 12-13 year old children from average income families did not differ significantly whether or not they lived in a fluoridated area.

Fifteen years after fluoridation was started in Auckland, the dental treatment requirement of children and their social class was still significantly correlated.

These results suggest that child dental health is not better in fluoridated areas of the same socioeconomic background and that topical fluorides (toothpaste) are just as effective as water fluoridation.

The author thinks that nutrition is an important factor in dental health and that this could be the link with social class.

J. Colquhoun.1986. Influence of social class and fluoridation on child dental health. Fluoride 19(2):98-100

Note: Perhaps education is another factor. Lower social classes are less concerned about dental health and more nonchalant about regular teeth brushing.


Quebec’s Inquiry into fluoridation

In 1979 the Quebec Government set up an inquiry into water fluoridation. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry to the Government stated among others:

The overall advice of this Committee was against fluoridation

Glen S.R. Walker. 1982. Fluoridation - Poison on Tap. pp.174 and 248


The promoters of water fluoridation want us to believe in a ‘worldwide acceptance’ of water fluoridation. Obviously their world is smaller than our world according to the following table.


‘Worldwide acceptance’ (???) of fluoride

Austria no fluoridation ‘will not be carried out’
Belgium no fluoridation had once one small experimental plant
Chile no fluoridation was introduced in 1953 and terminated in 1977
Denmark no fluoridation forbidden by law. National Environmental Protection Agency found that some questions on human health and environment are not and hardly can be clarified.
Egypt no fluoridation rejected US pressure to fluoridate
Finland no fluoridation one small experimental plant since 1959 - no plans for more
France no fluoridation totally opposed: the fluoride in drinking water is put back one way or the other in the natural environment where it can create important problems
UK some fluoridation less than 7% of the total British population drink artificially fluoridated water
Germany no fluoridation forbidden by law in 1971
Holland no fluoridation forbidden by law in 1976
India
 no fluoridation because of endemic fluorosis de-fluoridation units are operating in parts of India
Italy no fluoridation
in some areas are
de-fluoridation plants
Japan no fluoridation  
Luxemburg no fluoridation ‘as to avoid accumulation of fluorine in the human body’
Norway no fluoridation fluoridation rejected by Parliament
Sweden no fluoridation forbidden by law in 1971
Switzerland no fluoridation until 1975 Basle had some, but discontinued because it was ineffective
Greece no fluoridation ‘it has been proven that fluoridation of water leads to many pathological disorders.’
Canada no fluoridation in Quebec some fluoridation in other States of Canada in 1979 a Committee of Inquiry in Quebec came to the conclusion that artificially fluoridated water to inhibit tooth decay contained mutagens. There was a marked correlation between increased cancer mortality rates and artificial fluoridation of public water supplies
US 40% and in later reports 50 % of the population is ingesting fluoridated water there are mixed feelings about this. Where people are given a vote they vote against it.
China no fluoridation since 1984 water fluoridation caused an unacceptable degree of dental fluorosis and was therefore terminated
Russia no fluoridation  
Australia compulsive fluoridation in Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania Australia is the heaviest fluoridated country in the world

Source:

Fluoridation - Poison on Tap by Glen S.R. Walker, chapter 8 and 9

Anglesey fluoridation trials re-examined by Mark Diesendorf. 1989
Fluoride 22(2):53-58

Needs and implementation of preventive dentistry in China by W.Shy and S. Yang.1986. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol 14:19-23

UPDATE:

As from 2005 the following eight countries have water fluoridation: USA, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Columbia, Singapore, Malaysia and Israel.

Source: Mark Diesendorf http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au

 

The Clincher

But the clincher is that dental research in the last 20 years has found that fluoride’s working is on the surface of the enamel. On the outside of your teeth. This is called a topical working. In other words it is fluoridated toothpaste you need if you want any benefit from fluoride. There is no point in swallowing fluoride and getting it throughout your whole system. This is called a systemic working. The phoney fluoride deficiency was about a systemic working.


See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html

Since the real thing is the topical activity of fluoride, water fluoridation has been called obsolete by a Nobel Prize winner. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlson-interview.html

The experience in Europe confirms this. In Europe there is an almost total absence of water fluoridation, but fluoridated toothpaste is widely used and oral health is good. In April 2003 over 40 years of water fluoridation in Basel, Switzerland was terminated as ineffective. There are even studies showing that cavity rates improved when fluoridation ended, while in New York teeth are rotting away with plenty of water fluoridation since 1965.
See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/1154.html

 

Why I am now offically oposed to adding fluoride to drinking water. by:
Dr Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS.

This page is maintained by

The Rivermouth Action Group Inc

as a community service.

E-mail: activist@rag.org.au