The Case Against Water Fluoridation with supporting documents Paul Connett, PhD Director, Fluoride Action Network FluorideALERT.org Brooksville, Florida August 27, 2013
Introduction • I have spent 17 years researching the fluoridation issue, first as a professor of chemistry specializing in environmental chemistry and toxicology, and now as director of the Fluoride Action Network. • In 2010 this research effort culminated in the publication of The Case Against Fluoride
Book published by Chelsea Green October, 2010 Can be ordered on Amazon.com Contains 80 pages of references to the Scientific literature
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1. Paul Connett’s CV 2. Paul Connett’s publications 3. Chapter Summaries from “The Case Against Fluoride”
Outline of my presentation 1. Why fluoridation should not have started. 2. Key moments since 1990 that should have ended fluoridation. 3. Better alternatives for fighting tooth decay. 4. My challenge to fluoridation promoters. (5. The lack of solid science to justify fluoridation and to justify forcing the practice on people who don’t want it.)
Part 1.Why Fluoridation should never have started: Ten common sense arguments
1. We should never use the public water supply to deliver medicine. WHY? 2. You can’t control who gets the medicine. 3. You can’t control the DOSE people get. 4. It violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medical treatment (check AMA website for definition). We are allowing communities to do to everyone what an individual doctor can do to no one!
5) Fluoride is NOT a nutrient. There is not a single process inside the body that needs fluoride to function properly, however 6) Fluoride is a known toxic substance that interferes with many fundamental biochemical functions See Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity by Barbier et al, 2010
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 4.Barbier et al., 2010
7) 1 ppm fluoride (1 mg/liter) is NOT small. It is 250 times the level in mothers milk in a non-fluoridated community (0.004 ppm, NRC , 2006, p. 40) 8) A bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated community is getting 250 times the fluoride dose that nature intended. Who knows more about what the baby needs?
9) The fluoridating chemicals used are not the pharmaceutical grade chemicals used in dental products, but are arsenic-contaminated industrial waste products. According to the US EPA arsenic is a human carcinogen for which there is no safe level. That’s why they set the MCLG for arsenic at ZERO. We should not KNOWINGLY add ANY arsenic to the drinking water.
97% of Western European population now drinks Non-Fluoridated Water Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Northern Ireland Norway Scotland Sweden Switzerland Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Iceland
97% of Western European population now drinks Non-Fluoridated Water Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Northern Ireland Norway Scotland Sweden Switzerland* Austria* Belgium Denmark Finland France* Germany* Greece Iceland *Some fluoridate their salt
According to WHO data tooth decay in 12-year-olds is coming down as fast in F as NF countries
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 5. Cheng et al. 2007 (an article in the BMJ)
Part 2 Some of the events since 1980 which should have forced an end to water fluoridation
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Aldous Huxley
The TEN ugly facts that should have slain the water fluoridation hypothesis
The ten year prelude to UGLY FACT #1
Between 1980 and 1990 A number of articles began to appear in major journals indicating that there was very little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities
Leverett in Science, 1982 Colquhoun, 1984,’85,’87 Diesendorf in Nature, 1986 Gray, 1987
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 6. Colquhoun, J. (1993) “Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.”
Ugly Fact #1 • In 1990, Brunelle and Carlos published the results of the largest survey of tooth decay ever carried out in the US. The NIDR (1986-87) examined the teeth of over 39,000 children in 84 communities. • Brunelle and Carlos reported very little difference in tooth decay in children between F and non-F communities.
NIDR - Brunelle and Carlos (1990) • In Table 6, Brunelle and Carlos reported the DMFS (= decayed, missing and filled permanent SURFACES) of children aged 5-17 and compared children who had lived all their lives in either a fluoridated community or non-fluoridated community.
Decayed Missing and Filled surfaces (DMFS) There are 4 surfaces to the top six and bottom six cutting teeth and 5 surfaces on all the other teeth. 128 tooth surfaces in all.
The average DMFS (children aged 5-17) for children who had lived all their lives in a F-community 2.8 DMFS F
The average DMFS (children aged 5-17) for children who had lived all their lives in a Non-F community 3.4 DMFS NF
Comparing the two subsets (about 8000 children in each) 3.4 DMFS NF 2.8 DMFS F
Brunelle and Carlos, 1990 3.4 DMFS NF 2.8 DMFS F Average difference (for 5 - 17 year olds) in DMFS = 0.6 tooth surfaces (4 to 5 surfaces to a tooth)
Not only was this saving very small (0.6 of one tooth surface) but it was not even shown to be statistically significant!
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 7. Brunelle and Carlos, 1990 (see Table 6)
A word of warning These very small savings in tooth decay (even if they are real) are often obscured by reporting them as percentage differences
Queensland Health’s promotion of “mandatory” statewide fluoridation) (2007)
Queenslanders were toldFluoridated Townsville has65% less tooth decay thanNon-Fluoridated Brisbane
Qld Health “results - 65 % less tooth decay” • “ In Townsville, water supplies have been fluoridated since 1964, resulting in 65% less tooth decay in children than those in Brisbane” • “ fluoride, which is proven to be safe and effective ” Qld Health newspaper ads Dec 2007
0.26 – 0.09 = 0.17 DMFS0.17/0.26 x 100 = 65% fewer tooth surfaces decayedAn absolute saving of 0.17 of one tooth surface in 7 year olds!
“ Teeth exposed to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007
“ Teeth exposed to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007 “ Teeth without exposure to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007
“ Teeth exposed to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007 “ Teeth without exposure to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007 Does this look like a difference in 0.17 of one tooth surface?
“ Teeth exposed to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007 “ Teeth without exposure to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007 Does this look like a difference in 0.17 of one tooth surface? Or is this fraudulent promotion?
Ugly Fact #2 Several modern studies (1997-2001) show that tooth decay does NOT go up when fluoridation is stopped
Modern studies indicate that Dental Caries has not gone upafter Fluoridation Stopped 1. Former East GermanyKunzel, W. & Fischer, T. (1997). Rise and fall of caries prevalence in German towns with different F concentrations in drinking water. Caries Res 31(3): 166-73 2. CubaKunzel, W. & Fischer, T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Res 34(1): 20-5. 3. CanadaMaupome, G. et. al (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 29(1): 37-47. 4. FinlandSeppa, L. et. al (2000). Caries trends 1992-98 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoride. Caries Res 34(6): 462-8.