 |
[ login or create an account ]
|
|
[ login or create an account ]
|
Investigations show that the latest support for fluoridation in the Far North "is just smoke and mirrors" according to Mark Atkin, of Fluoridation-Free NZ Coalition partner, Fluoride Action Network. The New Zealand School & Community Oral Health Services Society recently urged the Far North District Council (FNDC) to continue fluoridation. But its president is no other than Dr Neil Croucher, one of the Northland DHB researchers responsible for the Far North trial. Society membership is restricted to senior oral health managers, advisors to District Health Boards, or representatives of dental organisations. One of its key aims is political advocacy according to its constitution. "In other words this is a front organisation for the pro-fluoridation lobby" points out Mr Atkin. The Society was formed in 2003, "shortly after the Ministry of Health began holding annual closed-to-the-public fluoridation forums to devise strategies for expanding its fluoridation agenda" observes Mr Atkin, concluding "I cannot believe this is a coincidence. These people would have been key attendees at these forums." The Society's media release was issued by Dr Tim McKay "a key fluoridation promoter for the Southland DHB, just as Dr Croucher, a British dentist, is for the NDHB" advises Mr Atkin. Dr McKay is a co-author of the Southland study on dental fluorosis, published in 2005, showing 30% dental fluorosis in fluoridated children. Dental fluorosis is a defect in teeth caused by over-exposure to fluoride during infancy. Dr Croucher recently failed to persuade the FNDC to accept funding for continuing the trial for another two years, even with help from senior officials flown in at the taxpayer's expense, and the offer of $58,000 from the NDHB to cover operating costs. "So he gets his own organisation to pretend to be independently urging the FNDC to continue fluoridation only a week later, on behalf of its 'membership' - of people paid to promote fluoridation!" exclaims Mr Atkin, adding "The FNDC has now quite properly decided to suspend fluoridation until it has the study results and has further consulted the public".
"The Society also misleads the public by repeating internationally discredited claims about fluoridation. It does not benefit teeth during formation, as originally theorised. All recent large scale studies show no permanent benefit from fluoridation, let alone the claimed 30%" points out Mr Atkin.
"Communities in the North do not want fluoride medication put into their water supplies. It is high time public servants recognised this. Fluoridation's days are numbered - it just hasn't rolled over and died yet" concludes Mr Atkin.
Popular competitions and giveaways from Gimme.co.nz: NZ's People Powered Guide to Free Stuff. Links will open on Gimme.
Health Tips, Recommended Movies, Recommended Books, Recommended Places.
Links will open on recommended.co.nz.
All articles and comments on Voxy.co.nz have been submitted by our community of users. Please notify us through our contact form if you believe an item on this site breaches our community guidelines.
Voxy: Your Voice - Uncensored
Got Something to Say But No One’s Listening?
Message to Spread? – Distribute News
Product to Promote? – Run a Promotion
We Can Help You Spread The Word.
Comments
U.S. Officials Lie About
U.S. Officials Lie About Fluoridation Safety
The American Public Health Association’s (APHA) new Fluoridation Position Statement is based on many documents that neither support nor evaluate fluoridation’s safety and/or effectiveness as it claims (1).
APHA asserts, “All of these reviews have found CWF [Community Water Fluoridation] to be safe and effective.” Here’s the truth about APHA’s “supportive” references:
National Research Council (2006)
This isn’t a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis. It found EPA’s current fluoride maximum-contaminant-level-goal for drinking water is not protective of health and must be lowered. (2)
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)
This report says "… subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds…the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein." (3)
University of York, UK (2000)
About this report, the Centre for Review and Dissemination writes “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.” (4)
Lewis and Banting, Canada (1994)
“The effectiveness of water fluoridation alone cannot now be determined,” they write. (5)
New York State Department of Health (1990)
The authors concluded: “… some individuals may experience hypersensitivity to fluoride-containing agents.” And, “…it is currently impossible to draw firm conclusions regarding the independent effect of fluoride in drinking water on caries prevalence using an ecologic study design.” (6)
World Health Organization (2006)
This report, not about fluoridation, documents high levels of natural fluoride causing human bone and teeth malformation in many countries. (7)
Medical Research Council, UK (2002)
This report, not a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis, identifies fluoridation health uncertainties such as total exposure and bone effects. (8)
Institute of Medicine (1999)
Since fluoride is not a nutrient, this report set the adequate intake from all sources to avoid children’s moderate dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) and, also, the upper limit to avoid crippling bone damage -- which the IOM admits “is too high for persons with certain illnesses…” (9)
While APHA says that fluoridation reduced the incidence and severity of tooth decay, ”No clear reasons for the caries decline have been identified,” according to dental textbook, Dentistry, Dental Practice, and the Community (Burt and Eklund).
The CDC's fluoridation chief, dentist William Bailey, also fibs about fluoridation safety. Bailey told the Fairbanks Alaska City Council that the CDC doesn't do original research. Instead the CDC relies on many reviews and reports from the US and other countries. Some of these studies do not support fluoridation's safety and/or efficacy as Bailey claimed.
Bailey said, "Of all the expert committees and all the systematic reviews that have been done, they have all said that water fluoridation is safe and effective and healthy. So that’s the basis of our decision to promote it...The systematic reviews which I am talking about – the National Health and Medical Research Council – the National Research Council in 2006 – the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry in 2003 – the Forum on Fluoridation in 2002 in Ireland – the University of York in 2000 and so forth." Bailey uses some of the same reports that the APHA uses erroneously as supportive of fluoridation. See transcript and critique: http://www.fluoridealert.org/bailey1.html
References:
1) American Public Health Association Oral Health Section Newsletter, Winter 2009
http://www.apha.org/membergroups/newsletters/sectionnewsletters/oral/winter09/
2) “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of
EPA's Standards,”
Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National
Research Council, Executive Summary, 2006
http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=11571&type=pdfxsum
3) US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluordie, and Fluorine, (2003) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf
4) “What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found,” October 28 2003,A statement from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
5) Lewis DW, Banting DW. Water fluoridation: current effectiveness and dental fluorosis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22:153–158 http://tinyurl.com/bhtlkq
6). Kaminsky LS, Mahoney MC, Leach J, Melius J, Miller MJ. Fluoride: benefits and risks of exposure. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1990;1:261–281 http://crobm.iadrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/1/4/261
7) World Health Organization, “New WHO report tackles fluoride in drinking-water,” November 2006 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/new/2006/nw04/en/index.html
8). Medical Research Council. Medical Research Council Working Group Report: Water Fluoridation and Health. September 2002. www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002482
9) Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Fluoride: Background Information. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. Report of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC:http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309063507
There are many reasons to
There are many reasons to oppose fluoridation of water systems:
1. Government should not dictate that everyone must take a chemical against their will.
2. It is insanely inefficient with 99.5% of fluoridated water going down the drain in toilets, washing machines, etc., wasting 99.5% of the chemical cost. People drink only 0.5.% of the water they use. A plan to give away fluoride tablets free would be much, much cheaper and the dose could be controled.
3. It is not effective in reducing cavities. Most countries in Europe no longer fluoridate water systems. They are 98% fluoride free, yet the World Health Organization reports that nine of those countries have better cavity rates than any fluoridated country. Many other research reports show the same ineffectiveness.
4. The toxic waste chemical, Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, is collected from the smokestacks of companies and sold to communities. It would be very expensive to process such waste, and it is illegal to dump it into our environment. So, hundreds of thousands of tons each year in the U.S. ends up in our environment anyway.
5. The main reason to oppose fluoridation is the very severe health problems it causes, 50% builds up in the bones, brain, and glands. Please read the following article on bone cancer in young boys published in a prestigious scientific journal.
______________________________________________________
Another Study Links Fluoride to Bone Cancer-----http://ca.sys-con.com/node/940747
Apr. 29, 2009
NEW YORK, -- Blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups, according to research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009). Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults.
This reinforces a 2006 published Harvard study by Bassin showing a link between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young boys.(2)
and
A 1992 New Jersey Department of Health study shows osteosarcoma rates higher among young males in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated regions of New Jersey.(3)