Approximately half of each day's fluoride intake will be retained. Drinking fluoridated water is most of the fluoride problems, too much ingestion systemically and long term, speculation of lots of diseases and problems. Simple things like white spotting on the teeth to more complex issues such as hyperactive behavior problems, thyroid issues, bone issues, even cancer. Thank God we have well water! The fluoride treatments you receive in a dental office have a higher concentration of fluoride than over-the-counter fluoride mouthwash or toothpaste. They are used for both children and adults. Dental-office treatments also are different chemically and stay on the teeth longer. There are two common types of professionally applied fluorides: acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF), which is acidic, and neutral sodium fluoride, which is not. Neutral sodium fluoride usually is used for people who have dry mouth (xerostomia) or who have tooth-colored fillings, crowns or bridges. An acidic fluoride may irritate dry tissues or create small pits in composite fillings. Fluoride is applied as a gel, foam or varnish during a dental appointment. The teeth are dried so the fluoride doesn't become diluted. Fluoride can be applied by using a tray that looks like a mouth guard for one to four minutes. Fluoride also can be painted directly on the teeth. It comes in a variety of flavors, but it should never be swallowed. Fluoride was an industry's menace until Oscar Ewing, an Alcoa Aluminum lawyer, became head of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1947. Alcoa was one of the biggest producers of hazardous fluoride waste at that time. Today, it is the phosphate fertilizer industries. Under Ewing, the U.S. Public Health Service proceeded to conduct the fluoride experiment on thousands of people without their consent, even though they knew at the time that there was little or no margin of safety between the therapeutic dose and the toxic dose necessary to cause dental fluorosis for children and skeletal fluorosis for lifetime exposure. Ten years later, by reading the statistics incorrectly they claimed a "65% reduction in tooth decay," and moved on to fluoridate more cities. (See Opponent's Response to Question 4). Newburgh and Kingston were two of the original test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health, showed that after nearly 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh's children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston. (See 1-5: "New Studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits," by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News. Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989). The chart taken from this study done by Jayanth Kunar, D.D.S., verifies this statement. (See 1-5 A: "Pediatric Dentistry," NYSDJ, Feb. 1998, pg. 41). Today there is a great deal of scientific agreement that ingested fluoride does not reduce tooth decay. The largest study of tooth decay in America, by the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research in 1986-1987, showed that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,207 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in the 84-city study. The study cost the U.S. taxpayers $3,670,000, yet very few Americans are aware the study was ever performed. (See 1-5: "New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits." Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989). The EPA scientists recently concluded, after reviewing all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used "as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless ... substance." They called for "an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry." The management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue. (See 1-6: "Why EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation", Chapter 280 Vice-President, J. William Hirzy, May 1, 1999). A 1992 study of dental records for 26,000 children in Tucson, Arizona found that tooth decay increased in children as the natural level of fluoride increased from 0.2 to 0.8 ppm. (See 1-7: An Analysis of the Causes of Tooth Decay, Professor Cornelius Steeling, Department of Chemistry, University of Arizona). Dr. John Colquhoun, Principal Dental Officer, in Auckland, New Zealand's largest city, wrote " ... tooth decay had declined, but there was virtually no difference in tooth decay rates between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated places. Those (statistics) for 1981 showed that in most Health Districts the percentage of 12- and 13-year-old children who were free of tooth decay — that is, had perfect teeth — was greater in the non fluoridated part of the district." (See 1-10: "Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 41,1 Autumn 1997, University of Chicago). In December 1993, a Canadian Dental Association panel concluded that ingested fluoride does not, in fact, prevent tooth decay. (Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1993:149.) Dr. Richard G. Foulkes, a prominent British Columbia physician, while writing a government report in 1973, charges that he was given references which excluded studies already then extant that showed fluoride did not reduce tooth decay and that fluoride causes harm. (See 1-11: "Doctor Who Advocated Fluoridation Now Calls it a Fraud," Health Freedom News, July/Aug. 1992). There is less tooth decay in the nation as a whole, but decay rates have also dropped in the non-fluoridated areas of the United States, and in Europe where fluoridation of water is rare. The observed world-wide decline in tooth decay over the past four decades has occurred at the same rate in areas that are not fluoridated as in areas that are. (See 1-12: "The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay", Mark Diesendorf. Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29). Japan, China, and 98% of Europe have stopped or rejected the addition of fluoride to their public water supplies. ("Special Report," Chemical and Engineering News, Aug.1, 1988.) **When the ADA claims that fluoride "prevents tooth decay systemically when ingested during tooth development," it is out of step with most leading dental researchers today who are now admitting that the major benefits of fluoride are accrued topically, not systemically. These authors include: Levine, 1976; Fejerskov, Thylstrup and Larsen, 1981; Carlos, 1983; Featherstone, 1987, 1999, 2000; Margolis and Moreno, 1990; Clark, 1993; Burt, 1994; Shellis and Duckworth, 1994 and Limeback, 1999, 2000. **The CDC states: "Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." ("Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries," Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999.) While the CDC acknowledges this point, it does not draw the logical conclusion. If fluoride provides its benefits topically, it makes more sense to apply it in the form of toothpaste, than to put it in the drinking water, where systemic exposure and all the accompanying risks become inevitable. Moreover, by using this method of application, it not only avoids exposing tissues in the body, which do not need fluoride, but it also avoids exposing people who don't want this medication. **Thus the key question both the ADA and the CDC avoid is: Why should we run the risks of exposure of our whole system to fluoride, if the major benefits of fluoride come from topical application? Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc.,Ph.D. (biochemistry), D.D.S., Head of Departmant of Preventative Dentistry, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, leading Canadian fluoride authority and consultant to the Canadian Dental Association, after surveying the growing evidence, makes this statement: "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto (fluoridated) tap water. Never." He goes on to say: " ... we are now spending more treating dental fluorosis than we would spend treating cavities if water were not fluoridated." (See 13-4: "A Crack Appears in the Fluoride Front," from Toronto Star, Apr. 25, 1999). "Fluoride is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses." (Dr. Patrick, Harvard Ph.D., former National Institute of Health scientist.) No studies that prove safety and efficacy of fluoride? "The Food and Drug Administration Office of Prescription Drug Compliance has confirmed, to my surprise, that there are no studies to demonstrate either the safety or effectiveness of these (fluoride) drugs, which FDA classifies as unapproved new drugs." (See 13-2: letter by John V. Kelly, New Jersey Assemblyman, dated June 3, 1993). When the EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluorine in 1985, the EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists (consisting of 1,500 professional people) made a thorough investigation into the pros and cons of fluoridation, and found that there is a great deal of proof that it is neither safe nor effective. Their conclusions were: The public water supply should not be used "as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance." They also stated: "Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry." (See 1-6: "Why EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists Oppose Fluoridation," by Union Vice-Pres., J. W. Hirzy, May 1, 1999. It covers the many reasons why they arrived at this conclusion). Dr. Pierce Anthony, (D.D.S.) Editor, in an Editorial in the Journal of the American Dental Association (just five months before the people of Grand Rapids, Michigan, were fluoridated) made this statement: "To be effective, fluorine must be ingested into the system during the years of tooth development, and we do not yet know enough about the chemistry involved to anticipate what other conditions may be produced in the structure of the bone and other tissues of the body generally. We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development of dental disfigurements among children." "Fluoridation has never been proved to be safe. The medical literature abounds in reports from all parts of the world of damage from natural fluoride water." (Dr. L. A. Alesen, Past President of California Medical Association and member of American Medical Association House of Delegates.) The Food and Drug Administration requires, as of April 7, 1997, that all fluoride-containing toothpaste and mouth rinse must carry a poison label, warning that the products be kept out of the reach of children under 6, and to contact a Poison Control Center if more than the amount for brushing (pea-sized drop) is swallowed. Fluoride is not "just a mineral nutrient that is safe and harmless." ############## Fluorinated Toothpaste The evidence as to whether the amount of fluoride contained in toothpaste is enough to be harmful seems to be inconclusive, as long as you don't swallow your toothpaste. Most web sites, when addressing that particular question, quickly change the topic to talk about the dangers of water fluoridation. Fluoride in toothpaste (very small amounts) can cause the teeth to better resist the acidity of the mouth, prolonging their resistance to tooth decay. Fluoride is not biodegradable and it accumulates in the body and bones resulting in a toxic or poisoning effect. Studies show that adults can absorb up to 0.5 mg per "TV ribbon" brushing. Small children, even if pea-size amount is used, will still absorb the same, more if the child is younger and has less swallowing control skills. Half a tube of toothpaste can kill a child. Since April 1997 all toothpaste in the US must carry a warning label, advising parents what to do if their child swallows more than the pea-size brushing amount. Wholesale containers carry the poison symbol of skull and crossbones. The Institute of Medicine (IOM, 1997) specified Adequate Intakes (AI) to prevent dental caries:
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
My Fluoride Research & Notes
Below is the information I collected after researching fluoride online for 2+ hours.
February 2009
My summary findings for my family:
no fluoride toothpaste (daily topical)
no fluoride vitamins (daily systemic)
yes 2x year fluoride dental treatments (topical)
occurs naturally in some foods so there is a minimal daily systemic intake (but only 10% of the recommended "daily adequate intake" ~ but who sets those adequate intake levels? pharma?)
topical has the most dental decay prevention benefits, not systemic
More of my notes:
Fluoride benefits are from using fluoride topically (directly on the tooth) not systemically (via fluoridated water or vitamins).
Drinking fluorinated tap daily water or taking daily vitamins with fluoride is completely out of the question for us. We won't even consider it.
Brushing teeth with fluoridated toothpaste is out of the question for us, since it's a chance of ingesting it daily.
Fluoride can be toxic even at low doses, supposedly...if taken repeatedly, ie daily in toothpaste.
Fluoride naturally occurs in some foods including broccoli, cauliflower, citrus fruits.
Some processed foods even have it, like cereals, because they are processed with fluoridated water.
Some foods very high in fluoride are wine, raisins, tea, tuna and shrimp. (But still only giving very small amounts of what would be needed daily.)
Some children's fruit juices that are processed with fluoridated water are also high in fluoride. Won't be listed on the label.
I analyzed a 12-page spreadsheet created by the USDA that listed all foods with fluoride. I then converted all the measurements to the appropriate servings that my kids have and put together an average daily fluoride intake list.
Based on an oatmeal and fresh fruit breakfast, PB&J lunch, standard chicken & veggies dinner, yogurt snack, their fluoride intake was 0.2 mg.
The industry standard "adequate intake" levels for women are 3mg, men 4 mg, so my guess kids' intake is about 2mg.
They received 0.2 from their diet which is about 10% of their recommended daily intake of fluoride.
BUT...who sets those adequate intake levels? Pharma?
So a little of naturally occurring fluoride is getting into their bodies systemically, which is fine and beneficial...nature's way.
I could not find a lot of significant information online about the dangers of dental fluoride treatments.
They are at a higher fluoride concentration than toothpaste, but only recommended to have the treatments 2x a year.
If not drinking fluoridated water or using fluoridated toothpaste, I don't see the dangers in having this treatment done 2x a year for the children.
Fluoride in food is a natural fluoride. The fluoride in toothpaste, fluoridated water, and dental treatments is a synthetic version of fluoride (a pharmaceutical chemical), not nature's version.
Fluoride is slightly more toxic than lead.
Fluoride is not biodegradable and it accumulates in the body and bones resulting in a toxic or poisoning effect.
Below is the information I found to be important, pasted from a variety of websites. The website sources are listed first.
Note: My notes below do not contain a lot of information about water systems treated with fluoride. Lots of negative information online about this (overdosing of fluoride and it's long term disease effects). Since I have well water, this isn't an issue for me
##############
Which foods have naturally occuring fluoride?
This report has a detailed database listing of all food that have naturally occuring fluoride. Well...some things like the cereal have it because it's been processed with fluorinated water... http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf
I analyzed this report, printed the database spreadsheet which was 12 pages. I then converted all the measurements to the appropriate servings that my kids have and put together an average daily fluoride intake list. Based on an oatmeal and fresh fruit breakfast, PB&J lunch, standard chicken & veggies dinner, yogurt snack, their fluoride intake was 0.2 mg. The industry standard "adequate intake" levels for women are 3mg, men 4 mg, so my guess kids' intake is about 2mg. They received 0.2 from their diet which is about 10% of their recommended daily intake of fluoride. BUT...who sets those adequate intake levels? Pharma? So a little of naturally occuring fluoride is getting into their bodies systemically, which is fine and beneficial...nature's way.
##############
www.colgate.com
What is a dental fluoride treatment?
##############
Studies and Science Behind Why Fluoride is Dangerous
www.wholywater.com
The devastating, toxic effects of fluoride are well documented by mainstream organizations. The Journal of the American Medical Association (1990-1992) has reported a greater incidence of hip fractures in fluoridated areas in the U.S. and Britain. TheNew England Journal of Medicine (1990) reported that fluoride treatment of osteoporosis patients resulted in higher hip fracture rates. The governmental National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences (1990) has shown that fluoride causes cancer. Former promoters of fluoridation have since found that fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay (1987-1988). Scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989-1993) have come out against fluoridation because they have confirmed that it does not reduce tooth decay and that there is clear evidence that fluoride causes cancer. The American Chemical Society published a 17-page cover story (1988) questioning the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
**Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept. 18, 1943, states that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons — they inhibit enzyme systems, and water containing 1 part per million (ppm) or more fluoride is undesirable. This was the AMA's stand on fluoridation shortly before the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed nationwide fluoridation.
##############
www.wholywater.com
This chart shows how much fluoride is ingested from toothpaste:
##############
Adequate Intake Levels
(My only concern with this is that it's like the pharma industy helped to set these standards.)
0.01 mg/day for infants through 6 months
0.05 mg/kg/day beyond 6 months of age
3 mg/day and 4 mg/day for adult women and men (respectively)
(Nothing listed for children, only infants and adults, so I'd speculate kids are about 2mg)
##############
Posts
